Sitting of 25 March 1999

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

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When he last met representatives of the aerospace manufacturers in the UK to discuss a national strategy for the industry. [77034]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry(Mr. John Battle): I and my officials regularly meet senior representatives of the United Kingdom aerospace and defence industry to discuss matters of strategic importance. My last meeting with them was prior to the Madrid meeting of European Industry Ministers in January.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware that British Aerospace is to make a provision of no less than £25 million for last year against losses incurred by the Airbus consortium amounting to a total of £125 million in its discounting war to obtain market share against Boeing? Will he assure the House that, before there is any question of launch aid from Her Majesty's Government to Airbus Industries for the A3XX ultra large jumbo replacement, the Government will insist that Airbus Industries is turned from a groupement d'intérêt économique into a limited company with transparency that will show value for money and value for investment?
    Mr. Battle: We cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance because we cannot control what other countries and other companies do, but his point is valid. When we examine any application for launch aid, we shall take into consideration the need to have open markets in the Airbus industry in Europe as a whole.
    Mr. David Borrow: I am pleased that the Government are seeking to develop a strategy for the aerospace industry, which is much needed. I urge the Minister, when consulting the industry, to ensure that organisations representing smaller companies, such as the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, are included in the consultation process. Will he also ensure that representatives of local communities that are dependent
    508
    on the industry, and trade unions that represent those who work in the industry, are included in the development of a strategy?
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He champions the industry in his area, and the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace does a good job. The aerospace and defence industries, including the supply chain, support some 500,000 people. We are keen that everyone involved in the whole structure of the industry is consulted and participates in the conversations to take the industry forward to a prosperous future.
    Mr. David Chidgey: In the Minister's discussions with the industry, was he made aware of its concern about the appalling record of investment in research and development in this country, which is the lowest of our competing nations? Was he also made aware that British Aerospace firms are being persuaded to move their research and development and their production facilities overseas, as they are attracted by better investment support? Will he give a commitment to improve the record for the funding of research and development in this country? Will he start by announcing that he will keep the civil aviation research and development programme in place unchanged—or, better still, improved?
    Mr. Battle: I am not sure that I accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's questions. We are supporting, or have supported, research and development either through launch aid, investment or in previous CARAD programmes. Decisions on the allocation of all Department of Trade and Industry budgets, including the CARAD programme, will be announced at the end of this month when the Department publishes its expenditure plans. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by that.
    Mr. John Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement of an investment at British Airways maintenance centre in Rhoose in my constituency, which will make it the only deep maintenance aerospace facility that can service Boeing's heavy 777 aircraft and make it a world leader? Is he also aware that south Wales now has one of the most advanced aerospace sectors in the country, which contributes almost £800 million a year to the local economy? The future success of the south Wales economy depends on continued investment in those areas.
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend also champions the industry, and emphasises the link with the whole economy. We must not underestimate or undervalue that link. In the meetings and constructive dialogue that we have with the Society of British Aerospace Companies, which is the trade association for aerospace, we intend to work in partnership with the companies to ensure that our aerospace industry has a long and successful future.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the importance of the aerospace industry to the economy of Northern Ireland, and in particular the employment provided by Shorts in Belfast. At present, Shorts, in partnership with Raytheon and other UK companies, is making a bid for the new, advanced,

    509
    stand-off radar system in the United Kingdom. Does the DTI have a role in the decision-making process on the awarding of that new project for an advance, stand-off radar system? Will the Minister tell us when a decision is expected as to who will be awarded that project?
    Mr. Battle: The Department of Trade and Industry has a role, but, because a defence contract is involved, the final decision will be made by the Ministry of Defence. Our role is to represent the industry, and, having been consulted, to spell out the impact of the decision, whether that is positive or negative. I had the pleasure of visiting Shorts not long ago, and I believe that the excellence of its work will be taken into account when the decision is made.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What action he is taking to remove (a) financial and (b) regulatory burdens on the manufacturing industry. [77035]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The manufacturing sector, along with all business, will benefit from the framework for economic and financial stability put in place by this Government. I am currently reviewing all regulations that have an impact on business.
    Mr. Loughton: Why, then, has the president of the Confederation of British Industry—along with the CBI itself—calculated that, over the lifetime of this Parliament so far, Labour has imposed more than £39 billion of excess charges on industry by introducing the national minimum wage, the working time directive and European works councils? Why has the president of the CBI said that the business horizon has darkened since Labour took office, and that unless the creeping paralysis of red tape stops, the only growth markets in 1999 will be in regulation?
    Mr. Byers: I am disappointed to hear that rather selective quotation from what was said by the president of the CBI. I shall have a word with Sir Clive, and put him right. It is a shame that he was not the CBI representative at a meeting that I convened last Thursday, involving the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British chambers of commerce and representatives of small business, to discuss constructively how we can lift the burden of regulation from business. That is a serious agenda, and one that I intend to pursue with vigour.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will not manufacturing industry be helped considerably by the new small business service that the Government are setting up? Will it not help to cut through the thicket of bureaucracy and red tape that the Conservative Government put in place, and also help small firms with such matters as payroll administration?
    Mr. Byers: I am sure that the Small Business Service will play an important role in helping what is clearly a vital part of the economy. We need a small business sector that is vigorous and prosperous, and we are introducing measures to ensure precisely that.
    Mr. John Redwood: The way in which to sort out the president of the CBI is to do what he asked,
    510
    and abolish the stealth taxes and extra regulatory costs that have been heaped on industry by this dreadful Government.
    Does the Secretary of State realise that the pound has risen by 7 per cent. against the euro so far this year? Does he accept that means that British goods are now 7 per cent. dearer in relation to the French, German, Spanish and Italian goods produced by our main competitors, with which we ourselves are trying to compete? Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stop ducking the question of how many jobs will be lost as a result of their policies? They have made it too dear to make things in Britain, and as a result we have a balance of payments crisis and an industrial meltdown. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs will be lost, and will he tell the 474 people in his constituency who have lost jobs in the past six months what message of hope he has for them?
    Mr. Byers: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will not lose 1 million manufacturing jobs, as happened under his party's Government in the early 1990s.
    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the value of sterling, he should reflect on the fact that, in the last 12 months of the Conservative Government—between May 1996 and May 1997—the value of sterling rose by nearly 20 per cent. That is the difficulty that the present Government face.
    The right hon. Gentleman has form, of course: he was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for companies. In 1989, when he took office, there were 21,000 insolvencies; but then the Redwood magic began to work. In the following year, there were 33,000 insolvencies. In 1991 there were 55,000, and in 1992, when the right hon. Gentleman departed from the DTI—thankfully—there were 69,000. That is the right hon. Gentleman's record, and it is one that we do not intend to repeat.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Does the Secretary of State agree that stability must be the key? It is not just the rise in sterling, but the fact that, between May 1990 and May 1997, sterling changed value 87 times against the deutschmark. It is Tory instability that we have to put right.
    We also acknowledge that, in helping business, the most charmless words in the British vocabulary are, "Good morning. I am from the Ministry in Whitehall and I am here to help you." What business wants is just the ability to get on with its success. In Rotherham, the chamber of commerce has merged with the training and enterprise council and incorporated the business link. Now there is a real partnership feel in the town. We are worried about whether there are any proposals emanating from Whitehall to pull all that up by the roots and replant them. Where it is working, let it get on with working.
    Mr. Byers: I agree that, where things are working, they should be allowed to proceed accordingly, but the success that Rotherham United might be achieving is not reflected throughout the country. We have not only to build on best practice, but to recognise that, in certain parts of the country, we are not providing the service that small businesses need. We intend to do that.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: In view of the great concern about the burden of regulation on small

    511
    business in particular, will the Secretary of State consider lowering that administrative burden by raising the threshold above which firms pay value added tax?
    Mr. Byers: As I have said, there are a number of issues that we will discuss with the business sector to find out how we can lift the burden of regulation from business. We have started that process. It would be premature to identify today one particular proposal that may or may not be supported, but we intend to take a radical approach to the issue. I take it seriously. I intend to take action quickly to ensure that that burden can be lifted.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that this morning I visited Landis and Gyr Communications Ltd.—I do not know whether Opposition Members ever go to factories—which produces high-tech telephone systems. I was giving out Kaizen awards, which Opposition Members may not know are for converting innovative ideas into action and viable products.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of Government is not just about finance and tax, but about creating an entrepreneurial atmosphere within the broader economy through the education and trade and industry systems, so that we can convert good ideas into saleable products in the global marketplace? May I bring the good wishes of Landis and Gyr to the House for the creation of a much stronger dialogue with the business community, something that I have personally been encouraging in south London?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is a great advocate in south London for the initiatives that he has outlined. I assure him that the Government are committed to the knowledge-driven economy. The initiatives to which he has referred will play a key part in ensuring that we have world-class companies that are able to prosper in the environment of stability that the Government have been able to establish.

    Investment Decisions
    Mr. Michael Jack: What assessment he has made of the most important factors determining new investment decisions by (a) small and medium enterprises and (b) other sizes of company. [77036]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Business told us in the consultation leading up to the Competitiveness White Paper that one of the main factors holding back investment in both large and small companies was the British record of macro-economic instability. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have now put economic management on to a more stable footing and are introducing other measures to encourage investment and enterprise.
    Mr. Jack: If the situation is as good as the Minister has just enunciated, can he explain why chart A6 in the Red Book shows a falling level of business investment over the next three years?
    Mr. Wills: Let us look at the record since the Government came to power. Last year, whole economy
    512
    investment grew by 8.25 per cent., the largest annual rise for a decade. Business investment in the last quarter of last year rose by 5.5 per cent. It ended the year 12.3 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Long-term interest rates, which we know are crucial to long-term investment decisions by businesses, are at their lowest for 40 years. The facts speak for themselves.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: When large inward investors can get Government grants in euros, why cannot our hard-pressed small exporters get investment loans guaranteed in euros?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which I shall be happy to consider when we look at how we can help small firms move forward, which is what we shall do.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I recently conducted a survey of over 500 companies in my constituency and one of their complaints was the extra cost of the 1,940 net new regulations imposed by the Government. Micro-businesses—those with fewer than nine employees—said that that was costing about 17 per cent. on top of their normal costs and medium businesses said that it was costing an additional 7 per cent. Does the Minister agree that those extra costs are likely to translate into lost jobs?
    Mr. Wills: We recognise the burdens that regulations can place, particularly on small companies. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will take this seriously and take action to help. We are aware of the problem. However, picking figures out of the air at random is not necessarily helpful. We need to look also at the benefits that some of the regulations can bring to business.

    Business Charges
    Mr. Peter Bradley: What powers he has to oblige businesses to reduce their charges to customers; and if he will make a statement. [77037]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government take the view that the consumer is best served when prices are set in a competitive market. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is strong competition in UK markets. We have strengthened the UK competition legislation and powers and the budget of the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Bradley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the initiatives that he and his colleagues are taking to ensure that the consumer gets a fair deal are long overdue but warmly welcomed? Does he also accept that the studies and deliberations of the Office of Fair Trading can take an exceedingly long time to complete and that all of us as consumers, particularly those on low incomes, often cannot wait for the outcome? Can he tell the House what voluntary agreements he is discussing with the utilities and retailers to ensure that, while we allow a reasonable margin of profit for the shareholders, we also get a fair deal for the consumer?
    Dr. Howells: I would certainly not contemplate a situation in which the Government, or still less officials

    513
    in Whitehall, decided on the proper price for a product. I reiterate the statement I made earlier, which is that I am far more interested in ensuring that there is proper competition in the marketplace, that the rules are fair, that companies can compete properly and fairly with each other, that there is transparency of pricing and that all consumers get the maximum amount of information that they require as close a possible to the point at which they buy the goods or services. That is what will drive down prices, and increase quality.

    Cycle Industry
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What representations he has made on behalf of the UK cycle industry to the EU's review of current rules governing product dumping. [77038]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Government supported the EU's review concerning anti-dumping duties on bicycles from China, which were due to expire last year. The Government will consider the proposals when they are issued by the European Commission, which is likely to take place in autumn this year. Duties are also in place on bicycle imports from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan.
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Will he press for a wider review of bike dumping than the EU is currently considering in order to close some of the existing loopholes? Will he pay specific attention to the problems that the United Kingdom cycle industry faces from, for example, Taiwan where the Government's research and development unit in T'ai-chung meets the entire costs, with no translated costs in the price of the cycles? Will my hon. Friend press for a review of the existing loopholes in the tariff system? If his officials will take him through the mystifying document referred to as the tariff, he will discover that if bicycles come in kit form—in parts—all the tariff and quota systems that the UK tries to impose can be bypassed. Does he understand the frustration of the UK cycle industry, which is trying to produce the whole cycle, but is being undercut by producers who come in with bikes with their kit off?
    Mr. Wilson: I have made it clear that there are duties to cover bikes from Taiwan. I shall check whether it is with kit on or kit off. We are in constant contact with the industry. I shall be happy to investigate my hon. Friend's concerns. I am going to Taiwan on Sunday and I shall take advice on the matter that he has raised.

    Assisted Area Status
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the criteria for awarding assisted area status. [77039]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): In the public consultation on the review of the assisted areas map, we received more than 300 representations on the criteria that should be applied.
    Mr. Amess: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I visited Europe last year and had a meeting with a European Commissioner to try to persuade him to give financial
    514
    help to Southend? He clearly told me that it was a matter for Her Majesty's Government to nominate Southend for assistance. Is the Minister also aware that Southend has high unemployment, a low per capita gross domestic product and terrible transport problems as a result of Government cuts of £600,000? Will he support the bid by the Liberal-Labour controlled council for assisted area status for Southend?
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman raises several concerns that are shared widely throughout the United Kingdom. We are considering all the issues and we shall make our decision shortly.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my hon. Friend aware of the particular problems of east Kent—the structural changes in employment, the loss of the Kent coalfields in my constituency, the loss of frontier jobs when the single market came in and the impact of the channel tunnel on ferry jobs? Is he aware that in the past five years of the present round of assisted area grants, we have been able to invest £160 million in the constituency and the surrounding area? Will he take all those special issues into account in his deliberations?
    Mr. Wills: We are well aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend's area, not least because he has been indefatigable in pressing them on us over the past few months. We shall take them seriously.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: About a quarter of the existing assisted areas will lose their assisted area status under Government plans. The Government have a treaty obligation to disclose their new assisted area plans and map by 31 March this year. The Minister has not been able to guarantee that the Government will do that. Is that because they want to conceal the truth about their plans for reducing the assistance to large numbers of people until after the local government elections in England and the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Wills: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question. The short answer is no. We are working towards the Commission's preferred deadline of 31 March.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the national minimum wage. [77040]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am delighted to say that in just seven days' time we shall bring an end to poverty pay through the introduction of the national minimum wage.
    Mr. Winnick: May we first send our best wishes to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who we hope will soon be back with us? Would it not be right for all those who oppose the national minimum wage to try to live on less than £3.60 an hour? Will my right hon. Friend give a solemn and binding promise that under no circumstances will he

    515
    try to change the Conservatives' views on the national minimum wage? We want to hang their opposition to it round their necks at the next election.
    Mr. Byers: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be delighted to hear wishes from everyone in the House for a speedy recovery. I have spoken to him several times, and he sounds as chipper as usual. I think that he will try to be back with us next week, to celebrate the introduction of the national minimum wage, which is wholly appropriate.
    It was with some delight that I saw the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on a television programme a few Sundays ago, wriggling about the Tories' position on the national minimum wage. After years of opposition to it, even they have realised that it is both popular and economically sound, especially at the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission. We calculate that more than 2 million people will benefit by its introduction next week. It will be interesting to see how the Conservatives respond to the popular support that it will attract.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What does the Secretary of State advise me to say when I visit a pre-school in my constituency tomorrow to discuss concerns about its viability? There have already been local authority settlements that raid the shire counties and send the money to the north, and we now face further regulations, and in particular the minimum wage, putting in doubt the pre-school's long-term viability.
    Mr. Byers: I suggest that the right hon. Lady draw attention to the more than £500 million that the Government are putting into pre-school provision, in dramatic contrast to the cuts that were implemented when she was a member of the Cabinet.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: May I first send the good wishes of Conservative Members to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), in his indisposition?
    We have all noted the recent not inexpensive advertising campaign for the national minimum wage, which is a characteristic mixture of helpful information and unhelpful spin. Will the Secretary of State explain why that campaign, intended to inform the public, omitted to make any mention of the implications of the minimum wage for jobs? Will he comment on the analysis of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that high unemployment in the euro zone is closely related to over-regulation in the labour market and the presence of minimum wages?
    Has the Secretary of State had a chance to study the recent report by Peninsula Business Services of Manchester, in whose poll of 2,200 small business, 65 per cent. of respondents expected that the introduction of the minimum wage would lead to job cuts or a reduction in recruitment; 67 per cent. expected a negative financial impact; and 69 per cent. expected problems of implementation, which the report summarised as
    "a complex and tightly timed line of red tape for them to grasp over the past six months"?
    The report concluded:
    "and there is more to come."
    Mr. Byers: That was clearly the Conservative party's case against the national minimum wage. It will be
    516
    interesting to see how, given those severe reservations, the party will manage to turn round and endorse the minimum wage, which I predict fairly confidently that it will do before the general election. The Low Pay Commission was specifically charged with consulting small businesses about the level at which the minimum wage was to be introduced, and £3.60 is a responsible and reasonable figure. It will take millions of people out of poverty pay and stop them being exploited. That is what we are doing as a Government: operating for the many, and not the few whom the hon. Gentleman still seems to stick up for.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to increase the funds provided by his Department to assist manufacturing industry with its exporting. [77041]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I hope that all exporters, including manufacturers, will benefit from the creation of British Trade International. This is a unified DTI-Foreign and Commonwealth Office organisation, first announced on 12 March, which will in future have lead responsibility within Government for trade promotion and development. Current expenditure on export promotion is around £230 million.
    Mr. Russell: So far, so good. However, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the terrible problems faced by exporters, and particularly manufacturing exporters. There is a need for more investment in overseas exhibitions and marketing for existing and potential manufacturing exporters, both large and small. May I draw his attention to Woods Air Movement in my constituency, which last year was voted UK exporter of the year, but which has had to lay off 60 staff because of the terrible conditions that it and all other exporters are experiencing? We need more help from the Government on exporting our best assets, and one way of doing that is by more exhibitions overseas.
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes several perfectly fair points. We run an enormous number of exhibitions, trade fairs and missions overseas, which are currently at a record level. In my view, the problem is about targeting and focusing the use of resources better, rather than simply adding to the amount of money that is spent—although I have no prejudice against that idea for the future.
    We are spending a lot of money on export promotion, but we want to do it better. The export review, set up after the general election, has introduced many changes. We inherited a lot of good work, and we have added to it. The creation of British Trade International—with a sharp focus, and with Sir David Wright as chief executive—will be a major step forward for the work that the hon. Gentleman and I both want to be delivered effectively.
    Kali Mountford: In focusing on marketing and sales, will my hon. Friend the Minister make particular reference to the textile industry, which declined for 15 years under the previous Government, yet still produces £8 billion a year for Britain and is a useful industry and exporter? Will he ensure that the particular needs of textile marketing are considered?
    Mr. Wilson: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The textile task force will recommend what we can do to

    517
    support more effectively an industry that is under enormous pressure. In response to the banana war, we have taken urgent action specifically to support the cashmere knitwear industry which, although it is obviously important in the Scottish borders, is important also in other parts of the UK. By doing so, we have protected the existence of the industry for the future.

    Euro (Small Businesses)
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What estimate he has made of the total cost to small businesses of preparations under the national changeover plan for conversion from sterling to the euro. [77042]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The cost to businesses will depend on the detailed approach that they take to any changeover. The best way to keep costs down for business and the economy as a whole is to plan ahead. The Government have started this by publishing the outline national changeover plan.
    Mrs. Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware that Lloyds TSB has estimated that the costs of changeover to the euro for small businesses will be £2 billion—a further cost, with absolutely no return, added to those imposed on small businesses by the Government? Will he provide an official Government estimate of the cost to small businesses of changeover, given that the Government publish every other cost of changes that they have introduced—for example, the working time directive?
    Mr. Byers: As I said, it depends on the state of readiness of individual businesses, and on how they change their systems. In the period between where we are now and any decision that might be taken by the Government, Parliament and the British people on whether or not to join the single currency, there will be many opportunities for businesses to ensure that they are in a good state to adopt the single currency—if that is what is eventually decided.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it unrealistic for us not to prepare? If we do not prepare for the changeover, we will lose more jobs in the long term, and that will be a great cost. Are not the Conservatives being totally unrealistic in terms of euro and the Government's preparation plan?
    Mr. Byers: The Conservative Opposition are being unrealistic. They are an example of how political dogma can triumph over reason, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is a particular example of that. Some 500,000 small businesses are already trading in the euro zone. They know what the single currency is all about because they are doing business in it and creating profits. That is what is happening in the real world. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Conservative party realised that they are well out of touch with the views of business on the single currency.
    Mr. John Redwood: A company would be foolish to spend money on abolition of the pound before a referendum was held, not least because we would win that referendum and keep the pound. Will the
    518
    Secretary of State assure companies that any changeover plan for a referendum will leave companies enough time for implementation after it has taken place? Does he accept that abolition of the pound will cost British business more than £10,000 million? Will he confirm that British business, including the Confederation of British Industry, has no wish to enter the euro at our exchange rate mechanism rate, which is close to the present market rate of sterling, and is all that is on offer from the Government?
    Mr. Byers: The questions from Opposition Members have given us the whole variety of estimates being propounded. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) suggests £2 billion, and the right hon. Gentleman offers £10 billion. In reality, the cost will depend on the circumstances of individual businesses.
    I was intrigued by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman could not stop himself smiling when he talked about winning the referendum. If we get to the stage of holding a referendum, there will be an interesting debate, but the important thing will be that British business is prepared for whatever outcome the referendum produces. The right hon. Gentleman's approach would ensure that British business was not prepared for the outcome of the referendum. We should prepare, then let the British people decide. Prepare, then decide, is the best approach for business and for Britain, and adopting it will ensure that a reasonable approach is being taken in an important area.

    Fireworks
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on progress made in improving the regulation of fireworks safety. [77043]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I have no plans to introduce further controls on fireworks. The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced a comprehensive framework of firework safety measures to protect consumers. I believe that the regulations played a significant part in reducing the number of firework injuries during the 1998 firework season, details of which I announced on 16 March.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and the Government on reducing the number of injuries from fireworks. However, I am sure that he knows of another major and increasing fireworks problem, harassment on the streets. Has he considered the possibility that that problem will become even greater this year given the proximity of bonfire night and the millennium celebrations? Has he considered training more people to stage public displays, something about which the fireworks industry is concerned?
    Dr. Howells: The regulation-making powers available to me under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 do not allow me to regulate for the safety of goods by introducing a statutory training scheme for operators of fireworks displays. Nor can I restrict the periods during which fireworks can be sold or let off. I must remind my hon. Friend that a total ban took effect on 31 December 1997 on the sale of bangers—[Interruption.] Not sausages, bangers.

    519
    It is probable that some retailers decided to risk selling off stocks of bangers held over from the 1997 bonfire season, and those bangers may well be responsible for some of the harassment on the streets referred to by my hon. Friend. Trading standards officers in various parts of the country have seized stocks of bangers and other prohibited fireworks in the run up to 5 November, and I understand that there will be a lot more prosecutions of those who try that trick.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the advertising campaign being planned by his Department to publicise the introduction of the national minimum wage. [77044]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): A comprehensive press, radio and television campaign is well under way. The budget for the campaign was recently increased from £2 million to £5 million. It will ensure that workers know their rights and employers understand their responsibilities with respect to the minimum wage.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate the Government, the Front-Bench team and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is not with us, on their excellent work over the past couple of years in establishing the minimum wage. It will be of great help in my constituency and in west Wales, where low pay is endemic and there are many small employers. What is his advice to people who work for such employers and are paid less than the minimum wage? That part of the economy is non-unionised, so they are concerned about their jobs and do not want difficult relations with their employers. Is there a helpline or intermediary to help assert the minimum wage?
    Dr. Howells: There is certainly a helpline, which takes more than 3,000 calls a week. The Inland Revenue will be responsible for enforcement of the national minimum wage on behalf of my Department. With its expertise in checking records, it is ideally placed to take on that new and important work. It will respond to workers' complaints and issue enforcement notices requiring employers to pay the minimum wage and make up any back pay.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: A significant omission from the current campaign is any reference to the abatement of the national minimum wage in respect of board and lodgings being provided as part of a settlement. Is the Minister aware of the difficulty that that poses for the adventure holiday industry? Will he reconsider those problems and what relief might be provided to that industry?
    Dr. Howells: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Low Pay Commission has been examining the subject. We are considering a copy of its report, which was delivered in the past day.

    Small Businesses
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans the Government have to reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses. [77045]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that one of the key tasks of my Department's new Small Business Service will be to help small businesses get to grips with regulation and provide them with practical assistance to cut the burdens of compliance.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that there is growing concern in small business about the growing cost of compliance with regulation and about the increasingly cumbersome tax administration associated with, for example, the working families tax credit and the proposed energy tax? To advance his agenda, will he issue an annual impact assessment of Government policy on small business, partly to reassure businesses and partly to discipline Government?
    Mr. Wills: We recognise that regulations can impose a disproportionate burden on small firms. We want to do everything that we can to help. To set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, I shall run through some of the things that we have already done. We listened to the comments made on the national minimum wage regulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acted swiftly and decisively to deregulate in response to some of those comments. There is now no requirement to put details on pay slips or to keep detailed records.
    We are bringing tax and national insurance administration together in April, which will provide real deregulatory gains for employers. We have asked the better regulation task force to review the impact of regulation on productivity. Only last week, we issued a consultation document seeking views on proposals to raise the Companies Acts threshold for small and medium-sized companies. We are establishing the small business service, which will provide small firms with practical assistance in the matter.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend the Minister know of the concern of many small businesses that want to implement some of the new proposals, such as the working time directive and family friendly employment policies, but find it difficult because they lack a step-by-step guide on what to do? I have had representations on that from science, home security and other companies in Slough. Will he consider producing not only an impact statement but a guide for small businesses on how to implement regulations? They would welcome it.
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, as always. That will be one of the first tasks that the small business service will undertake.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the unpaid Under-Secretary of State knows that the minimum wage is one of the big regulatory problems with which small businesses are grappling at present. Why do the detailed documents that have been distributed—they go

    521
    on at some length—refer to taking national insurance and tax off the minimum wage before it is paid, when the regulations do not allow people to do that?
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman is concerned, characteristically, about my monetary status as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and I am grateful for his concern.
    I have already said that we are deeply conscious of small firms' anxieties about the minimum wage. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acted as he did.

    Offshore Oil Industry
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on his Department's role in regulating the offshore oil industry. [77046]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The DTI regulates the searching and drilling for oil and gas, authorises pipeline works and the decommissioning of installations and the environmental aspects of those activities in close co-operation with other Departments.
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern in north Wales about the activities of the offshore operator BHP following a series of oil spills into Liverpool bay. Is he entirely comfortable with the role that his Department plays as both sponsor of the oil and gas industry and its regulator? What assurances can he provide that his Department will adopt a co-ordinated and effective approach to regulation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend refers diligently to the oil spillage, of which I am aware. However, it is difficult to comment on the details at present because the Department is prosecuting BHP for a serious spillage earlier in the year. Once the details of that investigation are known, further steps will be taken with regard to the later spillage.
    The Department has an environmental unit that works closely with other bodies and Government Departments, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Countryside Council for Wales, which has commented on the prospects of environmental damage. I understand that the spillage has caused no great damage to birds or to shoreline habitats to date. We have a structure in place that knits Government Departments and outside bodies together, and our record shows that we have prosecuted where necessary to ensure that the industry has a better environmental record.

    Telephone Industry
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What proposals he has for greater competition in the telephone industry; and if he will make a statement. [77047]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): We will give a major boost to competition in the market for mobile and broadband services through the auction in the latter part of this
    522
    financial year of radio spectrum for the provision of third generation mobile services. We will implement our manifesto commitment to open the market for entertainment services to BT and other public telecommunications operators from 1 January 2001. We will continue to work closely with Oftel and in the European Union to ensure that the regulatory system operates at home and in Europe to promote competition to benefit the consumer.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am concerned about the network for which British Telecom is responsible. It would appear that it has a monopoly over the network and the provision of telephone and fax lines outside large conurbations, where sparsity makes it more difficult for cable to provide a service.
    I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an application that was made to BT in Leeds more than seven weeks ago. Promises were made but no response has been received. Representations have been made to London, but no services have been provided. I understand that this is not an isolated case. It is difficult to understand how BT can speak for UK plc when our constituents are receiving that kind of service. Will my hon. Friend investigate the situation and see whether more competition can be introduced into the network system over which BT has a monopoly?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend makes some cogent points. If he sends me details of the individual case, I shall be happy to follow it up.
    More generally, we realise that there are some gaps in competition in the network, especially in rural and semi-rural areas. My hon. Friend might take comfort in the fact that there are three developments that may increase competition and produce extra benefits for consumers. First, number portability is being introduced, which should greatly increase the ease with which consumers can switch between operators. Secondly, the penetration of the cable companies may increase now that they have begun to get their networks in place—it may increase further when restrictions on the delivery of entertainment services are lifted in January 2001.
    Finally, Oftel is consulting on access to band width and considering local loop unbundling, which will increase competition. The Government and Oftel will carefully consider the responses to that consultation. I understand that Oftel proposes publishing its initial conclusions in June.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Minister held consultations on the changes to telephone numbers? Telephone numbers were changed only a few years ago and recently it was announced that they are to change yet again. That adds to the costs of people who have to change their letterheads and other items that include their telephone numbers. Can he reassure us that the change announced recently will be the last one for a long time?
    Mr. Wills: We are well aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the changes to telephone numbers, and I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern. The matter is one for Oftel, with which we are keeping in close touch. Obviously, we shall keep a close eye on the situation.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to examine standing charges for telecommunications. [77048]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Oftel, which has responsibility for setting price controls in telecoms, has required BT to introduce a number of low-cost packages with lower standing charges for residential customers who use the phone less, to ensure that poorer consumers are not disadvantaged.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the system of standing charges is inevitably unfair to infrequent users, and that that is a particular problem for single pensioner households? The unit cost for such households is inevitably higher than for more frequent users. Given the introduction of pay-as-you-go mobile phones, does he agree that many, if not most, single pensioner households would be better off by cancelling their BT contract and switching to such a phone? Will he assure the House that he will keep that matter constantly under review?
    Mr. Wills: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep the matter constantly under review; if I did not, I am sure that he would ensure that I did so. I acknowledge his long-standing concern for the low paid. I can give him some comfort. BT's licence includes universal service obligations and Oftel has required BT to fund a number of low-user and limited-service schemes.
    We are also considering how we can further help low-user, low-income households. In that context, Oftel has made some progress on disconnections—often a problem for such households. Oftel has set BT a target that residential disconnections should fall by 50 per cent. in 1998–99. BT has introduced a new code of practice that gives customers a range of repayment options as alternatives to disconnection. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that because, as he knows, the telephone can be a lifeline for many of the households with which he is most concerned.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the comments made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), what representations will the Minister make to Oftel to ensure that people are informed
    524
    that they might be better off using a mobile phone system, rather than paying BT's current rental charges—even with the low-user rebate?
    Mr. Wills: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not for Ministers to advise households on how to spend their income.

    Electricity
    Mr. Richard Page: What representations he has received on the operation of the pool pricing system for electricity. [77051]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I have received a wide range of representations. There is now a broadly held view that the electricity pool—the wholesale pricing system—is in need of reform. I argued that it was a flawed market when we were in opposition and we have already announced a full programme to implement the reforms.
    Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that, at the start, the pool process of pricing was a useful aid to privatisation, but that, as he has admitted and we now agree, it is time we moved on, especially to help large energy users who are currently disadvantaged because they are unable to take advantage of installing a gas generator for electricity due to the moratorium, and because they are hit by the high prices of the pool, which are sometimes 25 per cent. higher than those charged to the continental opposition? When does the Minister expect the outcome of the review to be announced, and when can we expect to see any changes?
    Mr. Battle: The pool reform is under way, governed by the regulator, and it should bring price reductions of about 10 per cent. I find it slightly surprising that the hon. Gentleman should say that I have admitted that the system needs reforming, given that he was a member of the Government—a Minister at the very Department—who introduced the system, despite our arguing at the time that it was flawed. Such comments are rich coming from him now, although I am glad that he realises that the system needs to be changed.
    I know that the pool is complicated. I often say that it is rather like the Schleswig-Holstein question, in that only three people ever understood it: one is mad, one is dead and the one who invented it has sadly forgotten why. I leave it to the House to decide into which category the hon. Gentleman falls.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give the House 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 29 MARCH—There will be a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 30 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Easter recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 13 APRIL—Second Reading of the Health Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 14 APRIL—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 15 APRIL—Second Reading of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 16 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for an indication of business for the days after the Easter recess.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for responding to our request to change today's business, so that the House can debate the crisis in Kosovo. Will she make arrangements through the usual channels to find another day for the debate on defence in the world, which was scheduled for today? Can we have regular statements from the Government on the action against Serbia? As this is the last business questions before the scheduled Easter recess, will the Government make arrangements to recall the House if the situation requires it?
Will the Prime Minister make a statement on Monday on the Berlin summit, so that the House can assure itself about the security of the rebate negotiated by Lady Thatcher? Will there be a statement next week by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the much delayed White Paper "Modernising Government"? There is still a backlog of promised debates: on the royal commission on long-term care; on reform of the House of Lords; and on the national changeover plan for the euro; and we still have not debated the crisis facing the European Commission following the publication of the audit report. When might the House begin to make a start on those?
Finally, we expect a date for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill very shortly. Can the House be reassured that the financial memorandum and any associated press releases will contain clear, transparent information about
526
the Bill; and that the Chancellor will deny himself the smoke and mirrors that he used on the Budget, which got him into such trouble?
Mrs. Beckett: To begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended, I know it is not easy to follow all the details, but I did give a date for Second Reading of the Finance Bill: Monday 19 April. Of course there will be clear and transparent information about the contents of that Bill and of the Budget. I cannot guarantee in any way, shape or form that Opposition Members will like it, as it shows how well the Government are doing, but the information will be there.
I take on board the right hon. Gentleman's observations about the various debates that the Opposition would like to take place. I know that time passes quickly, but it does not seem so very long since the announcement about the royal commission on long-term care. However, we shall bear in mind the requests for debates on that and other subjects.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the arrangements for today's debate on Kosovo, which will be timely for the House, and of course I undertake to reinstate, at a suitable opportunity, the debate on defence in the world for which it has been substituted. The Government will endeavour to keep the House informed and will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's view that if events require it, a recall will be considered.
The Government's intention is that the Prime Minister will make a statement, probably on Monday, on his return from the Berlin summit, and that there will an announcement to the House within the next few days on "Modernising Government". The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those plans may be affected by our need, which he pointed out, to keep the House informed about other matters. However, the Government intend to make both those statements to the House next week.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the unwelcome re-emergence of fat cats, in the shape of Mr. Jan Leschly, the chief executive of SmithKline Beecham? He is already on a salary of £2 million a year, and has today been awarded an additional salary and bonus of £91 million, bringing his earnings this year to £93 million. That company continually pleads poverty and claims that it needs to overprice its products to fund research. Is it not right that we stop that robbery of the health service by pharmaceutical companies and seek a debate and a decision on a new windfall tax on those companies?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will have just had the opportunity—if he caught your eye, Madam Speaker—to raise those matters during Trade and Industry questions. I understand his feelings about the sums of money that he describes. The Government are keeping that matter under review in the aftermath of, and following our monitoring of, the recommendations of the Greenbury report and others.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I express our appreciation to the Leader of the House not only for ensuring that we had a speedy statement on Kosovo last night, which the whole House thought necessary and desirable, but for the change of business today?

527
Will the right hon. Lady consider the Government's growing tendency to make important announcements during the recess? The next recess will be short, so will she tell her colleagues that the House should first be informed about important Government statements on matters such as the Neill committee legislation, the Office of Fair Trading report on supermarkets, milk marketing and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and long-term care of the elderly, rather than those statements being made during the recess? I am sure that all those matters would be best reported to the House rather than announced by press statement.
Mrs. Beckett: Obviously, I am not fully aware of all my right hon. and hon. Friends' plans about announcements that might need to be made. To pick out one of the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—the Neill report—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a consultative document only today seeking views on those recommendations. That suggests that on that matter and some of the others that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, announcements may not be as imminent as he anticipates.
Mr. Eric Martlew: May we have time in the near future to discuss the closure of the Polestar print works in my constituency? Twelve months ago, I was approached by Mr. Richard Warner, a director of the parent company, who asked me to support the takeover of the company because it was being examined by the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry. The takeover was agreed, and this month the company announced the closure of the plant with the loss of more than 200 jobs.
The work force believe that they were lied to at the time of the takeover and I am sure that I was lied to at that time. I want a debate so that we can discover whether the DTI was lied to, whether the Office of Fair Trading was given wrong information, and whether there is any possibility of the Government prosecuting the company for providing false information.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's distress, and that of the constituents to whom he referred, at the events that he outlined. The fact that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that events have been manipulated to produce an outcome and that they have been misinformed is one of the things that makes dealing with merger policy particularly difficult. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter in the near future, but my hon. Friend will have noticed that I have announced the pre-recess debate, in which, if he is able to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, or that of the Deputy Speaker, he may have an opportunity to raise the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House in his request for a regular update on the situation and operations in Kosovo and Serbia. Does the right hon. Lady accept that that is important because it will counter any propaganda that is likely to come out of Serbia, which could mislead people who are deeply concerned about this operation?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady ask a Minister of her Government to make a statement before we rise for the Easter recess on the problems facing much of
528
manufacturing industry as a result of the banana war with the United States? The Government have indicated—the Prime Minister himself did so—that the cashmere industry would be compensated for loss of business. I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that many other sectors of manufacturing have been adversely affected—not least the candle industry. Candles from one company that are worth £50,000 have been sent back from US borders. Will she arrange a statement in order that the Government can compensate and deal equally and fairly with all industries that are affected?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government will indeed endeavour to keep the House fully informed about events in Kosovo, as I think all hon. Members recognise that we have.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a pre-recess debate. I remind him also that there will be a pre-recess debate on Wednesday. He will be aware that there was a debate—I believe—on Monday, in which these issues were aired. He knows that I share his concern for the fortunes of the manufacturing industry. I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry are doing everything that they can to take the right steps.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the publication yesterday of the House of Lords Select Committee report on radioactive waste management and the significant implications for future public expenditure—billions of pounds—as a result of its recommendations; considering that in this and the previous Parliament there was no debate on this major environmental dilemma; and in view of the enormous sensitivity of many of the recommendations in the report; will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future for a debate on these extremely important matters?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time in the very near future for such a debate, but I accept my hon. Friend's point that these are both important and extraordinarily difficult matters. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome all serious contributions to the debate. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a very long-running problem, and will no doubt continue to be so.
Mr. Peter Brooke: May I support the request of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for a debate on the pharmaceutical industry, but for an alternative reason to that which he adduced: so that we can celebrate the companies' massive research programmes, which often stretch 25 years ahead, are a model to other industries and are one of the reasons why we maintain world-class companies in that field?
Mrs. Beckett: I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the strength of the research effort in the pharmaceutical industry, its commercial success, and the success in delivering health care that that has brought. I suspect, though, that he shares the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that, at times, some of the steps that are taken do not help.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend will have heeded the case in the constituency of my hon.

529
Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), involving a woman who had her breast removed when she did not, in fact, have cancer. Another case has now emerged in the north Derbyshire area, in the Bolsover constituency, and we know that not all the cases in which the pathologist was involved have been investigated.
As we know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is launching an investigation. It would be helpful if he could make a statement, so that we could call upon him to arrange an investigation of all such cases at the Chesterfield Royal hospital over the past 10 years, so that all the patients who have had treatment there, and who in some cases have had a breast removed, can be assured that everything was carried out properly.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend correctly says, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced an investigation. Perhaps it is a little early for him to come to the House with any fruits of that investigation, but I know that he shares, as does the entire House, the sympathy that has been expressed for the patients involved, after the terrible ordeal that they and their families have undergone. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the scope suggested by my hon. Friend for the investigation, but I undertake to draw it to his attention nevertheless.
Mr. Howard Flight: The Leader of the House is no doubt aware that PEPs and TESSAs come to an end in the near future, with the Government's new ISA being introduced. The Chancellor's statement on stamp duty has caused a large number of proposed ISA schemes to be cancelled, owing to its lack of clarity. Would the right hon. Lady please ask the Chancellor to get the Treasury to issue clarification of the implications of that statement, in order that ISAs can be offered?
Mrs. Beckett: If there is any confusion, I am sure my right hon. Friend would not wish that to harm the launch of ISAs or the opportunities being made available to people. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that there are Treasury Questions on the first day back, and also that there will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill quite early on.
Mr. Richard Burden: May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that, as soon as possible, notification is given to the House on the progress of negotiations between the Government and BMW to secure £1.7 billion worth of investment in the Longbridge plant? Of course I understand that those negotiations are at a delicate stage, and no one who wants a successful conclusion would wish to add in the Chamber to the rather frenzied press speculation. However, much is at stake—50,000 jobs. Can the House have notification as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware, as is the House, of my hon. Friend's long interest in and great support for the manufacturing plant at Longbridge, and of how much he, with his colleagues, has done to help to maintain sound
530
commercial operations there. Again, I shall take on board his observations, and I am grateful to him for his understanding of the delicacy of negotiations.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank the right hon. Lady for finding another day for the defence in the world debate. Can she tell the House the reasons for today's business being held on a motion for the Adjournment, rather than on a substantive motion, which, I understand, has been the previous practice when troops have been put into action?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, as there seems to rather a lot of misinformation on the matter. I perfectly understand that he may be under the impression that that is the natural precedent. Not so. There are only about two examples over the past 50 years when such a debate has been held on a substantive motion. One of those was in 1991 on the Gulf war, and that was by agreement between the then Government and the Opposition, because the Opposition wished to make plain their full support for the Government. The tradition and the norm have been that when our troops are in conflict, the debate is held on the Adjournment, so that no question can be raised about the overall support of the House for our troops at a time of peril.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the role of the media during the current conflict? As a former BBC correspondent, I was appalled to hear the Radio 5 Live phone-in this morning. On a panel of five people, there were two Serbs, Mr. Paul Routledge—a Serb apologist, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and one retired Army officer—the only one of the panel of five who spoke in favour of the action, and he could not do so forcefully, of course, because he was not a politician. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that is a complete abdication of responsibility by the BBC, on the day that our men and women are risking their lives for this country?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is strongly in favour of freedom of speech and freedom of the media, but many people will share his concern that that requires full exploration of all points of view, not merely of one. I doubt whether he would want us to debate that matter at this time, but I suspect that he and others will return to it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Could the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House on Monday to make a statement about the exercise of his responsibilities, to which the Law Lords referred yesterday in their opinion on the Pinochet case? Obviously it would be inappropriate for hon. Members to comment on the merits of the application for extradition preferred by the Spanish judicial authorities, but at the very least, should not we be able to question the Home Secretary on the cost of the whole matter, both to the British taxpayer and to our relations with Chile and to British interests in that country?
Mrs. Beckett: The matter is sub judice, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. I rather doubt whether such a debate could be held without straying beyond the matter of the

531
costs, but he will be aware that, in response to an undertaking that he gave at the Opposition's request, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will come to the House on Monday to debate the Lawrence report.
Mr. David Borrow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the British film industry on its success at the recent awards ceremony in America, which reinforces the industry's importance to the British economy. Will she consider finding time for a debate in the House on the British film industry, so that the Government's policies and future policies can be explored in full?
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will want to congratulate this year's Oscar winners; they are a source of great pride to us all. The Government are certainly endeavouring to support the industry in practical ways—for example, by the extension of tax relief. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will find other ways of raising it.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House will be grateful for the notification from the Leader of the House that the Health Bill [Lords] will be debated on 13 April, but will she speak to the Secretary of State for Health to encourage him to publish before that day the real waiting list figures for health treatment in this country and, in particular, to confirm that the number of people waiting to go on to hospitals' official waiting lists has gone up by 220,000 since 1997, nearly doubling the waiting list for the waiting list?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is always only too willing to publish waiting list figures; there is no attempt to keep them confidential. As we repeatedly remind Conservative Members, there has been no change whatever in the way that those figures are calculated since the Government came to power.
Mr. John Cryer: Can we have a debate, or at least a brief statement, on speech therapists, of whom there is a national shortage? In my area, the shortage is particularly acute.
May I again ask about the possibility of bringing European Union questions back to the Floor of the House? They were kicked upstairs by the Tories in 1992, when Maastricht got a bit embarrassing for them. We are getting to a crucial stage in western Europe, with the introduction of the euro and the Commission collapsing in a sea of corruption and nepotism—something in which I took enormous delight. We need to put the activities of the European Union under the spotlight.
We also need to put under the spotlight the true record of the Tory party on Europe; it gave us the Maastricht treaty, the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and took us into Europe in the first place—the Common Market, as it then was—without any mandate from the British people. It took a Labour Government to give us a referendum.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health shares my hon. Friend's concern about the availability of speech therapy in the health service. It is one of a number of important areas of
532
expertise and professionalism in the health service that became run down under the Conservative party, and my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to address that problem.
I cannot undertake to bring EU questions back to the Floor of the House, although my hon. Friend mounts such a strong case that he almost tempts me to do so. Should EU questions come back to the Floor, we could also focus on the fact that the Conservative party gave up the British veto. Much as I am tempted to do as my hon. Friend asks, I cannot undertake that at present.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House try to find time for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House next week to make a statement about the transport industry? London Underground has yet to receive any significant capital investment, whereas Railtrack has today announced an investment of no less than £27 billion of private capital. That is a remarkable contrast, and the House should hear about it from the Deputy Prime Minister when he chooses how he wants to proceed with the future of London Underground.
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House is aware that responsibility for the state of Railtrack and London Underground, and for the fact that the rail industry was starved of investment, lies squarely at the door of the Conservative party in government. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend will debate the matter in the House in the near future, but the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that he is due to answer questions on the Tuesday we come back after the recess, so the hon. Gentleman can seek an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Syd Rapson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all this week there is an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Committee Corridor by SSAFA Forces Help? More than 30 million people in this country can take advantage of that charity, including current or former service men and women and any members of their families. Giving SSAFA Forces Help that exposure is intended to make all hon. Members aware that their constituents with relations who have been in the services or are service personnel can go to the charity for help. That could considerably assist hon. Members in their constituency duties.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As it happens, I am familiar with the work of SSAFA Forces Help, and I know what a tremendous charity it is and how much good work it does. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in giving it a little extra publicity.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I invite the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the potential impact on this country of an adverse decision by the Home Secretary regarding General Pinochet? May I impress upon her the fact that the Home Secretary has enormously wide discretion in this matter, and that an adverse decision in respect of General Pinochet could have serious consequences for this country? It would be reasonable in this particular case—although not in every case—for the Home Secretary to come to the House so that we may hold him to account on this extremely important matter.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the reply that I gave his hon. Friend. There

533
is no suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not come to the House on this matter. I was asked whether he would come to the House in the next few days, and I cannot promise that. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified the grave responsibility that my right hon. Friend holds in these matters, and I know of no one better fitted to hold it. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that my right hon. Friend is meticulous in keeping the House informed of his responsibilities.
Mr. Phil Hope: May I welcome the fact that we are having an early debate on the Health Bill, which is coming back from the Lords after the recess? The legacy of staff shortages in the national health service is a problem that we inherited and that continues to dog the NHS. Kettering general hospital serves people from my constituency and is having to hold an open day for its modernised casualty ward to attract nurses into the NHS. I hope that the health debate will provide a good opportunity to examine in detail and with thoroughness new ways to recruit and retain nurses in the NHS.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am glad to learn of the initiative taken by the hospital in his constituency, and I wish it success. He will be pleased to know that the recruitment hotline—the most recent innovation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—is proving a stunning success. As of yesterday teatime, it had received more than 51,000 calls from people interested in either returning to or taking up nursing. That is encouraging, but I share my hon. Friend's view that there is much ground to make up.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that it is not normal practice for statements to be made on Fridays, when we deal with private Members' business, and that recently there has been a tendency to break with that convention?
Of course, if a statement of Kosovo were scheduled for tomorrow it would have to take priority, but I understand that a statement on quarantine may be scheduled. That
534
cannot be described as urgent. Is such a statement to be made; if so, why should private Members' business be interrupted for a statement on a matter that is not urgent?
Mrs. Beckett: I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the conventions of the House; but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that this is a convention that was honoured more in the breach than the observance when his party was in office. I realise that it is not always helpful for statements to be made on Fridays, and although the hon. Gentleman says that the statement that may indeed be made tomorrow is not urgent, he will know that we have not many days left before the recess, and also that a great deal of urgent business remains to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman may not consider the question of quarantine to be urgent, but there is a good deal of interest in it, and a good deal of pressure for a statement to be made as soon as possible.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 1999.

City of Westminster Act 1999.

BILL PRESENTED
  RECYCLED CONTENT OF NEWSPRINT
  Mr. David Chaytor, supported by Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Tom Brake, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. John Austin and Ms Julia Drown, presented a Bill to increase the content of recycled paper collected and used in newsprint in England and Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 76].

  Points of Order
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his response to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on multi-layered democracy, the Secretary of State for Scotland dwelt not on the substance of the report, but on his concern that it had been leaked. He did not say that it had also been leaked to him. Have you received any notice, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State will come to the House to explain exactly how he came to have a copy of the report from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), and to say whether he asked the hon. Gentleman for a copy or put any pressure on him to provide one? If you have received no such notice, can we expect a personal statement from the Secretary of State?
  Madam Speaker: I think that there will be no personal statement. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is now a matter for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
  Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
  Madam Speaker: Order. There has been a great deal of pressure from Members in all parts of the House for the debate on Kosovo, and I deliberately curtailed Business Questions in order to call all who wish to speak on this crucial issue. I do not want to waste the time of the House with frivolous points of order. If a point of order is serious I must take it, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take the matter seriously, and will not use the House's time to raise frivolous points of order.
  I now call the Foreign Secretary, who has come here specially to open the debate on Kosovo.

  Kosovo
  [Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken by the Defence Committee on 24th March (HC 39-vii).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  1.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Let me begin by making an apology. As the House probably knows, I have returned from the Berlin meeting of the European Council on Agenda 2000, which I think was the right thing to do; but we expect the negotiations to continue late into the night, and an RAF plane is on standby to take me back. I hope that the House will understand, given the circumstances, if I cannot stay until the end of the debate.
  Last night, NATO air forces commenced strikes against military targets in Yugoslavia, supported by cruise missiles. The whole House will wish to salute the courage and professionalism of the British and allied crews that were in action last night, and will share the relief of their families over the safe return of all allied planes.
  When he replies to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will deal more fully with the details of the military operation. I will open the debate by explaining why that action had become necessary, despite our determined efforts to find a diplomatic solution through negotiation.
  The decision to commit service personnel to military action can be taken only with the greatest reluctance. No one in the Government did not want to avoid taking that step; if it had been possible to find a way forward by any alternative avenue, we would not have taken it. It was with regret that we came to the conclusion that there was no longer any alternative. Every member state within NATO came to the same conclusion. The decision to hand over to the NATO commanders the power to initiate air strikes was unanimous.
  Last night, eight member states had planes participating in the operation. Others supplied essential back-up. NATO has demonstrated an impressive unity and resolve. Our best prospect of securing our objectives is through maintaining that unity and resolve.
  The solid basis for that unity is our common revulsion at the violent repression that we witness in Kosovo. Since March last year, well over 400,000 people in Kosovo have at some point been driven from their homes. That is about a fifth of the total population. In Britain, the equivalent would be over 10 million people. We have seen villages shelled, crops burned and farm animals slaughtered—not for any legitimate military purpose, but as acts of ethnic hatred.
  President Milosevic has been given repeated opportunities over that year to demonstrate his willingness to accept any solution that did not require military action. In June last year, he was warned to stop the repression against the civilian population. He did. He stuck to his word for six weeks and then the killing began again in August. In October, he signed up to the Holbrooke package. He agreed to reduce his troops in Kosovo to the level at which they stood before the conflict began; to co-operate with Organisation for Security and

  537
  Co-operation in Europe verification monitors and to halt military action. He has broken every one of those undertakings.
  President Milosevic not only has more army and security police in and around Kosovo than he is permitted; he has double the number agreed under the Holbrooke terms. At the end of last week, the OSCE was reluctantly forced to withdraw the verification monitors because of its concern for their safety. They were not receiving co-operation from the Belgrade forces. On the contrary, in its place, they were facing increasing intimidation.
  Worst of all, the repression in Kosovo has again been resumed. Two months ago at Racak, 45 men, women and children were murdered. They were executed at close range for no other reason than their ethnic identity. In the past few days, another 25,000 refugees have been forced to flee their homes. We have all seen the television shots of homes burning while women and children flee on foot, not knowing where they may find a safe refuge.
  I very much regret that the people of Serbia themselves are denied the same opportunity to see those pictures, which provide the truth about what their Government are doing in Kosovo. This week, President Milosevic closed down B92, the last major independent broadcasting station in Belgrade. It is able to re-broadcast to other outlets in Serbia only through an ISDN line supplied and funded by Britain. Journalists from the station who have interviewed me in recent weeks have been arrested, or are hiding in fear of arrest. President Milosevic's repression in Kosovo is paralleled by his suppression of freedom in Serbia.
  I understand fully the motivation of those hon. Members who would rather have seen the conflict resolved through dialogue and negotiation. I myself would have preferred that, but it is President Milosevic who has frustrated every attempt to find a solution through dialogue.
  It is also President Milosevic who has prevented us from finding a solution through the United Nations. Three times in the past year, we have sponsored resolutions on Kosovo in the Security Council—resolutions that called on President Milosevic to halt the conflict, to pull back his troops and to admit the International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate atrocities. He has responded to none of those resolutions. It is President Milosevic, not NATO, who is challenging the authority of the United Nations.
  No nation has done more to seek a peaceful settlement for Kosovo than Britain. It was Britain that convened and chaired the Heathrow meeting of the Contact Group which sent Dick Holbrooke last October with a mandate to negotiate a ceasefire. It was Britain which then made a leading contribution to the verification mission to monitor the supposed ceasefire. It was Britain and France that jointly chaired the peace talks at Rambouillet and in Paris.
  As a result of those talks there is a detailed peace plan which is fair to both sides. It would provide Kosovo with its own assembly, president, laws and internal security. It would also provide full protection for the Serb minority within Kosovo, including an elected body to protect and promote their language, religion and curriculum.
  We have reached out to both parties to make peace. I am sorry to say that only one party has reached back. The Kosovo Albanians promised at Rambouillet that they
  538
  would sign the peace accords after consulting their people. When we met at Paris they kept their word. They signed up to the peace accords in full, including the commitment to demilitarisation by the Kosovo Liberation Army. They were willing to compromise in the interests of peace.
  I regret to say that the Serb delegation made no attempt at Paris to reach agreement. They took an even harder line than at Rambouillet. My colleague Hubert Védrine and I took the decision last Friday to suspend the talks, because there was no point in prolonging them while the Serb side was not negotiating in good faith.
  Even then, it was not the last chance we gave President Milosevic for dialogue. Dick Holbrooke went again to Belgrade on Monday to find if there was any way, even at that eleventh hour, to find a solution through dialogue. When I spoke to him on his return from Belgrade, he told me that he had never found President Milosevic more defiant or less interested in dialogue. President Milosevic even insisted that there was no fighting by Serb forces in Kosovo.
  We have tried repeatedly, right up to the last minute, to find a way to halt the repression of Kosovo Albanians through negotiation. It was not possible, and the person who made it impossible was President Milosevic.
  We were left with no other way of preventing the present humanitarian crisis from becoming a catastrophe than by taking military action to limit the capacity of Milosevic's army to repress the Kosovo Albanians. We will continue with this action until we secure that objective, but President Milosevic can halt it at any time by signalling that he is willing to pull back his troops, to honour the ceasefire he signed in October and to accept in principle the Rambouillet peace plan.
  This morning some of the broadcast media have been interviewing voices from Belgrade complaining about military attacks on Serbia. It would be helpful if, for balance, they also reflected the views of the Kosovo Albanians, who have long been pleading for NATO intervention to halt their villages being assaulted by armoured tanks and heavy artillery.
  I defy any hon. Member to meet the Kosovo Albanians, to whom I have talked repeatedly over the past three months, and tell them that we know what is being done to their families; that we see it every night on the television in our own homes; that in the region we have a powerful fleet of allied planes; and yet that, although we know what is happening and have the power to intervene, we have chosen not to do so. Not to have acted, when we knew the atrocities that were being committed, would have been to make ourselves complicit in their repression.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the most warmly greeted statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister last night was the warning to any Serb forces or individual troops who committed atrocities that they would have to account for their actions in a war crime tribunal, no matter how long it took? Would he like to take this opportunity to reinforce that warning and to apply it to President Milosevic himself?
  Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. Judge Arbour has again confirmed that the remit of the International War Crimes Tribunal extends to Kosovo.

  539
  We shall hold personally responsible not just any field commander who is present when his forces carry out atrocities in Kosovo, but their political leaders in Belgrade.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to that clear and important message, will the Foreign Secretary reinforce the message that was implicit in what he said a moment ago: that the people of Britain and our European sister countries want the people of Yugoslavia to have the same freedom as the Albanians to enjoy what they regard as important in Kosovo? We do not want to deprive them of that. The offer of such a settlement remains on the table today, as it has for the past six months.
  Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly told President Milosevic and his Government that we want to find another relationship with Belgrade. If Belgrade changes its politics of repression and ethnic confrontation, we shall be willing to look at ways to build bridges between Serbia and the modern Europe. The tragedy for the people of Serbia is that they can see all the countries on their borders building bridges with Europe. Two of those countries are in the process of accession to full membership of the European Union. Others have developed trade agreements with the European Union. They are all building bridges that are closed to the people of Serbia solely because of the politics of their Government in Belgrade. If that changes, the relationship between Serbia and the rest of Europe can change as well.
  The first reason why we took action was that we were aware of the atrocities that had been carried out and we had the capacity to intervene, but that is not the only reason. Our confidence in our peace and security depends on the credibility of NATO. Last October, NATO guaranteed the ceasefire that President Milosevic signed. He has comprehensively shattered that ceasefire. What possible credibility would NATO have next time that our security was challenged if we did not honour that guarantee? The consequences of NATO inaction would be far worse than the result of NATO action.
  As a result of NATO's expansion to include Hungary, it has a common border with Serbia. How can we be committed to securing peace and maintaining the stability of NATO's borders while one of our immediate neighbours is conducting a violent military operation?
  If we had turned a blind eye to the bloodshed and conflict over the border, the outcome would not have been peaceful. During the past year, President Milosevic has suffered from the delusion that he can defeat the Kosovo Liberation Army by confronting the whole Albanian population. The predictable result has been that the strength of the KLA has grown from a few hundred to more than 20,000. President Milosevic has been its best recruiting sergeant. As a result, the conflict is greater and it would have continued to get worse if we had not intervened to curb President Milosevic.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend refer to relations with the Russians? I was talking to The Economist's correspondent in Moscow, Edward Lucas, who asked what would happen to Russian cargo ships or aircraft that might be carrying arms to the Serbs. Are they likely to be intercepted by NATO forces? What is the position of the valuable contacts that my right
  540
  hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the Russians over the Arctic fleet and the millennium bug? Has all that co-operation vanished?
  Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that that contact and co-operation will not come to an end through any wish on our part. I do not believe that there will be any wish for that from the Russian Government. My offer of help with radioactive waste in Murmansk was very warmly received by the authorities there. I am confident that they will want to proceed with what they know is a solution to a pressing problem.
  We also maintain regular dialogue with the Russian Government. I was present in Berlin last night when we interrupted our European Council in order that Chancellor Schroder, as President of that Council, could speak on the telephone to Mr. Primakov. Russia has been supportive throughout of our attempts to broker an agreement through negotiation. I regret the fact that we cannot find common cause on the need for military action, but I am absolutely confident that Russia shares our impatience with President Milosevic and that he must bear the main responsibility for the situation in which his country is placed.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I heard on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister had said that he would talk to Prime Minister Primakov today. Given that it is extremely important that we should understand the Russians' sensitivities and do nothing that is too provocative towards them, has the Prime Minister yet had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Primakov, and can the Foreign Secretary report back to us on that conversation?
  Mr. Cook: I understand that it has not yet been possible to make the arrangements for that call, but I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night that we should seek to maintain the dialogue with Mr. Primakov as a matter of urgency. I will also seek to speak to my opposite number, the Russian Foreign Minister. We are very anxious to maintain dialogue.
  I want to take this opportunity to respond to a point that I neglected when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am confident that the Russian Government will not seek to break the United Nations arms embargo on Serbia. I know that voices have been raised in Russia urging that; but as yet we have had no suggestion from the Russian Government that they intend to supply arms to Serbia, and I do not expect that they will do so. We will certainly want to confirm that when we speak to the Russians.
  If we had not acted now, we would have been obliged to act in the future when the situation had become worse. If the situation had deteriorated and the conflict had continued, it would have spilled over into the neighbouring countries, at which point NATO would have been forced to act, but in more difficult and more dangerous circumstances.
  We have withdrawn all our diplomatic and other Government personnel from Yugoslavia, and for some time we have warned all other British nationals to leave. There are several thousand British service personnel deployed elsewhere in the region, in Bosnia and in Macedonia. I repeat to the House the clear warning given by the Prime Minister, that any action that targets those personnel will be met with a response that will be swift and severe.

  541
  Responsibility for the present position lies squarely with President Milosevic.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Article 51 of the United Nations charter says that any nation that is attacked has the right of self-defence. Was the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made intended to contradict the legal right of Yugoslavia, under bombardment, to defend itself?
  Mr. Cook: Certainly not. The statement that I have made is fully in line with article 51: if our troops are attacked, we will employ self-defence to protect them. We are acting clearly on the legal principle that the action is justified to halt a humanitarian catastrophe.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will not give way again, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  There is a pressing need to stop the crisis. The best way in which President Milosevic can halt further attacks on Serbia and on his forces is by halting the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo for which he is responsible.
  This is not the first humanitarian crisis for which President Milosevic is responsible. In the early 1990s, he was at war first with Slovenia and then with Croatia. The massacres at Vukovar and the merciless bombardment of Dubrovnik were representative of a war driven by ethnic hatred. In the mid-1990s, Milosevic was the prime player in the war in Bosnia which gave our language the hideous term, "ethnic cleansing". Only after three years of fighting, in which a quarter of a million people were killed, did NATO find the resolve to use force.
  It is President Milosevic's brand of ethnic confrontation that has brought a decade of violence and suffering to the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Dafis rose—
  Mr. Cook: I said that I would not give way again. Others want to speak in this debate.
  Now we are seeing exactly the same pattern of ethnic violence being replayed in Kosovo. The same reports have emerged this week of masked paramilitaries, separating the men of the village from the women and children. We now know what happened next when that happened at Srebrenica—all the men were massacred. We cannot allow the same tragedy to be repeated before us again in Kosovo. That is why our service personnel were ordered to take action last night, and that is why the House should back our resolve to halt any more ethnic cleansing being imposed by President Milosevic.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: The House meets today against a sombre background. The decision to send our young men and women into action is a most awesome responsibility. No one who has taken part in a Cabinet decision to authorise military action, as I have, can be insensitive to the difficult judgments that have to be made. No burden on Government is more onerous.
  542
  This is also a sombre occasion for the House. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear on Tuesday, we support the Government's action. I know that the House will be united in its wholehearted support for the men and women who are taking part in the perilous action with skill, courage and great devotion to duty; for those who are backing them up, both in the area and at home; and for the families of those whose lives are at risk. Of course, we all share the relief the Foreign Secretary expressed that all our planes returned safely last night. But this House is an assembly of free men and women—it is not a rubber stamp. There are anxieties, concerns and doubts in all parts of the House, and they must be listened to with respect.
  I believe that the action that has been taken is consistent with the requirements of a just war. There can be no doubt that what we have seen in Kosovo is a humanitarian crisis. We have seen it developing, growing and worsening for many months.
  Who can forget the sight of families fleeing for their lives, their homes and villages razed to the ground? Who can forget the misery of those who have seen their loved ones brutally murdered? Who can forget the television pictures of massacres, such as that at Racak? There is a danger that statistics may mask the reality of the human suffering, but the facts are stark.
  Since fighting broke out in Kosovo last year, more than 2,000 people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. Relief agencies—who themselves have carried out their work tirelessly under impossible conditions—estimate that at least 25,000 Kosovar Albanians have fled in the last few days alone. They have done so in response to wave after wave of brutal aggression.
  There are those who say that despite that aggression, despite the crimes against humanity that have been committed and despite the untold human misery that we have witnessed, NATO and the west should have stood by. I am not one of them. However, there are serious questions raised that merit a clear and comprehensive answer.
  One of the requirements of a just war is that the suffering that is an inevitable consequence of military action should be less than the suffering that that action prevents. I have not been made privy to the detailed assessments of the matter, which NATO will doubtless have made—nor would I expect to have been. However, it is reasonable to assume—and I hope that I am right in assuming—that over the months that have been marked by a series of threats of such action, that careful assessment has been made of the consequences.
  I have been critical in the past of the way in which those threats have not been followed through. Today is not the occasion to repeat those criticisms—sorely tempted as I was by the self-congratulatory tone of the Foreign Secretary's account of the diplomatic history of these matters.
  There can be no doubt that last night's action was the product of lengthy planning and preparation. It must, too, have been the product of careful assessment, part of which will have included answers to the questions put from different quarters of the House last night and earlier in the week about what will happen after the bombing has stopped. I do not ask for detailed answers to those questions today. However, some matters appear to

  543
  be clear, and I should be grateful if the Defence Secretary would confirm my understanding of them when he winds up.
  First, the dispatch of troops to Macedonia some weeks ago was carried out with the declared intention of entering Kosovo in order to keep a peace that had already been made and of enforcing a ceasefire that had already been agreed. That is a very different proposition from having troops fight their way into Kosovo to impose a peace that has not been made and a ceasefire that has not been put in place.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear on Tuesday that the support that he was expressing did not extend to that situation. The Foreign Secretary appeared to agree on the "Today" programme this morning that there was no question of our troops being used to fight their way in. I hope that the Defence Secretary will confirm that that is indeed the position.
  My right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition asked last night whether clear criteria had been drawn up under which the success of the action would be measured. He did not ask for those criteria to be identified, and nor do I. However, I repeat his request for an assurance that criteria have been drawn up and will be used to assess the success of the action that is taking place. In due course, once the action has finished, we expect an honest report on those criteria, and on the extent to which they have been met.
  Many questions have been raised about the legal basis for NATO's action. Those questions are serious, and they require comprehensive answers. Is it the Government's view that the relevant resolutions of the Security Council—resolutions 1160, 1199 and 1203—provide a sufficient legal base for the NATO action? Or do the Government contend that there exists in international law a general right to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe? Is it their view that the action breaks new ground in international law?
  It is extremely important to be clear about these important questions. On "Newsnight" last night, the Minister of State went so far as to suggest that there is in international law an obligation to intervene to prevent humanitarian disasters.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): A moral obligation.
  Mr. Howard: The Minister did not use that word last night. If that is the Government's view, then I can only say that the obligation has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I hope that we shall hear a clear view from the Defence Secretary on whether or not that is the Government's view.
  What is the Government's view of the observations of the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Is it the case, as reported in this morning's newspapers, that at the European Union Council in Berlin, references to endorsing the military action that has taken place were removed from a statement at the request of Austria, Sweden, Finland and Ireland? It is of the utmost importance that we have answers to those questions, and the greatest possible clarity in explaining and establishing the basis on which the Government contend that NATO's action is lawful.
  544
  I hope, too, that it will be possible for the Secretary of State for Defence to tell us more about events on the ground today in Kosovo. What reports are there of action by the Serb forces? Have there been further attacks on Kosovo Albanians, their villages and homes?
  I believe that the whole House shares the hope that sooner rather than later, the Government of Yugoslavia will cease their oppression of the Kosovo Albanians and return to the conference table. The Rambouillet proposals were fair to all parties. As we know, they have been accepted by the Kosovo Albanians, although they fell far short of their ambitions. They should be accepted too by Mr. Milosevic. That would enable the action to be brought to an end without further suffering or casualties, without the further use of force. If the action continues, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Secretary of State for Defence that he will continue to keep the House informed. In the absence of an acceptance by Mr. Milosevic that the repressive action by the Serbs against the Kosovo Albanians must immediately end, the Opposition support the Government in the action that they have taken.
  1.36 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is already clear that solemn though the language of the debate is, it is inadequate to meet the gravity of the circumstances. When we express support for our armed services, as I suspect every hon. Member would wish to, none of us should underestimate the possibility—some would say likelihood—of casualties, both civilian and military. It is a grave and solemn thing to send young men and women to war. Those in the House who oppose the action that has been taken should understand that those of us who support it do so in the full and certain knowledge of the depth of responsibility that we ask our armed forces to accept.
  In the comfort of the television studio or the safety of the House of Commons, it is all too easy to underestimate the unmitigated horror of modern warfare. However, it is just as easy to underestimate the distress and suffering of the people of Kosovo, shelled out of their homes, their possessions looted and burned, and their lives traumatised by the relentless and unforgiving brutality of the forces under the command of Mr. Milosevic.
  Some people in the House implacably oppose military action by NATO.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels the same anxiety about the action taken by President Tudjman when Croatian forces drove 280,000 Serbs out of the Krajina. Those who survived the journey are refugees. Would he prescribe the bombardment of Zagreb? If not, what is the difference, because the Serbs believe that that is important?
  Mr. Campbell: It is well known that the hon. Gentleman has a particular standpoint in relation to Serbia.
  Mr. George Galloway: Answer the question.
  Mr. Campbell: I will, but it is right that we should understand the standpoint of the hon. Member for

  545
  Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). At the time, my party, and particularly its leader, condemned what happened to the people in the Krajina. We consistently condemned the atrocities of both sides in Bosnia. We take no lessons on consistency on the problems of the Balkans from any party or hon. Member. Now let me get on.
  Some people in the House implacably oppose military action by NATO. Some implacably oppose military action of any kind. Some opposed it in the Gulf war and some have opposed it in relation to Iraq since then. That is an understandable and entirely respectable position. However, I feel bound to observe that their case would be strengthened if their condemnation of Mr. Milosevic's actions were as vehement as their criticism of NATO. They say that there should still be negotiations. In response, I ask two questions: how long must negotiations last before it becomes clear that they are pointless, and what trust can we have in a Government who preach the virtue of negotiation while brutally persisting in a scorched earth policy in Kosovo?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Campbell: Forgive me, I must make some progress.
  Kofi Annan said last February, when he returned from Baghdad in the understanding that he had reached an agreement with Saddam Hussein—an understanding that proved to be ill-founded—that diplomacy works. However, diplomacy works best when it is supported by the credible threat of force.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has posed two questions, may I put one to him? When has bombing by itself, without the use of ground troops, had the kind of success that many of us desire?
  Mr. Campbell: Before the creation of the Dayton peace accord, there was a four-day campaign of air strikes on Bosnia of an intensity that had not been seen since the Gulf war. That campaign was instrumental in persuading the parties that it was better to seek a peaceful solution than to continue with the aggression and the warfare that had characterised their relations for five or six years. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that bombing, of itself, is not a policy, he is entitled to that view. Indeed, it is a view that I share—and I shall tell him why in a little more detail in due course.
  If we say that diplomacy works best when it is supported by the credible threat of force, the logic of that position dictates that, when diplomacy fails, we must be willing to contemplate the use of force. No one could claim in this case that there was a rush to judgment in deciding on military action—indeed, some hon. Members believe that the Government have been dilatory in these matters. No one could claim that due warning was not given of the likely consequences.
  We must ask ourselves: why are we here? We are here because of a humanitarian tragedy that has arisen not by accident of nature, but as a result of the persistent and calculated actions of Serbian forces in deliberately targeting ethnic Albanian citizens. That is what brings us here—that and Mr. Milosevic's refusal to agree to a
  546
  settlement on the grounds that a NATO-led force could not be allowed to supervise such a settlement. That force would have the purpose not simply of protecting Kosovo Albanians and ensuring the implementation of the agreement, but of protecting those 5 per cent. of Kosovo inhabitants who are of Serbian origin and who need protection as well.
  There need be no more bombs and cruise missiles: Mr. Milosevic has it within his power to bring the operations to an end. That is an end game to which I hope that all will willingly sign up. I believe that the behaviour of the Milosevic Government is such as to remove their moral right to govern Kosovo on the basis of a 5 per cent. Serbian population and its historical associations for the Serbs.
  Kofi Annan said last night that these matters are the primary responsibility of the United Nations. That is certainly true, but they are not the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations. International law existed before the United Nations. I shall outline what I believe to be the factors that, taken together, justify the intervention. First, the clear purpose of the intervention is to halt the deliberate policy of systematic and brutal ethnic cleansing which is a clear breach of human rights.
  The second factor is that the consequences of that policy are potentially destabilising to the region, with an inevitable and increased loss of life. The third factor is that every effort has been made to achieve a solution by negotiation; there has indeed been exhaustive diplomacy. The action that is taking place is consistent with United Nations purposes as set out in article 1 of the charter. Those who are familiar with the article will recall that it provides
  "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."
  The action is consistent with article 1, but it is also consistent with resolution 1199 where the Security Council expressed itself as gravely concerned about
  "the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces"
  and
  "Deeply concerned also by reports of increasing violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law."
  The Security Council called on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  "to cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian population and order the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression."
  In resolution 1203 the Security Council stated that it was
  "Deeply concerned at the recent closure by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of independent media outlets in the Federal Republic."
  That policy at least seems to be consistently applied. The resolution also stated that the Security Council was
  "deeply alarmed and concerned at the continuing grave humanitarian situation throughout Kosovo and the impending humanitarian catastrophe, and re-emphasising the need to prevent this from happening."
  It demanded
  "immediate action from the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Albanian leadership to co-operate with international efforts to improve the humanitarian situation and to avert the impending humanitarian catastrophe."

  547
  That, in sharp language, sets out the obligations that those Security Council resolutions created and which have been breached in their entirety by the Milosevic Government.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that resolution 1199 did not give explicit authorisation for the use of force? It merely stated that the Security Council decided
  "should the concrete measures demanded in this resolution and resolution 1160 (1998) not be taken, to consider further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and stability in the region."
  The question must arise as to why that further action has not been taken by NATO.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The resolution does not give explicit authority. I am endeavouring to set out the fact that the finding of authority need not be confined explicitly to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. I have set out a number of criteria against which the intervention falls to be measured. One of those criteria is that the intervention is consistent, as I said, with both resolution 1199 and resolution 1203. As far as we are aware, the action is consistent and requires to remain consistent with the law of armed conflict—namely, that only minimum force is entitled to be used.
  Furthermore, the intervention is consistent with article 52 of the charter, which provides that regional organisations such as NATO have a role, and that their role is authorised as long as
  "their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."
  Article 52 states:
  "Nothing in the Present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
  In my judgment, it is clear beyond any question that there is adequate legal justification for the action that has been taken.
  Let those who say, "This is a sovereign country in whose affairs we should never intervene," ask themselves this question: suppose the action of repression consisted of the use of biological weapons, which had the potential not only to achieve the mass destruction of the people of Kosovo, but to spill over into other countries. Could we still argue that there was no authority for intervention to inhibit and prevent action of that sort? We could not. I submit that that is clear corroboration of the justification for intervention in the current case.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that for those of us who come to the view that the action can be supported only reluctantly, not least because it is the first time in our lifetime that we have acted against another European country, the other justification to add to the legal ones is that it is the common view of all the democratic partners in the regional organisation to which he refers that, in the interests of our continent and
  548
  its peace, it is necessary to support the people of Yugoslavia against a Government who are interested in repressing them and their liberties, not defending them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That is a speech, not an intervention.
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has made his point and it is well worth making.
  The Government's military aim has been adequately set out both by the Foreign Secretary and by the Secretary of State for Defence elsewhere, but there is as yet no clear political aim. I suggest to the Government that that clear political aim should be to damage the military infrastructure on which the Milosevic regime is based, to an extent that that regime is no longer willing to tolerate that damage and is persuaded—even compelled—to return to negotiation. If we are to achieve a stable and durable solution, that can best be achieved by the creation of a protectorate—
  Mr. Alan Clark: Ah, ground troops—half a million should do it.
  Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman need not become over-exercised—I shall come to his point in a moment. The optimum outcome would be one that was achieved by negotiation, but if negotiation were to prove unsuccessful, we would be bound to consider other means at that stage.
  It is wrong to say that we would never consider further military action, because we cannot predict the conditions or the circumstances of the time. One would want to take into account the extent of possible opposition, the likely effectiveness of opposition forces, the possible or probable levels of casualties on both sides, the availability of forces to carry out the task, and the political cohesion of the allies. If those factors sound familiar, they should: they are precisely the considerations that arose during the Gulf war when, despite all predictions to the contrary, the issue of going beyond the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and going on to Baghdad arose as a serious one for consideration by the allies. The decision on that occasion is known, but it was for consideration at the time, not by reference to a prescriptive position adopted in advance.
  For any Government, military action is a serious test of political will. Perhaps the most serious test of political will facing those who embark on military action is to sustain that will if things go wrong, as they assuredly may. As long as the Government continue to display the political will that has lain behind the decision to commit British forces in the current circumstances, they can rely on our support.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right to return from Berlin for this debate. He will have been told about the response of the House to yesterday's statement and he will have judged from the comments today that there is at least this consensus in the House: we all recognise the gravity of the situation; we are all concerned about the safety of our troops and those of our allies; and we all recognise the enormous uncertainties.

  549
  There was—on this point perhaps, I part company with some hon. Members in our democracy—a certain inevitability in the move towards war once President Milosevic had rejected the deal that was on offer at Rambouillet and Paris. The reluctance to move towards war was demonstrated by this week's final attempt to find a solution and to issue a final warning to President Milosevic, who showed Mr. Holbrooke that he was still obdurate.
  Why is there uncertainty? It is partly because of the recognition on both sides of the House that there is a lot of history in the Balkans; some may say that there is too much history in the Balkans. During the second world war, the Serbs were our allies. They had a magnificent role in fighting against the Nazis, while some who are now our allies were ready to collude with the Nazis at that time. The Serbs know the terrain; they have high morale; and they are united.
  The uncertainty is due also to the recognition that bombs do not bring peace; but there is no consensus among our allies for ground troops to be committed to the quagmire and minefield of the Balkans. That was dramatically demonstrated in the United States, when the Senate only just voted—by 58 votes to 41—in favour of air strikes. There is no serious prospect of the US committing ground troops to the area, save after an agreement and only to underpin any such agreement. All our allies would display the same reluctance to commit ground troops.
  There is recognition also of the great collateral political damage that will have been caused, not only to Montenegro, which was separating itself in part from President Milosevic and Serbia, but, more important, to relations with Russia. The Contact Group's consensus and political unity with Russia, which was acting alongside NATO, has been a great prize, and it is sad that we have forfeited that prize as a result of the bombing. We naturally understand the sensitivities in the Duma and why Premier Primakov has to freeze relations with NATO.
  If some in Russia now threaten to break the embargo, however, we must ask whether they have already done so in part, and I cite the example of the Russian aircraft that was stopped in Azerbaijan two or three days ago. By breaking the embargo, they would wholly undermine the principled position that they purported to take at the Security Council of the United Nations, because they would be breaching a UN embargo. The collateral political damage must be put in the balance.
  There is recognition also of the danger of mission creep and, because the area is so combustible, the danger of other states, including some of our NATO allies, being engulfed.
  The problem that we must all also recognise is that, when the conflict ends, it may not be possible to re-establish the status quo ante. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say yesterday that the Rambouillet package is still on the table, but that assumes a willingness on the part of the Serbs and Albanian Kosovars to live together in a new Kosovo. After the ethnic cleansing and Serbian
  550
  heavy armour bombardments, which has destroyed villages, does anyone seriously expect people to live together in an autonomous Kosovo? That is very unlikely.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: May I raise with the hon. Gentleman an issue that, surprisingly, has not so far been mentioned in the debate? Many fear that the bombing will enrage the Serbs and encourage them to retaliate on a large scale against the Kosovars. The issue has been raised by a Kosovar journalist in The Guardian today. He says that, unless ground troops are committed, there will be no way of averting a humanitarian catastrophe.
  Mr. Anderson: That is part of the high-risk operation, but in spite of it, the Foreign Secretary and his NATO allies were right to go in.
  Why do I say that? We must all recognise that President Milosevic was offered an excellent deal at Rambouillet. He would have retained the integrity of Yugoslavia; sanctions against his country would have been progressively reduced; and he would have secured protection of the Serb minority in Kosovo. All that, and the possibility of a new chapter in the relationship between Yugoslavia and Europe—our Europe—has been undermined as a result of his intransigence.
  How do we justify the bombing, with all its high risks? As the Foreign Secretary has underlined, the very credibility of NATO was at stake. Having huffed and puffed and given so many final warnings, we would have been incredible, as we would on any future occasion on which NATO sought to threaten other countries, if we had crept away in the face of the very clear evidence of further bombing and further ethnic cleansing. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarkable unity not only in NATO, including the three new members since 12 March, but among other countries that have suffered from the Balkan tragedy, such as Romania, which has shown total support for the action.
  I will not go over the criteria of the just war theme in detail, but the cause is just on humanitarian grounds. It is absolutely clear that the Government and our NATO allies had exhausted all other means. The action has limited aims and methods. International law has moved on from when we said that the integrity of sovereign states was sacrosanct. That disappeared, or was at least diminished, with the formulation of the universal declaration of human rights. The matter was taken further following the Helsinki process in 1975, and recently with the development of the doctrine—not obligation—of intervention due to an imminent or actual humanitarian catastrophe.
  Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
  Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
  Mr. Anderson: I shall give way only to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), as many other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the humanitarian tragedies around the world. Why does this

  551
  one deserve the intervention of NATO? Other tragedies are being played out in Africa, and elsewhere, on which western nations are apparently neutral.
  Mr. Anderson: I shall answer that intervention head on. Of course there is morality in a humanitarian response. Of course we can be faulted for not intervening in other areas, such as Rwanda, where, between April and June 1994, 750,000 or 1 million people were massacred in a genocide. Perhaps we can be faulted for that, but, in the murky world of international relations, we must consider not only morality, but our interests. In this case, in our Europe, our interests are mightily involved because, as was said earlier, Hungary, which is now a member of NATO, borders Yugoslavia, and because we have the problem of more than a million refugees in our Europe already.
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Mr. Anderson: No, I will not give way.
  There is a real danger not only of the conflict spreading to the immediately neighbouring countries, one by one, but of Greece and Turkey, our allies, being brought in. Therefore our interests are mightily involved. I believe that the combination of our interests and morality justifies the intervention. That is the background.
  The dangers, of course, are clear. It is, at one level, an intervention in a civil war. When one intervenes in a civil war, one intervenes on one side. We must be clear and warn the Kosovar Albanians that they should not take advantage of the damage to the military assets of the Serbs.
  Of course the situation is murky. We must stress the limited nature of our aims. With all the high risks involved, I believe that this limited operation is, indeed, justified. However, we should beware of dressing up our aims too much in absolutist terms, as there would then be a danger of our being drawn along the road to using ground troops and to a much wider intervention.
  We must stress that we will keep open all lines of communication between us and President Milosevic, and we must be ready to respond when there are serious signs of flexibility on his part. We should respond on a basis of principle and we should do so with caution, because of the past form, past actions and past prevarication of President Milosevic.
  2.7 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I apologise to the Foreign Secretary and to the House for the fact that I was not able to be present at the start of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. No discourtesy was intended.
  I join right hon. and hon. Members in recognising the manifest gravity of the situation that we face. I well understand the strong feelings in all parts of the House. I have lived through earlier debates of this kind. Strong feelings have been evident on those occasions too, sometimes evoked by the same right hon. and hon. Members as on this occasion.
  Listening to recent broadcasts and hearing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the noble Lord Healey making common cause on the matter reminded one how, on other issues, unexpected alliances may form, as similar criticisms are expressed. 552
  I paid tribute to the Prime Minister for his statement which, by its clarity, conveyed to the House how grave the situation is and how dangerous the consequences could be. He said that the consequences of the action that he had authorised on behalf of the Government and the country could be extremely serious for our country. He added that the consequences of not acting could be more serious still. That is indeed the case.
  I was struck by the comments of other speakers in the debate about the spillover which could flow from those actions. I was interested to read in the newspaper this morning that Secretary-General Solana had offered a security assurance to Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Albania and Macedonia that, if they were attacked as a consequence of the position that they adopted on the matter, NATO would come to their assistance. I am not sure whether that report is accurate, but it is a significant and crystal clear indication of how wide the implications of this action might be and how serious its consequences could be.
  It is never easy to act. Comments and speeches similar to those that have been made recently were made before the Gulf war and before the Falklands events, and I could certainly make as powerful a speech as many right hon. and hon. Members on all the dangers and difficulties of the action that the Government have taken. I recognise the difficulty that the Government are experiencing, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, are also exercised over the legal basis of this action.
  One of the features of the actions that we were able to take during the liberation of Kuwait was that, for the first time, the UN Security Council was able to act with full authority. The Security Council actually worked, because those events coincided with a period of paralysis during the transition of the Soviet Union into Russia. We did not face the prospect of the paralysis of the UN, which we had faced for the previous 45 years; whenever difficult issues arose in client countries of one bloc or another, the UN was powerless to act.
  I say with great sadness that we appear to moving back to a situation in which the UN, in the Security Council, is not able to speak with the clarity that many believe a humanitarian crisis demands. Such a situation did not exist during the Gulf war.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that the European Union summit meeting communiqué has been withdrawn and that certain countries have dissociated themselves from these actions. I do not want to make a political point, but it is worth noting that those of us who have been concerned about a common foreign and defence policy being initiated under the authority of the European Union can see very clearly from that illustration why it is important to keep authority for defence policy out of the European Union. I listened for the names of those countries carefully; certainly three of them are neutral and they would be faced with problems in this sort of situation.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: My right hon. Friend has made the extremely important point that

  553
  the United Nations works effectively only when one of the great powers, as in the Korean war, happens to be out of the field. The other side of that coin is that the veto powers were given to the great nations when the UN charter was drawn up, after careful thought, precisely to ensure that action would never be taken in the name of the UN which threatened the fundamental interests of a great power. That is one of the dangers today. Russia sees its interests as being threatened by an organisation whose actions are not fully endorsed by the UN itself.
  Mr. King: I do not want to get into the territory of a discussion about the enlargement of NATO and the fears of Russia. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, although the permanent members of the UN Security Council—the great powers—have the power of veto and are able to block action, in no humanitarian catastrophe, no matter how great, should the world have to accept that it is paralysed. NATO is the only organisation with the power and effectiveness to act, to try to correct a totally intolerable situation, and the judgment of the vast majority of Members of the House is that we face such a situation now.
  The interesting discussion about the lack of UN authority for the use of force extends to Operation Provide Comfort. I was involved in the arrangements for providing air cover and the prohibition of the flying of Iraqi aircraft over northern Iraq. Hon. Members will remember the pictures of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds on the mountain tops, freezing to death as they were pursued and persecuted by Saddam Hussein. During the follow-on actions at the end of the Gulf war, after Kuwait had been liberated, we imposed a no-fly zone for Iraqi aircraft and helicopter gunships. We did not have specific authority from the UN, but we acted under resolution 688, which
  "appeals to all Member States … to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts",
  and
  "insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organisations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq".
  That operation has continued, without specific authorisation under the UN. Its conduct has been justified on the basis that it is implementing the humanitarian objectives of that UN resolution.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Operation Provide Comfort was, within its own definition, a successful affair, but surely it is not correct to infer from that that an extended authority to bomb the civilian population of another sovereign country—in order to alleviate the suffering of civilians in that same sovereign country—is in any way parallel, or can in any way be justified, on the basis of humanitarian aid.
  Mr. King: May I go on to say what I believe is the objective of this exercise, which may help my right hon. Friend? It is the degrading of military assets. He was a Minister with me in the Ministry of Defence at that time and he will recall that our planes, which were providing air cover over northern Iraq, were instructed to shoot down any Iraqi planes and to destroy any Iraqi weaponry that was used, either on the ground or in the air, to
  554
  persecute the Kurds. Our planes were bombing military assets, if necessary, in northern Iraq. There is, perhaps, more of a parallel than he may have recognised.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey rose—
  Mr. King: May I make a little progress? I do not want to take too much time.
  The example of northern Iraq leads me to my next point. I hear the facile statement that air power can never work and we are bound to need ground troops. We did not need ground troops in northern Iraq. I visited Operation Provide Comfort, which was a spectacular success, and we had one Royal Marine commando helping to provide humanitarian relief. Médecins sans Frontières was operating there as well. There was no Iraqi Government presence because the area was occupied by ground troops—Kurdish Peshmerga, who had a level playing field because they were not facing Iraqi air power and helicopter gunships or the sort of oppression that they had not been able to resist previously.
  What interests me about Kosovo is the future situation on the ground. Degrading the military assets, capability and resources of the Yugoslav army—and, therefore, its ability to oppress the people in Kosovo—raises the question of how the Kosovo Liberation Army will react and what its activities will be if it has rather greater freedom of manoeuvre. I repeat the call made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East for restraint by the KLA, which is very important. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will support that.
  If the KLA seeks to exploit what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife yesterday referred to as the semi-protectorate situation that will exist, the arguments for the action that the Government have taken will become extremely difficult to sustain. That action may be considered merely to have presented an opportunity for another side to oppress and to score some points in return. In such circumstances, subject to the position on the ground, air power can make a contribution.
  I should make one further point, in parenthesis, before returning to my key plea to the Government. When the Prime Minister made his statement, I raised the question of support for our armed forces. I am seriously worried, because it is not sufficient to say in the House how splendid our armed forces are and how proud we are of them, unless we accompany those tributes with support. Our armed forces must have confidence that they will be supported. One of the features of the conflicts in the Falklands and in the Gulf was that the forces we put on the ground had the fullest possible support for the task that they had to undertake. I am worried about the overstretch that our forces will now face. The Prime Minister said that he was confident that our contribution could be sustained. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State for Defence would explain to the House how that will be achieved. To all other observers, it seems that we are facing an unsustainable situation.
  The Government's action was the least worst of the alternatives. Having committed our forces to this action, they are entitled to support, provided that our forces know that there is an end objective. The objective must be to keep the political track open. We must continue to repeat the message that that opportunity for negotiation is

  555
  available and that the bombing need not continue. The offensive need not be sustained, provided President Milosevic responds to the approaches that have been made to him.
  If those approaches are to be successful, they must be accompanied by a communications offensive in Yugoslavia. I was struck by something that I heard on the radio this morning. Someone who was interviewed in the street said that he did not know who to be more angry with, Mr. Milosevic or NATO. The challenge for the Government and for NATO is to ensure that people are more angry with Mr. Milosevic over the present events in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. If we win that battle, that—perhaps more than the bombs and the offensive—may persuade Mr. Milosevic to change his mind about the disastrous course on which he is embarked.
  Some of us recently met the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, when he was in London for NATO's 50th anniversary. He said last night at the Pentagon press conference that he was still hopeful that Milosevic would take the peaceful route. I do not know on what intelligence or better information that hope is based, but it must be the hope of all of us in the House. With maximum persuasion not just of President Milosevic, but of the people of Yugoslavia, I hope that that can be achieved.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Nothing I am about to say excuses Milosevic, Tudjman and many other people involved in hideous acts of ethnic cleansing and attacks on populations who cannot defend themselves. However, I want to begin by pointing out that the former Yugoslavia was destroyed from outside, not from inside.
  First, the former Yugoslavia was destroyed economically and politically. It was destroyed economically because of the requirement of international financial institutions that debts should be repaid to international banks at all costs, despite massive deprivation, problems with communication, agriculture and employment, and divisions between different areas of Yugoslavia because of those massive economic pressures. Its Government were obliged by the terms of the International Monetary Fund and others to cut social expenditure to meet their requirements.
  The Yugoslavian tragedy is that the country has been placed in a position similar to many African nations. Almost all the tragedies in Africa are associated with similar economic conditions and backgrounds. Only a few nations, such as Tanzania, that have had considerable international debt have been able to avoid break-up and conflict such as occurred in Yugoslavia.
  Secondly, the former Yugoslavia was destroyed from outside by the German-inspired recognition of the secession of two of the richest republics in Yugoslavia: Slovenia and Croatia. The recognition of Slovenia and Croatia and the conflicts that followed led to the crisis in Bosnia. We must recognise the background to the present situation for which the world community has a serious responsibility.
  Mr. Gill: Is not the significance of the German recognition of those two states the fact that it happened at a time when the European Union was talking seriously
  556
  about a common foreign policy? That shows that when national interests come into play, some countries will break away from the common approach and take action that proves to be damaging to the general good of the European political scene.
  Mr. Barnes: I realise that the Conservative Government had some responsibility for agreeing to those arrangements and to that recognition. They responded to those pressures, and did not take action to try to sustain the position of Yugoslavia, to rebuild it and to encourage multi-ethnic links.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barnes: I want to make some progress.
  The economic and political circumstances that I have described enabled Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic to play the ethnic card. The horrors that we have witnessed are their responsibility and that of others involved in this terrible conflict. That card is now being played in the Serbian-KLA conflict in Kosovo.
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman seems to have completely missed the most important cause of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, which was the rise of Serbian nationalism driven by Milosevic. Milosevic initiated Serbian nationalism in a dispute in Kosovo, and that subsequently led him into ill judged military adventures in Croatia. The idea that the IMF or Germany alone were largely responsible for the collapse of the former Yugoslavia misses the key ingredient, which was Serbian nationalism led by Milosevic.
  Mr. Barnes: My argument is that Serbian nationalism led by Milosevic was a key element in the conflict, but the circumstance that allowed him to play the ethnic card was the collapse of Yugoslavia through the economic and political pressures from outside its borders. That in no way excuses Milosevic. For a long period, the political leaders of Yugoslavia had not played the ethnic card: there was considerable pressure during the time of Tito and others not to do so. When the circumstances changed, Milosevic used it—initially in Kosovo. He met Serbs in Kosovo and gave in to the pressure. He later went to rallies where he played the ethnic card and has used it since in the most terrible way. He is utterly to be condemned.
  However, we should not ignore the background to the collapse of the former Yugoslavia or deny our responsibility for it. If we do so, we shall be ignoring the fact that international action must be taken to ensure that such conflicts are removed from the world and other opportunities are advanced.
  Dr. Starkey: If my hon. Friend is implying that western nations have responsibility for this situation, does that not make the argument even stronger that we should now intervene to stop the current undoubted humanitarian crisis?
  Mr. Barnes: I suggest that my hon. Friend should wait to hear my conclusions. She may be somewhat surprised by them.

  557
  Once the conflict had broken out between Croatia and the Serb paramilitary forces, it was difficult to find a means of preventing or containing ethnic cleansing from outside—although I noted the earlier observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), on Krajina, that we might have been able to act against Croatia to that end. Two considerable powers were in conflict, both receiving logistic and political support locally that squeezed out those who were trying to establish peace and reconciliation. It was necessary to resort to different areas for defence.
  In such circumstances, international intervention was awkward, although many brave people in the wider Yugoslavia stood up to press for peace and reconciliation. In the early days of the conflict, a "peace caravan" travelled through Croatia and Serbia. It was similar to the "peace train" that travels between Northern Ireland and the Republic in a bid to end paramilitary activities in that island.
  When the conflict reached Bosnia it was three-sided, and it had changed in logistical terms. The paramilitary groups belonging to the Muslim forces were weaker, and were in defensive positions. I felt that effective external action could have been taken then, but it was not taken until late in the day. At the time, I advocated the use of United Nations forces in Bosnia to block the entry of Serbian and Croatian military supplies, which I thought would ease the tensions. I also advocated the establishment of safe havens—not the safe havens that were ultimately established, but havens that would be protected by United Nations forces, and would seek to create cross-ethnic municipal administrations. That might have led to a rebuilding of some of the characteristics of the old Yugoslavia, in which people were willing to work together. Instead, we had to wait and wait, until the bombings and the Dayton accords.
  Now we return to Kosovo, where for the first time a major political leader—Milosevic—played the ethnic card. In June 1989, addressing 1 million Serbs, he claimed that armed conflict to establish a stronger Serbian stance should not be ruled out, even at that early stage. In the conflict between the Serbian troops and the KLA, ordinary Albanians are caught in the middle. Similarly, ordinary Serbs and, for instance, the Hungarian population in Vojvodina in the north have been caught up in the conflict, sometimes directly and sometimes in economic terms, as a result of hyperinflation and similar difficulties experienced by Yugoslavia. The sanctions regime did nothing to help; indeed, it exacerbated the problems to a disgraceful extent. We should have been concerned about the taking of such political action.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Sanctions are hitting the emerging democracy of Macedonia very hard. The people there are suffering through no fault of their own, when they are trying to assist the peace process.
  Mr. Barnes: I am now opposed to the use of sanctions as political weapons by outside nations—whether against Iraq, Libya or Serbia—unless there are clear signs in the country concerned that the mass of the population feel that sanctions will help their purposes. When sanctions were imposed against South Africa, the African National
  558
  Congress supported them. Those sanctions were justified, as became clear later when it was made plain that the ANC spoke for most of the South African people; but I am reluctant to support sanctions in different circumstances, partly because there may be knock-on effects in neighbouring countries.
  Given the mess that confronts us now, it is too late to turn the clock back. In the current circumstances, we cannot build a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, although that does not mean that we should not have such an objective. We must ask ourselves whether bombing is the only option in our attempt to protect the Albanians of Kosovo. Certainly, it involves serious problems. NATO, not the United Nations, is doing this; but we know that it could not be done by the United Nations, because it would not be passed by the Security Council. Given that fact, should we simply stand by without resorting to some other tactic?
  We should be very worried about action that amounts to the invasion of a sovereign state; but should we rule out such action in all circumstances, even when the most heinous forms of human abuse are being perpetrated? However hard people try to ensure that only military objectives are met, there are bound to be civilian casualties. We must weigh that against the potential ending of the action of the Serb forces against the Albanians of Kosovo.
  It has already been suggested that Serbian elements may retaliate by threatening to launch further attacks on the Albanians if the bombing continues. The Yugoslav people will hate the situation, and will turn to their Government for protection—a Government including fascists such as Seselj, whom we should certainly not encourage. Moreover, the conflict could well spill over into other areas that are already experiencing conflict. None the less, I feel that at this juncture there is no other honourable way in which we can seek to protect the Albanians in Kosovo.
  No one is willing to risk putting ground troops into Kosovo itself; so how else can we seek to protect the Albanians? People might not expect me to say this, given the stance that I adopted in regard to the Gulf war, Iraq and other conflicts. I was opposed to bombing, on the ground that it was counterproductive. In reluctantly supporting the proposed action, I do not want to give NATO a blank cheque: our Government's continued support for NATO's action must be highly conditional, and we must be able to monitor it closely. At least the American Senate has been able to vote on what should happen. I think that our Parliament should be able to vote before our troops are involved. That, however, is a problem related to our constitutional system and the fact that our Prime Ministers operate using the royal prerogative—a wider problem, but one that we need to tackle.
  In supporting NATO, we must constantly insist that only military targets should be hit—although civilians will of course be hit too—and that the action should stop whenever Milosevic moves towards a compromise. It is also advisable to persuade the Germans to end their involvement in the military activity, because of the reaction that it is creating among the Serbian population owing to their history. Those are not matters that we should take lightly. I accept that Germany has a democratic system; it is within the western community. It

  559
  is an entirely honourable nation, but given that Germany recognised Croatia and has joined in the attacks, the Serbians' perception of the matter is a serious problem.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House's attention to the sensitivity of using Germans. Does he know how many Serbians who are now being attacked by British and American aircraft lost their lives in the second world war helping air crews that had been shot down—
  Mr. Denis MacShane: They are dead now.
  Mr. Clark: Of course they are dead, as the hon. Gentleman rather tastelessly interjects. They lost their lives helping our air crews to escape.
  Mr. Barnes: They lost their lives helping our air crews to escape. A perfectly decent system began to be established in Yugoslavia after the war. It was a communist regime. It had the problems of centralism, although that was used to keep the forces together. It tried some decent experiments in economic democracy through worker self-management, which many of us had high hopes for. We wanted the political element of that system to be established at the same time, however.
  There was great hope for Yugoslavia, which came out of the communist system with some economic potential, although there were still pressures. It could have been a nation that we would have wanted to be associated with, a nation to be proud of, a nation that we might have wanted to have all sorts of links with and connections in. If that had happened, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend consider the difference between the example that was posed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and the position today? Is it not true that NATO is targeting military sites to dismantle a military capability, rather than indiscriminately bombing the Serbian population, so the comparison that has been drawn is entirely invalid?
  Mr. Barnes: I seriously hope that what is being done is exactly what the Government described and said would be done—the NATO objectives. I hope that the people who are planning these activities do not decide that, for some strategic or other reason, other actions have to be taken, directed against civilian populations. That is why we must keep a eye all the time on what is taking place and be willing to condemn that which we feel is unacceptable. We may have to revise our assessment of what we think is justified, but the action, if it is restricted to those objectives and is examined by us carefully, is justified in current circumstances.
  Because of the problems and needs of the area, we should look beyond the current situation and consider how on earth we can build and rebuild peace and reconciliation throughout former Yugoslavia. I shall suggest some things that we might do, but already a number of problems need to be confronted following the action that has taken place.
  Why is it that the Novi Sad area in Vojvodina—right in the north of the country—has been attacked; it has a Hungarian-based population? Is that important for
  560
  strategic reasons? The same argument applies to Montenegro. Why have attacks taken place in Montenegro? Is it that key radar and other installations needed to be taken out as part of the attacks on Pristina and Belgrade? If so, have they been successful? Will that be an end to activities in Montenegro, which is an area of Yugoslavia that has been attempting to detach itself more and more from the central regime in Serbia?
  I hope that it is clear from my remarks that I believe that the correct position was determined by what occurred economically and politically outside Yugoslavia, and that we therefore have a great responsibility to seek to knit together again multi-ethnic institutions throughout the area—institutions in what are now new nations, and institutions between new nations; we should seek to work for that.
  If I were to accept that that could not be done in Yugoslavia, I would pack up politics because I believe in people coming together, sharing, associating with each other, working together for their common interests and their common improvement. I believe that that can be done not only in a difficult area such as Yugoslavia, but in African nations and on a world basis. It is an objective that we should all have. We should look for the means by which to achieve it.
  In doing so, we should seek to work with those people in former Yugoslavia who want exactly those things. It is not that no one there has thought through the problems and difficulties and still see themselves as Yugoslav, rather than Croatian, Serb, Bosnian, Albanian Hungarian or whatever; they see themselves as part of a common body together, and having common concerns and interests. There are people there with democratic spirits who are concerned with social well-being and social welfare. We should direct ourselves towards those objectives, rather than the easier objectives—things that are easier to identify. We are bombing those areas to try to get simple solutions. As necessary as that might be, it is no use if it is not part of a much broader picture, in which we should be involved.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I inform the House that many Members want to speak? Shorter speeches will mean that some will not be disappointed.
  2.47 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I preface my remarks by saying that of course no hon. Member welcomes the sight of the atrocious behaviour of the Serbs in Kosovo, or, indeed, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia or Slovenia. The activities that we have seen on television are to be wholly condemned. I bow to no one in my fury and condemnation of such atrocious humanitarian offences, but we have to conduct ourselves in a legal way, and in a way whereby we can consistently seek peace not just in Yugoslavia but throughout the world.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has reminded us of the background to the history of the conflict, which began with an action on the part initially of the German Republic under Mr. Genscher—I call it Genscher's revenge. Against the better judgment of the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd,

  561
  he decided to recognise Croatia and Slovenia. That was an illegal action. It was outside the United Nations—it was outside all commonly perceived ideas of the UN and, indeed, of international rule of law. That is what started it. At that point, the Serbs, or all those who wanted to keep Yugoslavia together, were perfectly justified in taking up arms against that decision. They should at least have been given a proper hearing at the United Nations. The Security Council should have discussed the matter and, if it was impossible to keep Yugoslavia together because of the differences between the republics within that country after the fall of Tito and the end of the cold war, Yugoslavia should have been divided in an orderly way, however difficult and prolonged those negotiations might have been.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most provocative element of that episode was that the new Croatian constitution made the Serbs of Krajina into second-class citizens?
  Mr. Wells: That is right. As a result of that action not being properly negotiated, many serious injustices took place and ancient passions were inflamed. We cannot ignore such passions because they keep coming to the surface, whether in Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Sierra Leone or anywhere where difficult human relationships have to be faced. That is why we should remind ourselves of what we are doing and of the fact that we must have the rule of international law, however frustrating it may sometimes be.
  I want to talk about the legal aspects of what we have done because, in my view, it is illegal.
  Mr. Wareing: On the recognition of Croatia, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that an article written in The Times by the now Lord Hurd on 3 December 1991 supported the continued recognition of Yugoslavia and the non-recognition of Croatia. He changed his mind seven days later and I have an idea that that had something to do with the opt-out that Germany supported for us in the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Wells: That is interesting speculation. I also looked up the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I know the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is now a distinguished member. The 1991 report shows Douglas Hurd giving evidence and saying that he opposed the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia. I asked him why he eventually went along with the recognition. He said that we had so recently established the foreign affairs pillar of the Maastricht treaty, in which the European Union agreed to work together on foreign affairs, that he thought it would be discourteous to Germany, which said that it would unilaterally recognise Croatia, if we did not go along with that. I think that that was major mistake.
  I want to look at the legalities. I saw the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), on "Newsnight" last night with Jeremy Paxman. They were talking about the legality which, if I quote the hon. Gentleman correctly, revolves around the necessity of upholding the view of the United Nations on the issue
  562
  of whether gross offences against humanity were being committed, since one of the objectives of the United Nations is to prevent such offences. I wonder whether the Minister or his officials have looked at research paper 99/34, produced by the Library. It talks about article 2(4) of the UN charter which states that
  "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
  The Library paper states:
  "It has sometimes been argued that the prohibition in Article 2(4) on the use of force 'in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations' implies that the threat or use of force in a manner consistent with those purposes would be legal. However this is not a position that is universally accepted."
  Indeed it has not been accepted and we need to be on our guard. Since the end of the cold war we have begun to transgress the normal international rule of law on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) remarked on our intervention in Turkey to defend the Kurds, with which I entirely agreed. That was covered by the same article as that under which we were acting to prevent Saddam Hussein's takeover of Kuwait. This matter is not covered by that article.
  We are getting into the habit of consistently going in on one side of a civil war in many countries—this is one of them. The arguments given to us by the Foreign Secretary today were the arguments of a partisan. His arguments, and therefore those of the country he represents, were on the part of one side of a civil war. That precludes the Foreign Secretary, this country and its allies bringing about a proper peace which can be seen to be just and acceptable by all sides of a civil war. Civil wars are the most difficult, protracted and bitter disputes in which countries can indulge.
  In the light of the illegality of—
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wells: I will not give way at the moment.
  On the television last night we saw President Yeltsin talking passionately about how the wrong action was being taken. We could see then the intervention of another partisan, this time on the side of Serbia. Russia is, of course, dangerously allied with China, which is a major friend of Albania and has been for many years.
  By ignoring our obligations to take these matters back to the UN and back to the frustrations of the Security Council—I understand those frustrations—which is what the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has said we should do, we are in danger of beginning to fight a civil war on two sides. It would involve Russia, its friends and allies and China on one side, with the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States on the other. That is not likely to produce peace. We must try to produce peace in this tragic situation. That may involve force, but if that force is to be applied, and seen to be applied, even-handedly, it must be authorised and backed by the entire United Nations, including the major powers of Russia and China.

  563
  We must tell our Government, the European Union and the United States to go back and negotiate. They should bring in Russia and China and talk and talk and talk.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge rose—
  Mr. Wells: I must give way to a fellow member of the Select Committee on International Development.
  Dr. Tonge: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not think that all those avenues have already been explored, and that talking has gone on for long enough? If his solution is to return to the negotiating table, how will he protect the people of Kosovo while that happens?
  Mr. Wells: The people of Kosovo will have to be protected and we shall have to find a means of doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I am being tempted to go on for longer than I anticipated. A ceasefire must be negotiated in the same way as one was negotiated last September. The idea that there cannot be negotiations and that a ceasefire cannot be—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be saying things with which other hon. Members disagree, but he must be given a hearing.
  Mr. Wells: We should not despair of securing a reasonable ceasefire and a protection mechanism. That can be achieved and the effort has to be made. However, I agree that we must prevent continued violence by the Serbs against the Kosovars and a regrouping and rearming of the Kosovars to fight a more vicious war.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wells: No, I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak.
  I should like to make just one more point before I finish—I know that a lot of others want to speak. We have heard from the Government and from every quarter in NATO that ground troops will not be used except as peacekeeping forces. The wool is being pulled over our eyes. A bond to the peace table cannot be produced simply through the use of missiles and air forces. Ground troops will have to go in and they are going to have to fight their way in. I expect that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House and say that NATO has been forced to use ground troops. Make no mistake—this policy will lead to the deployment of ground troops and to the exacerbation of the situation. Turkey may be brought in and the affair may enlarge until it engulfs Europe.
  3.2 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: The House knows that I am opposed to the action that has been taken. I hope that there is a Division tonight. If there is, I shall vote against the war.
  I may secure more agreement in the House when I say that this debate should have taken place months ago. Some of the speeches that we have heard show that the House contributes experience and knowledge to issues in a way that a Foreign Office brief cannot. If the Foreign Secretary had heard the speech of the hon. Member for
  564
  Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), with which I agreed, he would realise that it was wrong for British troops to be committed to war without the House of Commons discussing the matter. That is not just a constitutional question. The Government could have tabled a motion in support of their action whenever they liked. They did not do that because they did not think that Parliament mattered. I say that with some feeling.
  We agree that there is a terrible humanitarian crisis. It is a civil war. For anyone who has any doubts about my view of Milosevic, let me explain. I am bitterly opposed to Milosevic. Why? Because, faced with a political problem, he used force—the same reason why I am against the Government's action. If Milosevic had had any sense, he would not have withdrawn autonomy from Kosovo and he would have realised that the problem had to be resolved by getting round the table with the Kosovars, but he did not do that. NATO has come along and repeated the mistake on a bigger scale.
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mr. Benn: I have only a short time, because so many people want to speak. I hope that the House will allow me to continue, unless I provoke anyone unduly, which I do not mean to do. I have an opinion, but I do not intend to express it in language designed to provoke.
  When we are told that so many extra thousand people have become refugees in the past few days, we have to recognise that the air strikes have made the situation worse. The monitors have been withdrawn because of the bombing, so there is nobody there to look after the area—and faced with the likelihood of an attack, the Serbs have moved their troops across the country. Whether their troops are there to repress the Kosovars or to defend their border I do not know, but if this country were threatened with a possible invasion, we would send people all over to prepare.
  I do not accept for one moment the reason given by Ministers for the war. They say that it is a war for humanitarian purposes. Can anyone name any war in history fought for humanitarian purposes? Would the Red Cross have done better with stealth bombers and cruise missiles? Of course not. War is about power, for the control of countries and resources. The other humanitarian crises that have been mentioned are informative—the Kurds, the Palestinians and the people of East Timor. The British Government are still arming the Indonesian Government when they are repressing the people of East Timor. What is the basis of that? I am not asking the Government to go to war with Indonesia, but do they have to go on arming the oppressors?
  Those arguments create doubts about the credibility of the operation. Up to 5,000 Iraqi babies die every month according to the Quaker Irishman Denis Halliday, who was in charge of the United Nations oil for food programme. Is that humanitarian? When I hear Ministers say that we have gone to war to prove that NATO is credible, by God I shiver. The argument that we have to kill people to show that we are strong does not carry any weight with me or with the rest of the House.
  Many people have spoken about the history, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Kosovo has been in Yugoslavia for many centuries. The Yugoslays were under the Turks for a long

  565
  time and fought them very hard. Then they were under the Austro-Hungarian empire, which they also fought very hard. The Archduke was killed at Sarajevo by a Serb nationalist. I have been to the spot where it happened.
  During the war, the Nazis set up a fascist Croatia and, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) said, hundreds of thousands of Serbs died. Fifty years ago tomorrow, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia signed a treaty with Hitler. The following day he was overthrown by Simovic. In the House of Commons, Mr. Churchill, who was not talking about the leadership of any particular Yugoslav Government, said:
  "I therefore turn to the story of Yugoslavia. This valiant, steadfast people, whose history for centuries has been a struggle for life, and who owe their survival to their mountains and to their fighting qualities".—[Official Report, 9 April 1941; Vol. 370, c. 1592.]
  When the Serbs took on Hitler, Russia was neutral and America—the great America—had not come into the war because it had not yet been attacked at Pearl Harbour. The Serbs took on the Nazis and until the day that I die I shall be grateful for that.
  If I may be allowed one other personal reference, I joined the Home Guard that week. I was 16. I was given a tin hat, a uniform, a gas mask and a rifle and was sent out at night with a bayonet because we were told that the Nazis might land by parachute. We were also told that they might come disguised as nuns. I am glad that I never met a nun on those nights. By God, even if we forget our history, the Serbs do not forget. A Serbian woman of about 85 rang and told me the story. She said that she was in Belgrade when Simovic overthrew Prince Paul.
  The House suffers from its lack of knowledge of history. I was in a debate on television with a fellow Labour Member of Parliament who said that he thought that the Serbs had fought with the Germans. I do not blame him for not living through it, but an interest in history is a requirement for credible politics.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire rightly pointed out that the International Monetary Fund broke up Yugoslavia by imposing such a debt that the richer republics thought that they would do better outside. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Genscher helped to break it up. He boasted when he left the German Foreign Office that the disintegration of Yugoslavia was his greatest achievement. Why we went along with that—whether it was as a trade-off for our Maastricht opt-out—is a matter for speculation, but it is certain that we did and now we are witnessing a war for control of the Balkans.
  The Kosovo Liberation Army—some people might call them terrorists, but I do not want to use extravagant language—is armed and supported by the Germans and the Americans. Who did the Americans put in charge of the monitoring forces? Ambassador Walker. And what was he doing 10 years ago? He was financing the Contras against the Nicaraguan Government under the authority of Reagan, for whose actions Clinton has recently apologised. Is it not worth looking back a little before the day that we were born? We have provided the KLA with an air force and called it NATO. That is what it wanted all along. We are told that Kosovo is to be a protectorate. Has international law advanced to the point where, if we do not like a country we can take one of its provinces and call it a protectorate? That reminds me of Victorian England, which was a bit before my time.
  566
  This is a war of aggression, I regret to say, because the United Nations is the only body authorised to use force, but Britain and America will not go to the Security Council, because they are afraid that Russia would use its veto. Russia has a greater geographical interest than we have. The Americans can hardly use the veto as an argument, as they have used 27 vetoes to protect Israel when the Security Council would have disciplined it for many breaches of resolutions, including when it invaded southern Lebanon.
  What this is all about, apart from the domination of the Balkans, is the setting up of NATO to replace the United Nations. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have been brought in. It seems to me that, with all those countries' problems, the need to rearm would be one of the lowest priorities of all, but the arms industry in America will do very well out of the extension of NATO. NATO is redefining its objectives. Its main objective now is to cut itself loose from the discipline of big power unanimity, which lies at the heart of the UN charter.
  It upsets me when British Ministers describe anything that the Prime Minister and the President do as "the international community". That claim does not bear examination. We are in a minority in the world on many issues. I greatly regret the fact that we take our orders from Washington. That is not because I am in any way against the Americans, as some of the most radical traditions in the world are American.
  Six months ago, the Americans bombed Sudan on the grounds that chemical weapons were being made there, and the British Government went along with it, but nobody believes that there were any chemical weapons in Khartoum. We took our orders from Washington. I do not want to be disrespectful. but when President Clinton makes a statement, I no longer feel obliged to believe that it is necessarily the truth.
  I do not want to be a scaremonger, because we do not know what will happen, but bombing does not usually achieve its objective, although it may have some marginal influence. The Prime Minister said that it would take 100,000 to 200,000 ground troops to occupy Serbia, and I doubt whether the Americans are ready to put in that number of bodies, because of the Vietnam war. They would be happy for the Europeans to go in, but the Americans would be happier outside in their stealth bombers and behind their cruise missiles.
  The Serbs have always fought extremely hard. There is a danger of the conflict spreading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked, if Russia decides to send support to Serbia, will the planes be shot down and the ships attacked? Will it be held to be a breach of the United Nations charter? We are breaching it, but we are told that that is for humanitarian reasons.
  People talk of appeasement. Some of the most valiant chairborne soldiers in the country live in the House of Commons, some of them on the Labour side. Anyone who has been in the Army knows what the chairborne troops are: they fight from their office desks. There was no appeasement of Hitler before the war: Chamberlain supported him. That is a much more serious charge.
  Anyone who has read the captured German Foreign Office documents will know that Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, was sent to see Hitler in Berchtesgarten—I have the transcript at home—and said, "Herr Chancellor, on behalf of the British Government I

  567
  congratulate you on crushing communism in Germany and standing as a bulwark against Russia." Like it or not, that was not appeasement but support. If we had taken a position against Hitler earlier—I am not suggesting a war—we could have stopped the matter there.
  We represent our troops. I do not know if there are any pilots from Chesterfield, but their wives or families may well be there. We had no chance to speak for them before they were committed to battle. It is not right to send young men and women into battle and then shelter behind them. In the Suez war in 1956, I had a letter from an RAF pilot in Cyprus who wrote, "I am in the RAF and I think this is a war of aggression. What shall I do?" I wrote back and said, "I share your view, but I am not telling you what you should do, because you are under orders as an officer." It is not reputable to hide behind the troops whom we have sent into battle.
  I want to say something else, which I hope is not too strong. I wish there were more interest in soldiers who fought in previous wars. What about the Gulf war veterans exposed to depleted uranium? Where is the support from the Government for them? Our boys in uniform are lauded as heroes when they fight, but later they have to queue up at the dole office and try to get a means-tested grant. They are told that we do not have the money. Why? Because it has been diverted to a humanitarian war to kill more people.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: What my right hon. Friend is saying is extremely interesting but will do nothing at all for the people of Kosovo. What is the alternative strategy?
  Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend may not come to the House often, but I have been arguing it—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Until now, the debate has very good-natured and temperate. We must keep it that way.
  Mr. Benn: I know that it is very offensive to people to hear an argument that they do not like, but I am giving it and—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The worst thing that can happen is if the Deputy Speaker keeps getting to his feet, so that no one gets to speak except the Deputy Speaker. I do not want that.
  Mr. Benn: I will come to the question of what should be done at the end, which is where one would normally put one's proposals. There is great opposition to the war, and not only from a little left-wing clique, as was demonstrated by the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. Henry Kissinger is against the war, as are 41 senators. Sky Television had a poll yesterday—although I do not have much time for Murdoch or polls—and 55 per cent. were against the war and only 45 per cent. in favour.
  Do not believe that wars are popular. They are marvellous the day they break out and everybody is happy, as they sell newspapers and boost ratings and make commentators into world statesmen but, by God, when the consequences become apparent there might be a very
  568
  different attitude. I was opposed to the Suez war and spoke against it in the House. Looking back, I have no regrets for issuing a warning on that occasion.
  We are asked what should be done. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford told us: the United Nations should convene a peace conference, without the threat of bombing that came from NATO. The Russians and the Chinese would support that, the bombing would halt and the humanitarian aid would go in. If we are in a jam, so is Milosevic. He has to find a way of living with the people of Kosovo. For him to be faced with the reality that confronts him is the best chance of peace, but killing people does not automatically solve problems. It did not work in Iraq.
  No amendment has been tabled, as that is not permitted, but as in the Norway debate in 1940, we can vote against the Adjournment. I shall do that tonight, with a very heavy heart. I have been in the Labour party for 57 or 58 years and have been a Labour candidate 17 times in parliamentary elections, and I never thought that I would be asked by my party to vote for a war against the charter of the United Nations, in a way that could make the situation that confronts the world far more serious.
  I hope that the House will accept that for me to go into that Lobby tonight will be one of the most difficult things that I have done, but it is something that is absolutely essential if we are to stand true to the values on which the Labour party rests, of internationalism, peace and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
  3.19 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Nobody could for a moment doubt either the sincerity or the passion of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He is an adornment to the House, and rightly won a recent award as speech maker of the year. I pay tribute to him as a parliamentarian par excellence and I share his love of history, but I am afraid that I cannot share his interpretation of it. I believe that his speech, passionate as it was, was profoundly wrong in many particulars.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not remember a time when we went to war for a humanitarian cause. I would say that going to war against Hitler was going to war to suppress evil.
  Mr. Benn: In all fairness—this is an important point—we did not fight Hitler because of his persecution of the Jews; we fought because he challenged the power of the west. When Hitler died in 1945, the obituary in The Times did not mention the holocaust. I contributed in a minor way to the war, but that war was not about human rights—it was a bit more than that.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) must be quiet in the Chamber. She has come in late in the day, and I can hear her quite often. I enjoy listening to her, but not at the moment.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Hitler was monumentally evil, and we went to war to defeat the monumental evil that Hitler represented.

  569
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made an excellent speech—but, again, it was a speech with which I could not agree. He made some perfectly valid and interesting points about the recognition of Croatia. However, he did not say that at the time Croatia was being recognized—December 1991—Milosevic' s tanks had already done terrible damage. Milosevic had already unleashed an onslaught against innocent people. His evil was already apparent.
  I do not like to say, "I told you so", but I wish to refer to the very first debate that took place in this House on the Balkan war. It took place in the small hours of the morning on 12 December 1991—a debate on the Consolidated Fund, which we do not have now. I initiated the debate on the situation in Croatia because I was deeply disturbed by what was happening. I said that we should take as a reason for intervening the fact that Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was being shelled, and that there was proper reason for us to put in a naval and air patrol to deter Milosevic at that time.
  I said in the debate:
  "I hope that a message can go out that there is a new resolve in the west and that we are determined to ensure that the killing, the destruction and the brutality stop".—[Official Report, 12 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 1162.
  It did not stop, because it was not possible for the west to get together and to act against Milosevic.
  A year later, I went to Edinburgh at the time of the Edinburgh summit to take part in a rival summit, called to highlight the problems in Bosnia. At that rival summit, the then Foreign Secretary received most courteously Harts Silajdzic, the Bosnian Foreign Minister, who made one of the most moving speeches that I have ever heard.
  Harts Silajdzic said that we may have thought that there was nothing worse than killing a child, but there was—killing a child after having tortured it. He said that we may have thought that there was nothing worse than raping a woman with the most ghastly force, but there was—doing that, and then herding women into rape camps and killing them. It is under Milosevic that those things have happened, and they have happened year after year.
  We have seen nearly a decade of unmitigated evil under the leadership of one of the evil geniuses of the 20th century. If NATO has any justification at all, it must have a moral imperative. To allow these things to happen in our continent is, frankly, shaming to us all.
  I support without reservation and with absolute fervour what the Government are doing. I support totally the statesmanlike and supportive speech from the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), today. I am delighted that Members on the two Front Benches are in such accord—as they should be at a moment of international crisis.
  I regret that action has taken so long, as does my right hon. and learned Friend, but I understand that the Government—like the Conservative Government over Bosnia—tried time and time again to bring Milosevic to the negotiating table, to get him to agree and to get him to act as a decent human being.
  Let us not forget Edmund Burke:
  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
  570
  Perhaps good men have not done enough, quickly enough. Milosevic has been in power now for a decade, and has laid waste to Bosnia and caused tremendous damage in Croatia. Now he is suppressing—with a brutality that has not been surpassed since the days of the holocaust—the Albanian people of Kosovo.
  There have been atrocities on all sides, of course. Of course, things have taken place of which we would all feel deeply ashamed. However, the great majority of those deeds of evil have been committed at the behest of Milosevic. It is right and proper that we should be taking action, and I rejoice at the fact that it is the whole of NATO that is taking action. As the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out last night, and as the Foreign Secretary underlined this afternoon, this is a united NATO action, supported by all the nations of NATO—that means the new nations, also.
  Yesterday, I had the privilege of talking to the Hungarian ambassador. Hungary is one of the newest entrants, and it now forms—as the Foreign Secretary said—NATO's border against Serbia. Is there anything strategically or morally defensible in allowing the rape of a people and the laying waste to a country just across the border from NATO by a man who is obsessed with power and motivated by evil? That is what the action is about.
  There are great risks, and the risks are greater because we have taken a little longer than we might. However, we should not be speculating about difficulties this afternoon. We should be giving the united backing to our troops that they deserve. We should accept that those who are in charge of the operation are not tyros who know nothing about military strategy or aerial bombardment; they are men and women of great experience and distinction who know how to conduct a campaign. I believe that they will be able to conduct a campaign with precision, and that they will be able to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible; we profoundly hope and pray that they will.
  If Milosevic is brought to his knees—either at the negotiating table or, more rightly, in the dock—we shall have achieved something notable. In this House today, we should be supporting our Government and our troops, who are engaged in a crusade against evil. That is what the action is about.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) divides the House tonight, it will be the first time in my 12 years in the House that I will find myself in an alternative Lobby on an issue of international politics. I have had no disagreement with my right hon. Friend's principled opposition to what has happened in many other conflicts. Like him, I have no doubt that the question of Iraq and Kuwait was solely about oil.
  However, in my constituency, I have seen over the last decade a stream of refugees—many of them tortured—coming from Milosevic's war zone. I can confirm virtually everything that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said. I believe that Milosevic has used the worst evil possible to rise to political power, to divide his people, to trade on fear and to operate a regime of systematic mass rape, murder and genocide.
  The only scandal that remains with western Governments is that we have not indicted Milosevic for war crimes. Too often, we have had to co-operate. Too

  571
  often, we have negotiated with him while, year by year, he has dragged his feet as his butchers have worked their way through one part of the former Yugoslavia after another.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that one is mad to consider any political issue until one has looked at the history.
  When I consider the history of Yugoslavia, however, I find many matters that my right hon. Friend has not discovered. Like most analysts of this conflict, he started with the second world war, and the heroic Serb opposition to Hitler. I salute that service, but Yugoslavia was not created during the second world war. Nor was it created with the consent of its component peoples. Yugoslavia is a totally artificial state, created by the great colonial powers at Versailles in the aftermath of war. I cannot conceive of any role for a socialist in defending that legacy of Victorian imperialism.
  Yugoslavia was cobbled together across an international dividing line that had existed for 1500 years. The eastern and western Roman empires bisected the land between what are broadly the Croat and Serb areas. It was divided then between the west and the Ottoman empire. A nation was later created by imperial powers for their convenience at the end of the first world war, without consultation with any of the component populations. It brought together people who had a history of warfare, and who shared no common religion and no common language. It is simply amazing that Yugoslavia survived as long as it did.
  I remember being in the House in 1991 when the then Foreign Secretary told us, in the aftermath of free and democratic votes by the peoples of Slovenia and Croatia, the British Government's view that there should be no change in the status of Yugoslavia. I asked why. Why, when we celebrate our own independence and nationalism day after day, were we denying the rights to exercise the same freedoms to people who had been subordinated in a wider federation?
  When Yugoslavia was set up, it was not a democracy; the old, feudal Serb monarchy dominated it. In the 1930s, Albert Einstein organised a round robin of protest, which was signed by many Members of the House of Commons, denouncing the use of terror by the Serb monarchy against the Croat leadership. That fact is conveniently forgotten when we try to understand why, when the Germans marched in, so many Croats lined up with them. The world had ignored the systematic brutality of the Serb monarch.
  We were lucky that Tito—a great statesman—managed to hold the whole package together. But from the moment of his death, it started to unravel. Tito died in 1980. In 1981, there were protests and demonstrations throughout Kosovo as Albanians demanded stronger autonomy and the upgrading of their regional status to equivalence with that of the other six component republics.
  The Albanians were not the only ones making demands. In Serbia, the Serbian Academy of Sciences began to stir up nationalism with a notorious report, published on 24 September 1986, that talked about historic injustices to the Serb people. The nation was starting to fall apart.
  What would any responsible leader do in that case? Would he try to pull people together? Would he try to build safeguards, or to recognise legitimate demands? Or would that leader do what Milosevic did: go to Kosovo to whip up a fury that could be ridden to power?
  572
  Many of my friends on the left view the former rulers of Yugoslavia as wonderful old communists. When one reads the internal debates of the Yugoslavian Communist party in the late 1980s, when Milosevic rose to power, one finds that the old communists warned, one after another, "Beware of what you are doing. Beware of what you are unleashing." There should have been more condemnation of Milosevic then and when he suspended the effective autonomy of Kosovo in 1989.
  If we had moved decisively with air strikes when Milosevic first sent his troops into Slovenia—I, along with Mrs. Thatcher, was one of the first Members of Parliament to call for the use of air strikes to stop that armed intervention—we might not face the current disaster. We might not have seen the slaughter and the dismemberment of Bosnia.
  What we are seeing is not western or Yankee imperialist attempts to establish control of the region. Let me tell the House why 41 American senators have voted against intervening: they see no interest, and no bounty, in it for America. Intervention is simply about human rights and, frankly, they don't give a damn about that. They are not incipient members of some new Marxist peace party; they are simply saying, "There's nothing in it for us, and who gives a damn if Milosevic is killing Albanians?"
  Throughout the 1990s in my constituency, where there is a substantial Muslim community, I have seen the most horrifying stream of refugees. I saw people who had been tortured and driven from their homes because the west was so slow to act in Bosnia. I denounce the atrocities on both sides. The fact that the west was silent as Tudjman organised the driving out of Serbs from Krajina was an outrage. Frankly, he should be under indictment for his crime and for the liquidation of whole Serbian areas in Krajina.
  However, that does not justify what Milosevic is doing now to the Albanians. What did Milosevic do when the Krajina refugees arrived in Belgrade? They were not allowed off the train. They were not allowed to seek comfort among their Serb neighbours. They were sent, against their will, to the Albanian areas of Kosovo to tip the balance of the population there. Even now, when Milosevic can have no doubt about the resolve of the west, what were the last images we saw? Serbian tanks systematically obliterating one Albanian village after another.
  What about a breathing space? If we were to stop this action, would Milosevic stop the destruction of the Albanian areas in Kosovo? Of course not. He would recognise that breathing space for what it was—a sign of weakness. He would press on, seizing every day, week and month to carry on his ethnic cleansing.
  Where my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I diverge is that we see different parallels. I see this action not as another Vietnam, but as a classic parallel with the rise of Hitler in Germany. Hitler rose by exploiting fear of the Jews; Milosevic has risen exploiting fear of Muslims. We heard Hitler demand, "All Germans within one state." That is exactly the cry we hear now from Milosevic—"Intervene in Slovenia, in Croatia, in Bosnia; seize the areas so that all Serbs come under one Serb nation." Europe cannot be

  573
  governed in that way. Nationalities are scattered across Europe, and there is no way to draw up ethnically pure communities.
  Mr. Dalyell: Curiously enough, I agree with much of what my hon. Friend is saying. Would he address one point, however? If this action is about saving villages, is not the only way in which to do that to send in ground troops? People are reluctant to send in ground troops, but I must ask—gently—whether bombing by itself will do anything other than strengthen Milosevic's hold on his own people. It is a terrible dilemma.
  Mr. Livingstone: I hope more than anything that the bombing will deter Milosevic. But we must not let him think that because some voices in the west are raised against the bombing, he need simply hold on long enough for us to lose our will. If the bombing fails, we must not give up. We must not step back and say, "Sorry, we can do nothing more." If the bombing fails, there will be a legitimate debate in the House of Commons and other Parliaments about the need to intervene with ground troops. Let Milosevic consider that the alternative. It is not a matter of whether we continue bombing or stop it; if the bombing does not persuade Milosevic to treat his own people as human beings, the west should not step back and ignore the situation.
  If I had seen any sign over the past decade that all this was part of some imperial plan by America, I should oppose it. However, even with all the horrors of Bosnia, Clinton was eventually forced to move only with the greatest of reluctance after American television showed pictures of Bosnian men starving to death in camps. At every stage, Britain and America have been reluctant to act, and slow to act. There has been no grand imperial grab for power. Everyone would rather avoid the problem.
  If I have one criticism of successive British Governments, it is that they have been slow to react and have allowed a monstrous tyrant to continue. Others have complained, saying, "Why intervene in Kosovo when horrors happen around the world?" I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who denounced the fact that the west stood by for so long while genocide happened in Rwanda.
  We are no longer in a world divided along ideological lines. In those days, the superpowers often kept some reasonable order in their own areas. The end of the cold war has made a more dangerous and deadly world for many minorities who find themselves on the wrong side of an international border.
  It is the duty of the nations that have the military power to protect individual communities from systematic genocide by evil regimes. Milosevic is not a democrat. Every election is rigged, and the media are controlled. I imagine that the vast majority of the Serb people would be happy to see the back of him. Where the west has the power and uses it wisely, I will support intervention. I would have supported immediate intervention in Rwanda.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. If on his way home tonight, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield saw a woman being raped by a group of thugs, he would intervene at the risk of his life. Why should we as a nation stand back when
  574
  the same thing has been happening on our doorstep for the best part of a decade? My socialism and driving moral force are not defined or constrained by lines drawn on a map, certainly not when they were drawn by imperial powers at Versailles in 1919.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Alan Clark: We have been waiting for a little while now for the Foreign Secretary to come to this place to deliver an account rendered of his ethical foreign policy and the ups and downs that have attended it. We are still waiting, but he entertained us with a highly specious speech. Much of his reasoning was faulty. He never touched on the central rationale that he should have addressed: why the bombing and killing of civilians in one part of a country are likely to ameliorate the killing of civilians in another part of that same country. He illustrated his argument with absurd analogies such as the claim that 400,000 people in Kosovo are the equivalent of 10 million in the United Kingdom. He referred to the anxieties of the Hungarians, for which there is no evidence. There is no reason why the Hungarians should be anxious. They border not Kosovo, but north Serbia. They probably favour what Serbia is doing in the interests of a strong and stable Serbia. This chain reaction or domino effect argument that people, including the Prime Minister, use is invalid. They never sustain it with historical argument, or even by example.
  I must first make a disclaimer by complying with the usual obeisance to the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. Nothing that we say here must be thought to criticise or undermine that. One of my sons was decorated with the Gulf medal and Omani cross. With many of my family having had military careers, I hope that my credentials will sustain my protestations.
  British service men have a very clear idea of when they should be committed to action and risk their lives. Hon. Members may have read Sir Michael Rose's book. Our service men are clear about the credentials of those who oppose Serbia. I know from my immediate contacts that many of them regard the Kosovo Liberation Army as a bunch of thugs deeply involved in the drug trade who operate refugee rackets in this country. They do not see why they should stand idly by while the KLA, too, perpetrates its atrocities.
  I cast no doubt on the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), but a sustained propaganda movement in the dissemination of information has been running for a long time. It has all been consistently anti-Serb, right from the start. The Bosnians maintained a high-powered public relations machine in New York which constantly fed United Nations debates. There is no doubt that many atrocities were committed by those opposed to the Serbs in earlier encounters in what the House agrees is essentially a civil war. We are debating whether to intervene on one side in a civil war. Much of the information is faked, cooked up by PR machines or without real basis. If my hon. Friends or Labour Members do not believe me, they should read Sir Michael Rose's book.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend is delivering a most extraordinary speech. Does he deny Srebrenica and the appalling atrocities committed against

  575
  Bosnia when it was—rightly or wrongly—a fully recognised sovereign state? Does he deny that those things happened?
  Mr. Clark: I am saying that an expensive, sophisticated propaganda machine has operated over a long period in one direction. We are not debating history or Srebrenirca. For an impartial, objective look at these things, hon. Members should read Sir Michael Rose's account. We are debating whether we are doing the right thing in bombing on a massive scale. One has only to read the headlines in this morning's newspapers to see the triumphalism of many accounts. Last night, I saw a happy scene of young people laughing and joking in a national park in Belgrade. The BBC commentator gloatingly said that they did not have any idea of what was coming in their direction.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that what is happening in Kosovo is ethnic cleansing? I was there with UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, a couple of weeks before Christmas. There can be no doubt that the Serbs under Milosevic are trying to achieve ethnic cleansing in the area. With my own eyes, I saw schools that had been shelled and health centres that had been razed to the ground. People talked of families that had been taken out and killed. Refugees were streaming out of Kosovo. That is not propaganda, but the reality of Kosovo.
  Mr. Clark: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's personal experience. I do not doubt that he told the House what he saw. But we are debating whether we are within our rights and whether it is proper for us to bomb a sovereign country, effectively an act of war, without the authority of the United Nations or of this House of Commons, in pursuit of the interests of one side in a civil war. Civil wars are horrendous. The hon. Gentleman saw many appalling scenes. Very well; he saw them. They were in the course of a civil war. He did not say what he saw the KLA doing or whether he followed it around. I do not want get into those details. They are not central to this debate. We are debating whether the House should authorise our taking sides in a civil war in the Balkans.
  Let us consider the legalities. We are doing this outside the authority of the United Nations. It is no good cooking up the small print of various resolutions; we are acting outside the authority of the UN Security Council. We are told that we have to do it, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, because we have to show that NATO has the macho will to do it—that, if it does not follow up, no one will believe in NATO any longer. One may ask what that matters, but it a pretty thin argument to justify intervening in a civil war.
  There are other aspects to which the House should direct its attention. What is the legal position on liability consequent on actions taken in a war that is ostensibly under the auspices of NATO? Suppose, as is highly likely, that one or more cruise missiles land on a factory in south Belgrade making baby materials. Will that company have cause to take action against the Ministry of Defence? Surely it will. What is the basis for that action? Serious consequences flow from recklessly scattering high-explosive ordnance over a country with which one is not legally at war, and those consequences will be addressed in terms of civil liability. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about that in his winding-up speech.
  576
  There is an even more serious aspect about which I wish to warn the House. It is likely that the bombing will not work. The Prime Minister, in one of his more facile and idiotic soundbites—to which he is greatly addicted; he repeats them so often that hon. Members get sick of hearing them and we give him a little wave—said that the intention of the last round of bombing was to put Saddam Hussein back in his cage. What does that mean? It is ludicrous. The Prime Minister would not be drawn as to the meaning of that statement—and he certainly would not confirm whether Saddam Hussein was back in his cage.
  Given the opportunity, it might be worth our asking the Prime Minister whether he wants to put Mr. Milosevic back in his cage. We could then question the Prime Minister a little more about what that means. I predict that Mr. Milosevic will not go back into his cage, according to any rational reckoning of the meaning of that statement. The bombing will intensify, the targets will become more diffused and then the first hints will be trailed—initially, by commentators and by others in the friendly press and media, and then possibly through oblique answers to questions in the Chamber—and we will be told it will be necessary to commit ground forces up to a certain level, under certain conditions and in certain localities, with appropriate restraints imposed on their actions and so on. We will find that we are committed to taking sides not just from the comfort of our chairs or the safety of our stealth panels, but on the ground. Our kith and kin and our children will be serving in a mountainous guerrilla-dominated location.
  The House should think carefully about that prospect. We should not allow ourselves to be conditioned gradually over the ensuing weeks and months into regarding that action as first inevitable and then desirable. The entire Chamber must resist such an outcome.
  3.53 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I oppose the NATO military action in Yugoslavia. The action has not been endorsed by the United Nations—I do not care what fancy words or phrases may be used—it does not have the unanimous support of the Contact Group on Kosovo, and it contravenes the sovereign status of a recognised state. I oppose the action mainly because I think it is likely to cause more civilian casualties and could lead to an escalating conflict in south-east Europe.
  I listened carefully to the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who talked about a "just" war. He said that the suffering caused should be less than the suffering that we are seeking to prevent. However, I believe that the suffering in south-east Europe could be much worse as a result of this action.
  I make it absolutely clear that I have no truck whatsoever with President Milosevic. I saw his barbarous handiwork at first hand when I visited Bosnia and Vukovar in Croatia. Some 80 per cent. of that once beautiful Danubian city has been reduced to mostly rubble, and much of what remains standing is mined. If there were ever a monument to the futility of bombing, it is Vukovar. The present generation should study that lesson.
  I have also talked to the Krajina Serbs about mass expulsions and I visited a mass grave. I will not join in the demonisation of the whole Serb nation because it is

  577
  stuck with a monstrous, barbarous leader any more than I will condemn Albanian Kosovars for the murderous activities of the KLA. Hon. Members should stop impugning the motives of those of us who oppose more killing, because we all approach this situation from a different angle.
  I have been a member of the civilian affairs committee of the North Atlantic Assembly for seven years. For the past two years, I have chaired the sub-committee for security and co-operation in south-east Europe; so I recently visited many of the countries involved, either directly or indirectly, in the present conflict. A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) and I visited Macedonia, where we had frank discussions with the leading politicians—both Albanians and Macedonians—in the Government. Albanian MPs told us stories about the killings perpetrated by the Serbian Black Hand gang in Kosovo and we discussed language problems and so on.
  It is claimed that ethnic Albanians make up 25 per cent. of the population of Macedonia—although most people accept that the number is far greater. The refugees streaming over the border from Kosovo to live with relatives in Macedonia are swelling those numbers. The Macedonians to whom we spoke are extremely worried about the situation. They realise that allowing the NATO extraction force to be stationed in Qumanova in Macedonia is viewed by the Serbs as an unfriendly act. However, they were willing to allow that in order to do their bit towards securing peace in the area.
  I asked the Macedonians whether they would allow their territory to be used as a base for aggressive acts against Yugoslavia. Every person said that they would not allow NATO or anyone else to use Macedonia as a base from which to attack either Serbia or Kosovo. It is against the Macedonian constitution to allow its territory to be used for hostile acts against any nation.
  I have already mentioned by way of intervention how the sanctions against Yugoslavia are hurting Macedonia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the largest market for Macedonian products. A serious economic situation is developing, which is very damaging for the Government as unemployment and poverty increase. It probably led to Macedonia's taking the rather naive decision to recognise Taiwan, which has had wide repercussions and prompted the Chinese to use their veto to end the United Nations preventive deployment force—UNPREDEP—mandate in Macedonia.
  My committee and I visited EXFOR, the NATO extraction force, and we received excellent briefings from General Valentin and General David Montgomery. One could not help but be impressed by the efficiency of the extraction force. However, the generals pointed out the difficulties and dangers that they faced simply in trying to extract the OSCE observers. They explained that the helicopters could not fly if the weather closed in and that it was extremely difficult to extract a couple of thousand observers if particular bridges or roads were mined. It made me think about the difficulties associated with waging a ground war in that kind of terrain.
  I want to refer to the peace process at Rambouillet because my right hon. Friend said that Belgrade was the stumbling block as it refused to negotiate. I have a copy
  578
  of the Serb contribution to the peace process, "The Basic Elements of Substantial Self-Government in Kosovo". I also have a draft copy of the agreement that NATO tried to impose; there is little difference between the two documents. There are two sticking points. First, an ambiguous passage in the NATO draft document could lead to a referendum that would take Kosovo away from the Serbs. There is no question but that such a referendum could lead to separation and a separate state. The second sticking point is the proposal to put NATO troops on Serbian territory; the Serbs will not go along with that. That was confirmed when I met the deputy ambassador of Yugoslavia and many other Serbs.
  The Serbs said that they were presented with an ultimatum, not a negotiating ploy. I think that the Serb case deserves to be put before the House. That is not to condone any of the atrocities that have been committed, but it is only fair that the House hears the Serb case. How would we feel if events in Northern Ireland had escalated out of control and the rest of the world—some of whom thought that we were not doing too well there—had issued an ultimatum through a military alliance, telling us to accept an agreement because, if we did not accept their terms, Aldershot would be bombed? We would be outraged and in uproar. We have to realise how Serbs think about their country. We must try to get away from the massive propaganda that we hear.
  The Serbs have refused to capitulate to our ultimatum and, as we know, the result is the bombing, which I think is profoundly wrong. Far from making Milosevic more unpopular, it will strengthen his hand. The natural process by which he might have been removed will now be halted.
  In Yorkshire, we have the largest Serbian community in the country. This morning, I spoke to some Serbs from Halifax. They are heavily represented in organisations such as ex-service men's clubs and the British Legion. Younger Members of the House often do not want to dwell on the second world war; they always look bored and sometimes shout down those of us who speak of it. Some of us are old enough to have experienced that war. I can just remember it; when I was a little girl, every male member of my household was involved in the war. My father was away for years. Some men did not return and some returned badly injured. We are entitled to talk about that experience.
  War is a terrible thing, which follows its own dreadful course. At terrible cost, the Serbs held the German army at bay. We cannot escape history; that is what happened. I am a member of the British Legion and I go to the cenotaph and see Serbs there. They are some of our oldest and dearest allies. The Serbs who contacted me are incredulous that we are bombing their country—a European country. They do not like Milosevic; they want to get rid of him too, but they do not see why we should be bombing Serbia.
  In respect of the instability in the region, it was excellent that we put in place the partnership for peace. We began to build up extremely good relations with the Russians among the various parliamentary organisations and at other levels. That work has now been put on hold. My committee was to visit Russia in a couple of weeks' time, but we have been told that they do not want us. Who can blame them? At present, Russia poses no threat to us, but that is not to say that it will not do so in the future.

  579
  The bombing of Serbia will give great encouragement to Zhirinovsky, Lebed and other more sinister people waiting in the wings in that destabilised country.
  The other day, the Russian Foreign Minister said these chilling words:
  "If a fire burns in Kosovo, and it follows into Macedonia and Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina, then another large war in the Balkans would be ignited."
  It is not beyond the bounds of anyone's imagination that that could happen.
  We must start talking again. We have put at risk countries in that area. The words of the Montenegrin leader should make us all sit up and listen. He said:
  "I believe that the bombing of the FRY would strengthen the regime of Mr. Milosevic. For this reason, I have always maintained that instead of air strikes we should persist with political talks, to find a solution that would bring about long-term political stability in Kosovo."
  He is a man who is bravely leading Montenegro along a different path and, for his troubles, he too got bombed last night.
  I agree with other speakers who have said that we should get the United Nations in and start a peace conference. We should involve the Russians, the Chinese or anyone who is interested in stopping the bombing. We should make the KLA and the Serbs sit around the table. Let us not forget that the KLA has killed hundreds of Serbs in Kosovo; there is a civil war, although one side is more heavily armed, and I accept the practicalities of that situation.
  Of course, I hope with all my heart that our forces keep from harm, but I also wish with all my heart that not another Serb is killed by bombs launched by NATO. I take a simple, practical view: if a NATO bomb kills a Serb, it is NATO and the NATO countries that are responsible for those killings.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I think that none of us—certainly not the Foreign Secretary when he spoke today or the Prime Minister in his statement earlier this week—would say that we have a death wish or hatred for the Serbian people. Nothing could be further from the truth. On both sides of the House and throughout the country, the reaction is the same now as it was for events in Iraq. As far as we were concerned, there was no fight with the Iraqi people, but we were against the Iraqi regime. That is also true of Serbia. As long as Milosevic leads a regime that is so intrinsically evil to the people whom he claims to represent, and he is prepared to punish them in such a severe and hideous way, the natural reaction of all decent people is to be repelled by that and to want to try do something about it.
  Like many hon. Members who have spoken today, I have visited the area on several occasions. Before I went to Kosovo and Albania, I thought that I had seen the worst things that I would see in my life. I had seen children die through hunger in the deserts of Africa and had seen people locked up in the hideous asylums of Romania and other countries of eastern Europe. I had seen civil rights atrociously denied to people right across the world.
  However, nothing had prepared me for what I saw on the borders of northern Albania and in Kosovo. My group travelled by helicopter and landed in a place where a
  580
  firefight had just finished. We saw people who had been shot and their heads hacked off and left as an example for other villagers. That is a horrendous sight. We saw children shot, then stabbed and mutilated. We saw women who had been raped, not once but several times, then shot or hanged as an example to others. Those events are horrendous to contemplate. Those were not rare occurrences; they were everyday events for the people of that region, as they had been for some considerable time.
  As the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) said, it is right and proper to put aside the suggestion that the KLA are blameless. Far from it. I also witnessed the atrocities that they had committed. They had killed unarmed civilians, as an example to others; they had shot and then mutilated the bodies of Serbian soldiers who had surrendered. The suggestion was made, "In a civil war in a country like ours, nobody surrenders to anyone. The minute you stop shooting, you're dead." That cannot be right. The Prime Minister spoke for all those who believe that it is not possible to watch the scenes that we have seen on our television screens, or to read the graphic details in our newspapers as we have done, and then, as a nation and as a member of NATO, to stand by and let it continue.
  There has rightly been criticism that these events were allowed to continue for so long, but no one who has said that the bombing is wrong has come up with a viable solution that stops the killing. Everyone who has spoken has been unable to suggest an alternative to bombing Milosevic, depriving him of some of the killing kit that he has at his disposal, and perhaps shocking the people of Serbia into realising that Milosevic has got it wrong.
  Listening to the World Service today, I was staggered to hear interviews with people in Serbia who were surprised that bombing had occurred. Right up until 7 o'clock last night, some of them had believed that Milosevic would once again pull a magician's trick and somehow con NATO and the rest of us into calling off the bombing. Today, the Serbian people are in a state of shock, horrified that, for the first time, bombs and missiles have been targeted on them.
  Hon. Members are right to say that what we have done is horrendous to contemplate. Anyone who saw the Prime Minister talking about it in the House this week could not have failed to see the strain and tension in his face. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) spoke of his own conflicts of conscience when he, as a member of the Cabinet, had to make similar decisions. Anyone who feels that the action is being taken to protect and defend NATO's macho image must be mad. Human beings have had to make those decisions in respect of other human beings who are dying.
  It is right to repeat the statistics. Twenty-five per cent. of the population of the region of Kosovo have been forced to move from their homes, which have been destroyed. Thousands of people have been killed, and tens of thousands wounded or injured, either by direct action or by having to endure terrible trauma and forced movements across the region. European Union countries currently hold 1 million refugees from that region. Those people have been forced to move from their homes because of a regime led by a madman that is so evil that it believed that that was the right thing to do.
  How on earth can we reason with people who genuinely believe that it is right and proper to massacre women and children, blow up their homes, or force them from the

  581
  region in which they live? How can we reason with people like that? How can hon. Members who say that we should have gone on talking believe that there is a genuine solution to be found at the negotiating table? Of course there is not. The Serbian people have the answer in their hands: they have to decide whether they want to be governed by a regime that disregards human life in such a cavalier manner.
  It is despicable to suggest that we are acting for any other reasons than the right ones. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is extremely selective in recounting history to support his argument, and he should have stayed in the Chamber throughout the debate and heard some of the rebuttals. He claims that it is better to talk than to drop bombs, but he did not make a single suggestion as to how that would prevent one more person from being killed. In his well crafted speech, the Foreign Secretary spelt out the method of negotiation that had been exhausted. Did he not say that, when Milosevic agreed to call a halt, it lasted all of six weeks? That simply gave him, his armed forces and the Serbian police an opportunity to regroup and return with an even more heavily mailed fist to inflict pain and suffering on the people.
  No one can be sure that the bombing campaign will be sufficient to knock sense into the heads of the Serbian people. I greatly doubt whether it will ever be possible to knock sense into Milosevic's head. However, I hope that the Serbian people will realise that this is being done to bring peace to the country and to stop the murderous actions that have been carried out, supposedly in their name. I hope that they will see sense.
  From the three occasions that I have visited the area, I know that it is not hard to find some who want a Greater Serbia, in which the people of Slovenia and Croatia are reunited with their Serbian brethren. Equally, one does not have to go far in the region of the legions of the KLA to meet those who believe that their only salvation is a Greater Albania.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is speaking with some passion, but I want to be clear as to his argument. He says that he is not absolutely sure that the action being taken will bring the Serbs to heel, yet with his next breath, he tells us that the aim of the mission is to bring peace to the country. To anyone with a sense of logic or common sense, that does not hold up.
  Mr. Hancock: Others who have spoken in the debate and who previously questioned the Prime Minister have suggested that we should go on talking. My point is that no one—not one of us, not the Prime Minister, not the President of the United States, and not the generals leading the campaign for NATO—can say that they believe that this action alone is a solution, but we hope and pray that it will be. Most reasonable people hope that we do not have bomb again, and that enough harm will have been done to ensure that people see sense; but none of us—even the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—can claim to be sure. I hope that we can achieve a solution.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making a clear case for continued
  582
  bombardment to ensure that some sort of talks take place. However, if that does not happen, is he prepared to support the deployment of ground troops? At what point do they stop: do they occupy the whole country, or merely parts of Kosovo? We deserve to be told by those who support the bombardment exactly what the endgame is.
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that I put to the Secretary of State for Defence when he came before the Select Committee on Defence yesterday morning. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, "What do you do if, at the end of the day, you have to commit ground forces?" His reply was the same as the Prime Minister's: "It is not our view that we will have to face that." Nobody wants that, but we all have to keep at the back of our mind the possibility that we might be confronted with a nation that has been bombed into a unit of resistance and that can be overcome only by land forces being sent in to protect the people.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: So that is the policy is it?
  Mr. Hancock: No, I do not think it is. It is a possible end scenario, and certainly the most painful end scenario that could ever be contemplated. That is why we must be seen to be united today in what we want from the campaign in which NATO is exercised on behalf of the whole of the civilised world.
  Mr. Galloway: That is absurd.
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman might think so, but his behaviour on these issues is, on occasion, beyond satire.
  We owe it to those who are today putting their lives on the line to try to prevent further loss of life. We need to know what the next stage will be, but nobody wants to contemplate deploying ground forces. We must hope and pray that what we will do today, tomorrow and probably for another few days will be successful in achieving negotiations for an agreement that we can defend with land forces.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I am 100 per cent. certain that we need a protectorate so that we can guarantee the lives of the people in Kosovo because they deserve no less and no more than most of us readily take for granted.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Syd Rapson: I do not usually participate in debates in the Chamber because I do not see the sense in speaking for speaking's sake. I became aggrieved once when it was assumed that because I did not speak, I was in favour of one side of the argument or another. That assumption was made by an hon. Member to whose view I was totally opposed. Sometimes it is necessary to stand up and declare a position because we owe it to the electorate who put us here.
  This is a grave situation that has underlined to everyone in the country the effects of warfare, especially on families, but we are particularly aware of those effects in Portsmouth.
  I have great admiration for many hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire

  583
  (Sir P. Cormack) excelled himself, as did the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and others. There are people here who can say what needs to be said in a far clearer and more defined way than I can, but as a Member of Parliament, I cannot see the pictures of people being raped and murdered and their villages being torched, and do nothing.
  I do not have a solution other than the one that we have. It is dangerous to have cold feet once we have started a campaign. At this stage, we should be forceful and united. As events progress, we may have to reconsider our actions. Hopefully, there is a will in the House to escalate those actions if it is necessary. If we do not believe at this stage that we have more power at our disposal and are prepared to go to greater lengths, we should not have started the campaign. Once we have committed service people to engage the enemy, it will be necessary for the House to have unity of purpose. Nothing is more demoralising to people risking their lives in a foreign country on our behalf than to realise that Members in this House are undermining the policy for reasons that they believe are good, but which are dangerous for the troops in action.
  Mr. John Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore agree with me, and many hon. Members, that that is the very reason why we should have had a proper and full debate before our armed forces went into action, and that it is a disgrace that we were unable to do so?
  Mr. Rapson: I have been a Member of the House for only a short time, and the House's processes work on the basis that the decision-makers are better informed than a debate in the Chamber would necessarily be. Decisions are made and we then debate the issues, as we are doing now, in an Adjournment debate, without a vote. It would be dangerous to have a vote to say whether we should go ahead with this action. That might be anti-democratic, but it is the best way. I have one power because I have a single vote, which is equal to that of every other Member. Many hon. Members are much more experienced, knowledgeable, clever and worldly, but at the end of the day, one vote cancels out an opposite vote.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend think carefully for a moment about his argument that the House should not take a vote on these matters? We are sent to the House as Members elected by our constituents. The House has the ability to ask a Government to make war, or not to make war. Under royal prerogative, that power is limited; but does not my hon. Friend think that we have a responsibility to make a decision on this matter—I am opposed to the bombing—and to answer to our constituents for it? We should not just abdicate that responsibility.
  Mr. Rapson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am only giving my view, which is that, although I have been in the House for only a short time, I think that the process that we have always used is right, and I do not want to change it.
  Some hon. Members have given us a history lesson today. It is necessary to remember the past, but we must also consider the present. Many of the people whom I
  584
  represent are much younger than me. They think about what is happening and are concerned and angry about the television pictures that I have already mentioned, and which have been better described by Conservative Members. My constituents want something to be done, and they get frustrated if we do nothing. It is no good preaching history lessons to them and trying to justify our actions according to events that occurred 50 years ago. We must be guided by history in our actions, but we must consider the present, because situations change. I respect people's views and sensitivity about the Luftwaffe, the German air force, but events have moved on and Germany has changed, as we have seen, and it has a democratic structure. We must weigh such considerations against what is happening on the ground.
  My view is one of simple support for the Government because I can find no reasonable alternative that is better, and it is imperative that we protect our service people who are in action. I state clearly and precisely that if it is necessary to upgrade our action to pursue the objective of bringing Milosevic to the negotiating table to settle an agreement for peace in that country, we must be prepared to do so. The situation could escalate and might be fearful, but if we do not have the necessary resolve now, it would have been better not to have started our action.
  Mr. Hayes: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question, and it is not meant to be a clever question. He has spoken with great humility, unlike the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), and said openly that the action may have to be escalated and that the situation might be fearful. Does he believe that there is a mandate from the British people for that decision? Would people in his constituency and elsewhere agree with him? My instinct, following the events of the past few days, is that that would be a tight judgment, and the Government should not assume that the majority of the people would agree with them.
  Mr. Rapson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The public are, perhaps, more fearful than we are. I am prepared, as a Member of the House, to be accountable for the action escalating, if necessary. If we are to enter a fight, we must win the fight; otherwise we should not enter it. I must live with that and support that decision. I am aware of the escalation scenario and what could happen if Russia became involved. We could be facing a sophisticated enemy. Then, escalation could be enormous—I realise that.
  We must however have the resolve to say to our Front-Bench team, the Secretary of State and others involved that this House is prepared to support them in an escalation of action, if necessary. I am one who is prepared to do so at this stage. I hope that other hon. Members will realise the necessity to make that very clear, rather than, during our first debate since the conflict began, expressing worry and getting cold feet. I do not have cold feet.
  I can be accused of being an armchair soldier; unfortunately, that is all I am. I have been elected as a Member of Parliament; all I have is a voice and a vote to use as necessary. I must take the responsibility of making a decision on behalf of my electors. I am here to do that; the Government have my full support—and more if they ask for it in future.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: There can be no doubt that, today, we are nearer to a large-scale conflict on mainland Europe than we have been at any time in NATO's history over the past 50 years. The questions before us are whether we can make this work, rather than whether we will make it work, and whether we can contain the conflict. In his address to the American nation last night, President Clinton spoke of the importance of engaging in the Balkans precisely to contain the conflict. It was interesting that, unlike our Prime Minister, President Clinton found time yesterday to talk to the Russian President.
  Although there were extremely good reasons why the Prime Minister could not be in the House last night, many hon. Members feel that he, and not the Deputy Prime Minister, should have made the statement, especially given that Serbia has today announced that it believes itself to be in a state of war. It is significant and sad that, for a debate on a very grave issue, so few hon. Members are present on either side of the House. I am afraid that that is one of the reasons why many people outside the House feel that this Chamber is no longer as great as it was. Rightly, many will ask why, on a day of such importance, so few hon. Members are present.
  It is critical that we discuss the issue of containment because the conflict in the Balkans runs the very severe risk of spreading out of control. In talking about containment, President Clinton did not reflect on just what might happen if the conflict were to spread out of control. It is right that we have begun to focus—I raised this following the statement last night—on the problem of Russia.
  Historically, Russia is Serbia's closest ally. There can be no doubt that, in Russia, there will be two consequences of the bombing. Nationalist sentiment will be inflamed in a country which is already inherently unstable. The response from the Russian Government and the Russian Parliament is in itself at the moment divided and mixed. In the past 24 hours, Russia has spoken of "unlawful acts of NATO" and "undisguised aggression", and said that it will
  "consider revising its relations with NATO."
  It has warned NATO leaders that
  "should the military conflict expand, Russia reserves the right of taking adequate measures, including military ones."
  We must ask what on earth Russia means when it refers to the conflict expanding and to reserving the right to take adequate measures, including military ones, if it does so.
  It is possible simply to dismiss this; it is possible to say that such words are simply verbal threats. That is a very dangerous and serious calculation to make given that we know that Russia is in a very difficult political position at the moment. It is a very difficult calculation to make given that President Yeltsin has issued a statement that Russia is
  "discussing further steps in the wake of NATO's air strikes."
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we have heard very sincere, excellent and heartfelt speeches. I regret that I must intervene on a point that might be seen as controversial. Despite the explanations, the hon. Gentleman criticised the Prime Minister for not being
  586
  present last night, and went on to tell us about the Russian view. Does he think that President Yeltsin is the best person to speak for Russia at this time?
  Mr. Woodward: It is jolly interesting that we have heard from President Yeltsin. It would be unkind to refer to last night's statement, except to say that it is my belief and that of my constituents that, when young men and women are risking their lives for this country, the Prime Minister should be in the Chamber. I am simply reflecting and representing my constituents' views. I should be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman came to my constituency and discussed his views with my constituents.
  The Foreign Secretary has said that he does not believe that the Russian arms embargo will be lifted, but the Russian Parliament has called for a resumption of arms sales to Yugoslavia, which Russia's beleaguered arms exporters will undoubtedly back. We must recognise that action in Kosovo will aid future extreme nationalists in Russia. It will certainly make President Yeltsin's position more precarious. The long-term effects of the policy will undoubtedly stir up anti-west sentiment.
  Having said all that, I am not making an argument for not continuing with the action on which we have embarked. We must prosecute this cause. It would be ludicrous if, after a day or two of difficulty, NATO somehow suddenly decided to stop the bombing. The result of that in Kosovo would be a final solution such as the ethnic cleansing that we have seen so far. It would be a green light to Milosevic to do whatever he wants in Kosovo. This is the policy that we have, and this is the policy that we must continue. However, that is not an excuse for the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Government not to enter into greater and fuller diplomatic negotiations with countries such as Russia which will find it difficult to support the action.
  There are many, including some European Union leaders and Governments, who are very concerned about NATO's course of action. Part of the reason for that is that they are not clear why—specifically—we are taking this action. What is the specific objective of the bombing, and as such, when will the bombing end?
  The Prime Minister has described a range of aims and hopes that he would like to be fulfilled by his policy, but which takes precedence? If the goal is to stop the atrocities being committed on the people of Kosovo, will the bombing continue until the humanitarian aggression ends? If the goal is to degrade Serbian military capability, at what level will we deem it to have been so degraded that we stop bombing? Indeed, to be frank, is it realistic to think that simply degrading military hardware will bring an end to ethnic cleansing? We may manage to bomb all the tanks, but there is low-grade warfare, too. A soldier can simply throw a hand grenade through the window of a house, and up goes the house.
  This is a very different campaign from the one fought in Iraq. I supported the action in Iraq. I now support the action that we are taking in Kosovo. However, the Government need to be far more careful and much clearer about what the specific objectives are. If the goal is to bring Milosevic back to the table or to persuade him to agree to the Rambouillet statement, and if he refuses to come, does that mean that the bombing simply goes on?

  587
  The problem is that nobody knows the specific objective that lies behind the Prime Minister's stance. It would be fitting for the Foreign Secretary and for the Prime Minister soon to tell the House explicitly not the military tactics, but the military objectives. Can they be defined?
  Serbia has now declared itself to be in a state of war. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether that is different from a declaration of war by Serbia, and what difference that makes? What is the difference between being in a state of war, and declaring war? Can he tell the House what position that leaves Britain and NATO in? Are we, too, in a state of war with Serbia? Is NATO in a state of war with Serbia?
  What will we do if Milosevic, evil and skilful as he is, uses the attack to strengthen his own position—to kill even more? We know that he is closing down his own media. If his position is strengthened, where does that leave the Government's future strategy?
  On Wednesday, Montenegro's President Djukanovic said that Milosevic was intent on an irrational policy of confrontation with the entire world. Today, Djukanovic's Administration is in mortal danger. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary believe that the action that we have taken and the response that may be forthcoming from Milosevic will put the leadership of Montenegro in jeopardy?
  What action will we take if that leadership falls? Will the restoration of that leadership, if it should fall, become a secondary and binding condition for the cessation of hostilities against Milosevic and Serbia? Will the bombing continue until that leadership is restored?
  There are grave risks in taking no action. Clearly, that is no longer an avenue for us to pursue. We are no longer debating whether we should take action, but we need to be clear about what on earth that action is likely to achieve. For example, it is ludicrous to suppose that all over Kosovo and Serbia, tanks are not being dispersed. They are hardly going to be left together in car parks for us to bomb. Of course, the ideal place to park a tank is in the middle of a village in Kosovo. We may hit it; we may not.
  Those may be risks worth taking, but let us beware: there will be dreadful pictures for the country to see. Last night the Deputy Prime Minister constantly sought refuge in the theme, "We see it on the television. Something must be done." That could come to haunt the Government in an entirely different way from the way in which they see the situation now.
  There is a danger that the bombing will lead to an escalation of violence against the Kosovars. As one Serbian leader said, the Serbs might be inclined to finish the task off in Kosovo. That raises a crucial question for the Government. How realistic is it to think that without the use of ground forces or anti-personnel weaponry, we can stop individual Serb units from killing ethnic Kosovo Albanians in the villages? The risk is an even greater bloodbath.
  We may well see an escalation of the crisis. What will be the effect of that, and what will be our response if Milosevic succeeds over the next few months in destabilising the entire region? For example, he could push Albanian Kosovar refugees into Macedonia. He would destabilise Macedonia's ethnic balance and would end up drawing Greece, Bulgaria and Albania into a wider
  588
  quarrel. He could destabilise Bosnia, inciting Serbs to attack Muslims again, or take on western targets from the peacekeeping force.
  What would be our response to that? Would it be to give him an extra 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles tonight—an extra punishment beating? Would we extend the bombing a little longer, or take out another village? To what extent has the Foreign Office calculated the possible extent of the instability?
  There are worrying signs from the United Nations. It is foolish for any hon. Member to dismiss the authority and the legitimacy of action that comes from the United Nations. If we use it as a stick to beat Saddam Hussein and tell him when he cannot act, we cannot now choose to ignore it ourselves. Rightly, questions are asked about the legitimacy of our actions. To ignore those questions would be foolish in the extreme and could jeopardise the resolution of future conflicts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke extremely lucidly on the matter.
  Again, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House why, if we have the necessary resolutions behind the action, the Secretary-General of the United Nations does not stand fully behind NATO's action? Why, yesterday, when the Secretary-General described this as
  "a grave moment for the international community"
  did he not endorse fully and clearly the action that NATO was taking? Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what steps he is taking to establish the full support of the Secretary-General?
  One of the more unfortunate moments in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement last night came when I asked him whether he could tell me whether the Security Council was meeting last night. He had nothing to say. He did not know. The issue is too serious to be handled by those who do not know.
  Lives are at stake in Kosovo, on both sides of the argument. The lives are at stake of all the young men and women who are flying and engaged in action tonight, including those from Brize Norton in my constituency, from where the refuelling operation and some of the communications operations take place. This is serious business, and we cannot have a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister, made because the Prime Minister is not in the country, when the right hon. Gentleman did not even know whether the Security Council was meeting and did not consider it necessary to pick that up as a reference.
  We cannot have a situation in which, by the time of the debate today, the Prime Minister, who is committing our forces to fight, still has not spoken to his Russian counterpart. That is dilatory. The Secretary of State for Defence shakes his head, but the Foreign Secretary was asked at the beginning of the debate whether contact had been made, and he said that it had not. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict the Foreign Secretary, I am sure the House would be delighted to hear that contact has been made and the content of it. The right hon. Gentleman does not rise. That suggests to the House that there has still been no contact.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who continues to speak about the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary as though no Minister from the

  589
  Ministry of Defence was present, has at last recognised that I will be replying to the debate, not the Foreign Secretary, who has gone back to Berlin.
  The Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Prime Minister intends to speak to Prime Minister Primakov. As far as I know, it has not yet been possible for that contact to be made. It takes two to make a telephone call. The Prime Minister will, I know, be speaking to Mr. Primakov.
  Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Had he been in the Chamber when I began my speech, he might have understood a little more of what I was saying. None the less, we are glad to see him now.
  In the light of the speeches that have been made, and as he is with us and willing to rise to speak, can the Defence Secretary tell us whether it is realistic to say that we will not use, in any circumstances, ground troops to make a peace? Can he tell us categorically not that the Government have no plans to use ground troops, but that they will not do so? Again, I give the Defence Secretary the opportunity to reply.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have had 18 minutes of this.
  Mr. Woodward: We are asking difficult questions, but they are also serious. Conservative Members support the Government, but the Government would do well to remember that two thirds of the 16,000 people involved in today's BBC poll were against military action in Serbia. Ministers would do well not to mock those Conservative Members who wish to lend their support, because they may find that the going is not always easy and that lives are lost. At those moments, they will be grateful for the House uniting behind them and not dividing against them.
  Mr. Coaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents, and mine, would think it indefensible if their Government and their Parliament stood aside from what they have seen on television? People are being massacred and driven out of their homes. Would not our constituents then say, "What are you doing about that?"?
  Mr. Woodward: In today's world, the greatest danger faced by anyone in any western democracy who is involved in defence and foreign affairs world is the cry from those who see pain, anguish and slaughter on their television sets. The response from viewers, rightly, is, "Something must be done." The danger for a Defence Secretary, a Foreign Secretary, a Prime Minister or a President is that there is a knee-jerk reaction and something is done.
  Mr. Coaker rose—
  Mr. Woodward: No, I will not give way again.
  The response in a number of conflicts around the world is, "Something must be done, so we'll do it." That ends up with soldiers coming home in body bags. This is not an easy situation for the Government; no Conservative
  590
  Member pretends that it is straightforward for the Government, but we ask for clarification and credibility for a policy that can be built and maintained if the public know where actions will lead, not where they may lead.
  We did not fight against the aggression of a Nazi dictator in the second world war because we thought that it might just lead to victory; we were fighting for victory, whatever the cost and whatever we would win. Such resolution is staunch. Having embarked on military action, is the Defence Secretary prepared to pay the price that must be paid to win and to prosecute the cause to its end—even if that means ground troops going in, not only to keep a peace but to make a peace—or is that a price that he would not pay?
  I am sorry that the Defence Secretary has to defer to the Foreign Secretary, but the Foreign Secretary went to Rambouillet. At its beginning, he told that conference that we would commit up to 8,000 troops to keep a peace. Does that offer still stand and are there any circumstances in which we may move from peacekeeping to peacemaking? The Foreign Secretary was absolutely clear in his statement and, if the Defence Secretary would like, we will find it for him. [Interruption.] Is the Defence Secretary intervening?
  Nothing could be more disastrous than the House dividing on this matter and the Government losing the support of the Opposition, but the Government should not take that support for granted. A lot of people up and down this country strongly believe that the actions taken last night are not justified and that British interests are not involved. Many of us—probably most of us—believe that taking action was the right thing to do, but the Government must be careful of their arrogance and their complacent treatment of the House to ensure that, over the next few days, they keep the entire House on their side.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) says that he supports the Government; to me, it sounded for all the world like the support that the rope gives the hanging man. Almost every Conservative Member, with certain honourable exceptions, has supported the Government in that vein.
  Tests of public opinion have been undertaken in the past 24 hours, although they have been limited. Telephone polls, vox pops carried out in the streets by the newspapers and telephone calls to Members of Parliament—as well as the empty green Benches behind me on the Government side of the House and the paucity of Government supporters who will enter the Lobby tonight to vote positively to support this war—all show that this is an enterprise that the British people are very reluctant indeed to support. That is at a time when the bombing has only just started and the action is at the apex of its popularity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, wars are always popular on the first day—when the first world war was declared, people hung out bunting, blew trumpets and marched to the enlistment offices—but war has a habit of swiftly turning sour.
  It is a funny old world. How things change. Several Conservative Members, notably the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark),

  591
  made clarion, powerful speeches. They argued powerfully for the centrality of the United Nations and for international legality, and against this war.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes the point well. Does he believe that, by bypassing the United Nations over this bombardment, the ability of NATO countries to have any influence over the UN in the future will be limited? Perhaps more seriously for the rest of the world, the UN will feel that it is impossible to intervene in any situation because NATO will act unilaterally and ignore its views.
  Mr. Galloway: It is my view—which again I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—that one of the main reasons why we are engaged in this operation is that an attempt is being made to substitute NATO for the United Nations. America cannot count on getting its way on each and every issue in the United Nations, but it is the overwhelmingly dominant partner, politically and militarily, in NATO.
  If people do not understand the anxieties of Russia about the burgeoning muscularity and expansionism of NATO, I refer them to the wonderful exchange on "Newsnight" this week between Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Paxman. Mr. Gorbachev was being pressed by Mr. Paxman on what he had to worry about from the expansion of NATO. Mr. Gorbachev replied, "Mr. Paxman, if you really don't understand why Russia is worried about the expansion of NATO, why on earth are you working for the BBC?" NATO, with this new-found role, is about to face de jure as well as de facto new realities. That is one of the reasons why we are having this debate.
  Once upon a time, Liberal Democrats were men who wore beards, sandals and long, woolly jumpers. They believed in the United Nations and they believed in peace. Increasingly, with each campaign, they come before us not in woolly jumpers but in ever-grander military uniforms. I give the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) this advice as a friend and an admirer—I even have money on him in a forthcoming contest. It is that the brass on his admiral's uniform is becoming ever-more blinding. I have watched with wonder the Liberal Democrats' mounting infatuation with matters Balkan over the past few years. They have followed the old man—the departing leader of the Liberal Democrat party—wherever he wanted to go. "War war" is the Liberal Democrat slogan. Another—we know this, because we were told so by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is "Vote Liberal for a European ground war". The Liberal Democrat party is the only party in the House that is openly calling for the insinuation of ground forces, including our own, into the morass that is the Balkan battleground.
  As I say, it is a funny old world, and we have seen it all this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, whom most would agree to be worthy of some respect, was heckled by an individual who was in the Chamber briefly, only to leave for a long period, only to come back. Perhaps he will heckle me next. He is an individual whose name most hon. Members would not even know.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: As a regular attender of the Chamber, I must say that I know that individual's name
  592
  perfectly well. I know his constituency, and I know that he comes here regularly. I do not think that he heckled the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); I think that he intervened in a perfectly respectable way, and was dismissed in a thoroughly irresponsible way.
  Mr. Galloway: No doubt, the hon. Member concerned will be greatly strengthened by the support that he has just received from a former Secretary of the Newham, North-East constituency Labour party. I am sure that he will find it very comforting.
  I appeal to my hon. Friends, in particular, to curb their tendency to go over the ball at right hon. and hon. Members who hold a different view from the majority of Members. This is an assembly of free men and women. It is not a football stadium to which people come with scarves and rattles to support their side, come what may, right or wrong. This is a free Parliament.
  Mr. McNulty: I will not bother to respond to the point about attendance, but I was not going over the ball. I was not at a football game. I asked what I thought to be an entirely genuine question—"What is the alternative?"—and I received no response other than further hot air.
  Mr. Galloway: I will not be drawn further down that road.
  This morning, The Independent reported—exaggeratedly, but it had a point—that I was jeered by my own side last night when I raised a point about the participation of German forces in the bombardment of Yugoslavia. The Independent was right, up to a point: I was jeered. Let me say this to my hon. Friends. Each of us must approach these matters through the portals of our own experience, and I have some experience—a little more than my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I venture to suggest—of the Balkans as an area, of its politics and of its history.
  For a short time, I was president of the British Albanian Society. Many years ago, I visited Kosovo with the former Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, Mr. Norris. On our return, Mr. Norris memorably said that most MPs did not know whether a Kosovar was something you ate, drank, licked or drove, and that was true.
  I have written a book about the Balkans—about Romania—and I have travelled widely there, so I think I have the right to put the point of view that I am about to put. I am against the operation for many reasons; some are legal, some political, but I wish to dwell on the practical. This is an operation that will not work: it will not achieve the ends that are claimed for it. I believe that it will not only fail to dispose of the age-oldcenturies-old—hatreds and enmities of the Balkans, but pour petrol on already dangerous flames. The operation is unbalanced and disproportionate.
  Let me deal first with the lack of balance. I made the point to the Deputy Prime Minister last night; he did not deal with it. Everyone has concentrated on the suffering and bloodshed in Kosovo. As I say, as someone who visited it long ago, I am second to no one in my concern about that, but one of the reasons why there is such suffering and bloodshed is that there is an armed separatist war going on in Kosovo.
  Mr. John Austin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: I shall later.

  593
  An armed separatist insurrection is going on in the territory of Serbia.
  Mr. Austin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: Let me develop my argument.
  Armed separatist rebellions are going on in many places. I could deal with them all day and night, but I will deal with just two. An armed separatist rebellion is going on in south-east Turkey. It has been for decades. About 13 million Kurds support, to a greater or lesser extent, the activities of the PKK, the armed separatist rebels in Turkey. Whether any of us support them or not is, for these purposes, irrelevant. No hon. Member is calling for a NATO bombardment of Turkey because it has dealt in the harshest possible way with that armed separatist rebellion, and that is not least because Turkey is a member of NATO and, indeed, its air bases are regularly used by NATO forces to fly punishment missions against other countries.
  It is accepted by all Governments, including the British Government, that Turkey has the right to fight to maintain its territorial integrity. I hazard a guess that, no matter how brutal and how bloody the Turkish Government's efforts to quell the Kurdish rebellion in the south-east of its territory become, there will be no international bombardment of Turkey to force it to desist. Still less will anyone call for British and other forces to invade Turkey and to establish a protectorate in its south-east provinces. I am willing to bet my salary for the rest of the time that I am in the House of Commons that no British Government will ever support such a call, but that is exactly what we are doing in the case of Kosovo.
  For all the crocodile tears that have been shed in the debate about the need for the Kosovars not to try to exploit the situation, or to push the boundaries out further, the Kosovo Liberation Army has a clear goal. Let me quote the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Hashim Thaci, in the newspapers this morning:
  "Independence of Kosovo will not come as soon as we hope. It all depends on our organising and on our fighting in Kosovo in the future."
  We have allowed ourselves to be hijacked as the air force of the Kosovo Liberation Army in its attempt to win separation for that territory from Serbia, which, in international law, possesses Kosovo.
  I do not deal with the extent to which I think the Milosevic Government have grotesquely exacerbated the national tensions in Serbia. When they cancelled—Milosevic himself made the decision—the autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo almost a decade ago, they set a clock ticking, and started a process that was bound to lead to the violence and bloodshed that we see today. I merely ask the British Government to take great care, because the arguments that they are advancing for intervening in the civil war in Yugoslavia will be advanced by others in other theatres and will, at best, show the Government to be guilty of double standards and, at worst, lead the Government into ever-more bloody and complicated territory.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not challenge for a moment the hon. Gentleman's right to make this sort of
  594
  speech. He and I have faced each other across the Chamber and in television and radio studios on many occasions where we have had robust exchanges and, I hope, always managed to respect each other's point of view. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case against intervention. What would be his alternative action or non-action? If he were presented with the right of decision and no bombing campaign had begun, what would be his proposal?
  Mr. Galloway: I shall come to that towards the end of my remarks. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is normal to put one's proposals at the end. I hope that he will have patience.
  Since television has been mentioned, I shall digress briefly. I have lost count of the number of people who have said today, in support of the action, that we had to do it because of what we saw on our television. That is an extraordinary notion. As the hon. Member for Witney made brilliantly clear, when we see something on our television, something must be done, even if that something makes matters worse. It leaves aside the reality that, when appalling suffering takes place in areas where television cameras are disinterested or find it difficult to reach, as in Rwanda—in Rwanda it was both—absolutely nothing will be done.
  The making of policy, and especially the making of war, is a hazardous business if it is to be predicated upon the scissors of the editor of "Newsnight" or the emotive commentary of Kate Adie. We must have a better basis for going to war and conducting international relations than that which is seen on our television screens.
  There are conflicts or humanitarian catastrophes—to use the vogue word—all over the globe and the Queen does not have enough soldiers to address every one of them. If we are to deal only with those that are thought televisual enough to make it on to the transitory editorial choices of the British or other media, we will be drawn into a very selective use of international force.
  When I hear that we must do this because we have to show NATO's credibility, I am reminded of nothing more than the arguments for the starting of the first world war in the very place that we are discussing today. The railway timetables were such that there was an inevitability about the need to go to war at that time. One should only take decisions about war and peace after the most serious evaluation and calculation of the effects of that war. It should not be because, if we did not go to war, somebody might argue that we did not have the cojones or the macho attributes referred to by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). We must have better reasons than that.
  Mr. Austin: A few moments ago, and last night when my hon. Friend put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, he gave the impression that the Serbian repression against the Kosovo Albanians was in response to a terrorist KLA separatist, secessionist movement. Given my hon. Friend's understanding of the history of the Balkans, will he accept that, under the Tito constitution, the Kosovars have their own federal assembly, their own separate representation in the federal presidency, their own national bank and supreme court—essentially internal autonomy with Serbia—all of which was taken away by Milosevic? When Ibrahim Rugova

  595
  tried, through constitutional means, to establish a civilian administration, which was successful for a while, it was greeted with repression and the full force of the Serbian forces long before the KLA had any legitimacy or support among the Kosovars?
  Mr. Galloway: Not only do I accept that, I said it a few moments ago, although not as eloquently as my hon. Friend—I mean that sincerely. Milosevic set the clock ticking with his decision to strip Vojvodina and Kosovo of their autonomy.
  That leads me neatly to my penultimate point. The break-up of Yugoslavia, including the process that led to the stripping of autonomy from the territories that I have mentioned, is the primary reason why we are discussing the issue today. When I mentioned German participation yesterday, it was not just because I wanted my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to imagine how it seems to Yugoslavs to see a German aeroplane dropping bombs on them, given the history of that territory in the lifetime of many people there and in this Chamber, but because Germany played a despicable role in the break-up of Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield was right. Mr. Genscher, once the permanent Foreign Secretary of the Federal Republic of Germany—a fellow Liberal of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife—boasted in his memoirs that his greatest achievement in politics was the break-up of Yugoslavia. That break-up unleashed all the dark, sleeping forces of ethnic hatred and rancid nationalism that have emerged out of the swamp of the Balkans and are eating each other up.
  On the admirable Nicky Campbell's programme on Radio 5 this morning, the airwaves were blocked with people of Serbian background and people of Albanian background phoning in. The hatred that they felt for each other was so poisonous and so violently expressed that it would have given even the most gung-ho supporter of the Government's policy second thoughts. When a civil war is as complex, deep and full of hatred as this one, intervening on one side—as we have done—has to be fraught with danger.
  My final point—I shall put my proposals soon—is that the Government are making a big mistake taking Russia for granted. I beg them not to be complacent about Russia. They should not imagine that Russia's poverty will make it comply with whatever the west decides. That poverty and instability make Russia a potentially ultra-dangerous feature of the equation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seemed to say today that, because he had offered the Russians money to deal with the Arctic fleet, they would go along with our actions and return to business as usual. If he did not mean that, I apologise, but, if he did, it is a dangerous argument.
  Dark forces stalk the streets of Russia, too. Russian nationalism is on the march, not only in the Duma and the Kremlin's corridors of power but, most importantly in the streets, in the ranks of the millions of unemployed and under-employed and in the ranks of the army, which feels humiliated and underpaid, maybe even unpaid, with weapons that may not be dependable and with an uncertain future.
  No one should underestimate the strength of the Russian people's association with Serbia. They are co-religionists, with a common culture and strong
  596
  historical ties. Even now, Russian citizens will be volunteering to go to the front line of the struggle. It is only a matter of time before the Russian Government are prevailed on to break the so-called embargo. The idea that there can still be an arms embargo on Serbia when 13 countries are bombing it is ludicrous, as is the idea that there can be non-intervention by Russia when there is massive intervention by those countries.
  People say that negotiation was tried and talks went on ad nauseam, but negotiation was not properly tried, as NATO wanted to keep Russia out of the equation because it wants a NATO-imposed pax Americana. There will be no solution without negotiation and no meaningful negotiation until the Russians are brought into the centre of the process.
  Instead of sending German troops to police the peace in Kosovo, we should consider sending thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Russian troops. The process will not be a peace process if it leads to the dismemberment of Serbia, which will never accept the removal of Kosovo from its territory—if we were in Serbia' s shoes, neither would we.
  We run the risk of unleashing even more dark forces in Serbia and Kosovo. In the pause between the bombing, there will be more bloodshed, not less. The more bombing there is, the more bloodshed there will be. The greater the risk of collateral and civilian damage, the more pressure there will be from the real hard-liners in Serbia. If hon. Members think that Milosevic is the worst that Serbia has to offer, they have not looked closely at Serbian politics. The real hard-liners will unsheathe their swords and a terrible, terrible night will have begun.
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received a wire from Reuters, saying that the Italian Government say that the Serbs have suspended the offensive in Kosovo following the strike and that it is time for fresh diplomacy. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten us on whether that is true.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that the whole House heard the hon. Lady.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: We have heard some passionate and powerful speeches, not least from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), in an excellent debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members appear to have firm views and a clear understanding of what they believe should be the solution. I do not know what the solution to the problems of the Balkans is, and I suspect that the House, which has been grappling with those problems for the best part of 100 years, does not know either.
  It has been said about Ireland that, in 1914, we were discussing the fields and steeples of Fermanagh and South Tyrone when the great tide of the first world war rose up and drowned the steeples, and that, as the war ended, the water subsided and the same steeples and fields of Fermanagh and South Tyrone emerged again to exercise the House. The same could be said of the Balkans. We have been discussing these issues from Gladstone onwards. Frankly, none of us has any solutions. One of the most charming speeches made today was by the hon.

  597
  Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), who spoke with great humility and from the heart, and did not pretend to have a solution.
  I want to sound a few warnings. I want to follow up what the hon. Member for Kelvin said about Russia. I do not claim to be an expert on the Balkans, but I am married to an Orthodox half-Russian. Over the years, I have come to know a little about the Russian soul and psyche. I give a solemn warning to the House and to the Government; they must not underestimate the intense pan-Orthodox and pan-Slavic feeling in Russia today. We may find it hard to understand, whether we are religious or not, but the Orthodox faith is a national faith of the Slavic people. We may be unleashing a tiger that we cannot control.
  The House should not underestimate the intense feeling in the Russian soul at present that their nation has been utterly humiliated in the past 10 years. There are extraordinary parallels between Russia today and the Weimar republic. We should not underestimate the intense humiliation in Russia caused by the fact that Ukraine, which the Russians feel to be a part of their soul and of their country—it is known as "little Russia" in Russia—has been taken from them. It may be obvious, but we are embarking on something dangerous.
  I cannot match the experience of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but in my 16 years in the House of Commons, I have not known such a grave moment. I have studied the history, and I have never known the House of Commons to be so disunited on the day after we have declared war. It is a pity that we did not have the debate before, but nobody could claim that the House of Commons is united in supporting the Government's action. This is a grave and serious issue.
  I want to try to be constructive, as well as sending a warning. The only country that has any influence with the Serbian leadership is Russia; Russia is the key. Unless the Government, the American Government and NATO can engage the Russian Government speedily, we could be embarking on a dangerous course.
  I do not take sides between Croats and Serbs—I am completely neutral. However, no one should underestimate Serb sentiment and determination. We are not dealing with an Arab conscript, sent into the desert to try to invade some oil wells. We are dealing with a people who believe in their heart of hearts and with an absolute passion that Kosovo is an integral part of their homeland. We may dismiss the view, but they believe that, for centuries, they have stood on the frontier of Christendom. We may think it ridiculous to think in terms of history all the time, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North said that we should think of the present. Of course; but if we are to understand the situation, we must understand what motivates the Serb people whom we are now bombing.
  I am afraid that those who ignore history will receive an unpleasant lesson. Every single Serb schoolboy and schoolgirl knows that in 1389, in the Battle of Kosovo Polje, the Serb forces were defeated and, as a result, the country was overrun by the Ottomans in 1459. It may seem extraordinary that we are talking about that, but that is what they believe. Every single Serb schoolboy and schoolgirl knows what Prince Lazar said as he went into that battle:
  "It is better to die in battle than to live in shame. Better it is for us to accept death from the sword in battle than to offer our shoulders to the enemy."
  598
  It is not a question of good guys and bad guys. There have been the most appalling atrocities committed by both sides. However, the Serb nation has a greater responsibility; I do not deny that for a moment.
  We must understand that it was intensely controversial in Serbia when Kosovo was given autonomy in 1974. Serbian writers claim that up to 200,000 ethnic Serbians had to leave Kosovo. It is true that Kosovo is dominated nowadays by ethnic Albanians, but it was not always so. The people of the Serbian nation believe that they are being forced to leave their own homeland. The House may not like that point of view, but the Serbians believe it, and that is why they will never surrender that part of their nation.
  Mr. Tyrie: It is true that that point of view is strongly held in Belgrade. It is also true, however, that the Serbs left Kosovo in an economic migration to a higher standard of living, largely in Belgrade. They did not leave as a result of any forced emigration caused by the Albanian community.
  Mr. Leigh: A memorandum that has been widely distributed in Serbia talks of ethnic Serbians having been massacred, raped and forced out of their homes. It may be overblown; it probably is, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the prime motivation may have been economic migration. However, the Serbians believe that they are gradually being eased out of their own homeland. We must recognise that point. If we fail to do so, we shall never make progress.
  Kosovars—the ethnic Albanians, that is—are not being offered an independent Kosovo. They are being offered autonomy. That is not in itself some simple solution on which western politicians can all agree. Autonomy is highly controversial to the Serbian people.
  I want to speak briefly about international law. It is obvious that there is no justification for this action under international law.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Leigh: I have heard what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said, but there is no justification under international law for bombing a sovereign state because one is horrified by what is being done within that state's boundaries.
  Mr. Campbell: Is it the hon. Gentleman's opinion that no matter what the nature of the enormity being inflicted by a Government on their people may be, there will never be circumstances in which intervention would be justified?
  Mr. Leigh: I was talking about international law, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman returns with an argument that I must accept. Let me put it to one side, however, while I continue to talk about international law.
  We are creating a new international law—one that proclaims the point of view advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If we accept that new international law, we must ensure that we are not accused of hypocrisy. We must enforce the new international law that there should be no hiding place for dictators or for Governments who oppress their people. We must enforce that new law fairly and equally throughout the world.

  599
  What has gone on in Turkey throughout this century? What happened to the Armenians? What happened to the Kurds? I submit that what happened in those cases is of far greater barbarity and horror than even the horrors inflicted on the Kosovar Albanians. The hypocrisy of our debate—what I find utterly sickening—is that people are dressing themselves up in moral outrage on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians, but they are not prepared to intervene to help the Kurds because Turkey is too powerful and too useful to the western alliance.
  By all means, create a new international law, but be fair. Do not forget what is happening in Africa. Do not think that because these people are Europeans, we should be concerned about them, but not about the massacres in Africa. We know that this new international law will never happen. We do not have the will or the resources.
  We are going wrong because there is a feeling that we are dealing with an appalling dictator, a Hitler figure, who will try to eject the Albanian population entirely or murder them. I make no apologies for the Serbian leadership, but I assure the House that the people in those villages have lived together for centuries. If we blunder in, we could make the situation much worse. I believe that we have, by our blundering, our lack of will and our in-out approach, made the situation in Bosnia far worse.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend deny the reality of the massacres in Bosnia or Kosovo, or that Milosevic is responsible for them?
  Mr. Leigh: Of course not. I do not defend Milosevic in any way. I do not deny what is going on. I am saying that we must not assume that if we do nothing, the massacres will continue and the entire population that has existed there for centuries will be evicted. That is extraordinary reasoning.
  The massacres and difficulties could be exacerbated by outside pressure. The Serbian army has 239 M84 tanks, 65 T72 tanks, 785 T55 tanks and 181 T34 tanks. The safest place for those tanks now is in the Kosovar villages. We could make the situation far worse by intervening in this way.
  No one can say what will happen if bombing fails to change the Serbian leadership's mind. It is absurd for the Liberal party to suggest that we can turn Kosovo into a protectorate, and that the British Army, which is already 86 per cent. committed—committed to a greater extent than at any other stage of its peacetime history—could enforce a peace on the ground in a wooded, hilly area against one of the toughest fighting peoples in the world. The area is like Wales, not an empty desert. I cannot believe that the Liberal party, with all its fine traditions—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Oh, come on.
  Mr. Leigh: What are the Liberals trying to convince the House of? We all know that the British Army will never be committed to this area in any event. We all know that this is fundamentally an exercise in hypocrisy. What is so moral about being prepared to bomb from the air and use cruise missiles, inevitably killing some innocent civilians? How is it moral to bomb from afar, but not be prepared to send our people to enforce the peace? I do not believe that there is any morality in that.
  600
  It is true that we have intervened before. In 1914, we were prepared to go to war to help the Belgians; in 1939, to help the Poles; in 1990, to help the Kuwaitis; in 1982, to help the people of the Falklands. In all those cases, we were prepared to commit our ground troops. We had the moral strength, the feeling of outrage and the determination to commit our own people on the ground to enforce just solutions.
  Even in Iraq—and I had grave doubts about bombing that country—there was a military plan in place. I hate the term "degrading capability"; I prefer to say that we are "at war". At least in Iraq we were trying to bomb chemical facilities and possible nuclear installations. What are we bombing in Yugoslavia? If Milosevic is determined to ethnically cleanse the Kosovar people, he does not need tanks or chemical weapons. He has 30,000 troops on the ground, but he would need only a few gendarmes. We cannot bomb just these people. The House of Commons must be prepared to send Britain to war and to endorse the action on the ground—but we cannot do it. Therefore, this action is the most grotesque hypocrisy.
  I shall end as I started: with Russia. In an attempt to make ourselves feel better, we are putting at risk the world order and our friendship with Russia. The House of Commons should have had an opportunity to vote on this action before we sent in our aeroplanes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must make an appeal for shorter speeches if many more hon. Members are to be heard in the time remaining.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: If I must be brief, I shall start by reminding the House that I represent Westminster on NATO's parliamentary assembly. I am vice-president of that assembly and vice-chairman of its defence and security committee. I am a member of the joint monitoring group that oversees the work of the permanent joint council, which is a channel directly between NATO and Russia. In addition, I am the special rapporteur on the reform of the Russian armed services and special rapporteur on the reform of the Ukrainian armed forces.
  I am very dissatisfied with this debate. We have heard one or two good speeches, but an awful lot of ignorance has been displayed. There has been a stream of invalid comparisons, sloppy logic and selective historical references. That angers me because we are discussing serious issues.
  It is grotesquely inaccurate to say that these matters have not been debated. Ten months ago, I took part in a Rose-Roth seminar held at Lake Ohrid in Macedonia, which was attended by senior politicians and diplomats from every Balkan country. Someone said that Russia has not been involved in the discussions, but I must tell the House that Russia was very well represented at that meeting. I discussed these issues with Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was Russian deputy Prime Minister under Chernomyrdin; with Volotnikov, a very influential Communist; and with General Popkovitch and other people who carry real weight in Russia.
  The dialogue has continued for months. The Kosovars who attended the seminar in Macedonia were split down the middle: one half wanted autonomy and the other half wanted independence. When we attended the Organisation

  601
  for Security and Co-operation in Europe parliamentary assembly 10 days later, one Kosovar on the rostrum was arguing with another on the floor of the hall. They yelled abuse at each other in much the same way as some hon. Members have done today.
  One of the problems is that the Kosovars have not spoken with one voice. Milosevic had the voice, and he still does. There has been much talk, quite properly, about Serbian heroism in world war II and comparisons have been made with the Milosevic regime. Such comparisons are entirely invalid and inaccurate. Mention has been made of Germans and the Luftwaffe. That is entirely wrong because Germany is now a democratic nation—what is more, it is part of NATO.
  That brings me to the essential point. We have talked today about the fact that the Prime Minister and the British Government have declared war. They have done nothing of the kind. They have engaged in a collective action in compliance with a decision that was taken collectively by NATO—a treaty organisation of which we have been a member for 50 years. We cannot turn around and walk away from our treaty obligations. After protracted negotiations with Milosevic and after his successive breaches of faith, the collective wisdom of NATO was that the only way to stop the slaughter was to take this action. I do not like that; however, although it is regrettable, it is necessary.
  I remind the House of my comments the other day; the bombing did not start last night, but months ago. When the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) tells the House of Serbian culture and of the Serbs' determination and commitment to go on until the end, I am well aware of that because I have seen Serbs kissing the bombs as they put them into the field mortars. They sent those bombs sailing on to some defenceless community across the valley, who had no weapons of that calibre to fire back.
  We must be sensible and realistic. It is no good trying to force the dialogue that has been called for today. I get a bit sick of hon. Members wringing their hands and parading their consciences in the Chamber, while people are being shot in the back of the head. Those people are not combatants, but old women and young boys. Combat did not matter to the 20 people who were found slaughtered in a gully. They were not killed because they were engaging in combat; they were killed because they were of the wrong ethnic origin and the wrong religion.
  We can make nice legal points about why we should or should not take this action, but, frankly, I do not want to take part in that debate. We cannot allow slaughter to go on in that state. It is utterly wrong. The approach adopted by NATO is to disarm the major weaponry of the Yugoslavian army. The tanks mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough may well prove to be a problem to the KLA and it is true that NATO's air strikes may be providing cover for the KLA, but they are also providing cover for those who are not members of the KLA. The Serbian tanks could well be taken out by Apache Longbows in the fullness of time; I hope that does not happen, but it is a military reality that it could easily be done. Technologically, there is no comparison whatever between the NATO strike capability and that of
  602
  the Serbians. The Serbian communications networks will be in a mess now, and their logistic routes will not be as easy as they were.
  I do not know what the reaction will be to the reports on the wires—which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has told us about—that Mr. Milosevic has announced the cessation of his action in Kosovo. That is one bonus. We must hope that he goes a little further and signs the agreement that was on the table in Rambouillet, as he should have done originally.
  NATO has allowed itself to be conned. The KLA was prepared to sign the Rambouillet agreement for autonomy only, even though its members wanted independence. I have no doubt that the KLA agreed to sign that agreement to put Milosevic in an embarrassing situation. I discussed those matters with General Klaus Naumann, who chairs the military committee. General Naumann and General Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander, spent more than 20 hours face to face with Milosevic, trying to talk sense to him. Naumann came away from that meeting convinced that Milosevic needed armed intervention to protect himself from his own electorate in the event of his making concessions to the Kosovar demands. I do not know whether that is true, but it was Naumann's analysis and I have heard many other senior commentators express similar views. If that proves to be true, I shall be hugely relieved, and I am sure that the rest of the House will be as well. The fact that Milosevic has called a cessation of the action might indicate that there is some substance to that analysis. I pray to God that there is.
  What worries me far more is the long-lasting effect of all this. In our dealings with Russian representatives, not at the most senior level, as that is the privilege of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, but at the middle level, we have found huge suspicion of NATO. We must recognise that and understand the reasons for it. We have been their declared enemies for 50 years and only in the past 10 years have we begun to stretch out a hand in friendship. The Russians have great difficulty believing that NATO is not an offensive organisation. Only in the past eight months have we begun to get them to accept that the whole logic and purpose of NATO now is to create a collective security architecture for a Europe that includes them. What is most sad about the current circumstances and the response that we have had to make to Mr. Milosevic's madness is that our task in explaining NATO to the Russians may well have been lengthened.
  The Russian side of the joint monitoring group contacted me yesterday, asking for a statement and a meeting. They wanted the meeting to be in Brussels yesterday afternoon, but they only contacted me at lunchtime, so it was somewhat difficult to arrange—it sounds funny, but it is deadly serious. The suggestion was made that they should meet us in Dresden on Sunday morning. They replied that they would meet us then if no bombs had been dropped, so that meeting has gone by the board. I only hope and pray that the next time we meet them, on 16 April—at NATO headquarters, funnily enough, if they do not call it off—we shall be able to redeem the situation with them, hopefully having in the meantime redeemed it with Mr. Milosevic.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I had not intended to speak in the debate. Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), I realise that, when our

  603
  armed forces are in action, it is time to support, not to criticise. That is why I say again that this debate should have taken place months ago. However, I struggled with my conscience and decided that I had to speak out.
  We have heard some excellent speeches from all sides of the argument—speeches that were full of knowledge and emotion. The debate has thrown up some strange alliances: between the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and between my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). I, too, should speak out. I regard myself as patriotic, but that does not mean that I can allow things to be done that I believe are profoundly misguided.
  I can claim to have some knowledge of the subject, having studied Serbo-Croat language, literature and history for five years at London university. In those days, Serbo-Croat was a single language, but such is the bitterness and animosity in that region that the one language I studied is now regarded as three. I remember coming to a Committee Room of the House of Commons 20 years ago to listen to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—his constituency was further south at that time—address the British-Yugoslav friendship society. I studied briefly at Belgrade university and at Pristina, and I have visited Yugoslavia many times, albeit not in recent years.
  I have been rebuked several times by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence for referring to history. I understand that we must always look forward, but in that region—perhaps more than in any other region on our continent—history is deep in the heart of the people.
  I am bitterly opposed to the regime of President Milosevic, and, for several years, I have been the treasurer of the Friends of B92, which supports the independent radio station in Belgrade that has been highly critical of that regime. One result of the action has been that the radio station has been closed down and its editor, Veran Matic, detained.
  Why, then, do I have misgivings? I could echo many of the statements that have already been made, but I do not want to detain the House. It is profoundly dangerous to attack an independent sovereign country. As we have heard, the problem, however unpleasant it is to witness, is essentially a civil war. I am not a lawyer and I cannot speak about international law, but it seems that the UN has given the operation no legitimacy. Above all, if we in this country stand for anything, we stand for upholding the law, including international law. Making the rules for ourselves because we know best is a dangerous precedent for any country to set. No national interest of ours has been threatened.
  I doubt that the operation will have the desired effect, although I was heartened by the reports that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) read out, and I sincerely hope that they are true. If they are true, and the situation has changed, I have been wrong, and I shall admit that.
  None of us can be anything but moved by the pictures of slaughter that we see in the newspapers and, in particular, on the television screen. A few weeks ago, a Kosovo lady who lives over here and who is married to an English man came to see me in my surgery, and
  604
  powerfully put her case for intervention. She showed me pictures of her family in Pristina trying to live a normal family life. As I have a young family, I found that disturbing, but I think that the action that will take place will only make the situation worse.
  As I said, I hope that those who, like me, have serious misgivings—we have heard many hon. Members express them—are proved wrong. Today, our thoughts must be not only for our service men and women, but for the victims of war, because in war there are only losers.
  5.58 pm
  Laura Moffatt: It is difficult to imagine how a woman living in Belgrade is feeling this evening and the horror that she must be going through. The tension in the House reveals what a difficult issue we face today.
  Many of us have been gently rebuked for not having an historical basis for our contribution, but it is difficult for us to get to grips with many of the issues. The situation reminds me of an old joke in which somebody is asked whether he or she was going to a particular place and is then told, "Well, I wouldn't have started from here." This is a difficult issue and we must deal with the present situation, which is extremely severe.
  I do not have any doubt that there is a mandate. I do not have any difficulty acknowledging that we are able to act collectively, or that there are humanitarian United Nations resolutions to enable us to do so. I have no doubt that the members of NATO are entirely united on this action. I do not share the views of some of my hon. Friends that the involvement of the German air force is negative. For many people, it is positive. We should be celebrating it as an example of how we can come together after years of conflict.
  One thing that we do know, and on which we are all united, is that there is no question but that the violence against Kosovar Albanians must stop. The international community has no right to stand by and allow what we have seen to go on. Many hon. Members have said, "Well, we do not intervene here; we do not intervene there," but that does not make it okay for us not to do anything today in Kosovo, which is the big issue. How do we have the right to put at risk the fledgling democracies in the surrounding area, which are just beginning to emerge in their own right, by asking them to absorb the trouble and difficulty? We must assist them and ensure that we are there for them. The wider implications must be taken into account.
  Many hon. Members do not share my view that the act of taking collective action is an inevitability. I very much respect and understand their view. The Select Committee on Defence visited Russia just last week; we were with members of the Duma for much of the week. I felt their pain and anger at the action, and, in the few days that we spent with them, I heard people saying that we must choose another way and that reaction is not an inevitability. I take heart from that. I have heard very negative comments in this debate about the Russian reaction. I very much hope that, at the end of this terrible experience, we will be able to come together again.
  I have been so heartened by what I have seen while serving on the Defence Committee. Committee members have looked at the "Partnership for Peace" in Brussels, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—SHAPE—

  605
  and how NATO member states work closely together. One realises as a result that a difference can be made, that there can be a different way forward.
  What would I do if I were one of the poor women in Belgrade? What would I do if I were just a Serbian woman who was trying to get by and make a living? I have sons and feel very angry about what is happening, but I do not receive any free information. Nobody tells me both sides of the story; I do not hear the wonderful history to which I have listened in this debate. I receive only the information that is fed to me by the Government. I am told only of the 14th-century history that makes it so important that we go to war in a barbaric reaction to events. I cannot even hear an independent radio station, because it has been closed down. All I have is the World Service or, if I am lucky enough to be in a hotel room, BBC World.
  Mr. Randall: I believe that the independent television station TV Studio B is still broadcasting.
  Laura Moffatt: It is extremely good news to hear that there is still one station left, but that does not compare for one moment with the information here that enables me, as a mother, to make decisions. We should be concerned about that. There is no question but that I would be brainwashed if I were in Belgrade.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the contents of the Belgrade newspapers tomorrow morning? Will the citizens of Belgrade be able to hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?
  Laura Moffatt: That is a lovely point well made, and I shall let it stand as it is.
  I do not share the depressing feeling that things cannot work in Russia. As full members of the Contact Group, they have been there for us. The situation is not irretrievable.
  We must remember all those who took part in efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement—the United States envoy, Richard Holbrooke, our Foreign Secretary, and all those involved in the talks at Rambouillet, who tried to make sure that the debate went on. They must have heavy hearts today. We must let them know that we understand their feelings and support the work that they did. We must thank them for persuading the Kosovars that they could sign up to the agreement. However, we cannot allow the Kosovar people that they can now do what they like. They, too, must make sacrifices. Those who tried to bring about an agreement have not failed. It is the Belgrade Government who have failed.
  I have a message for the poor people in Belgrade, especially the women, who must wonder what is happening to them. I have three precious sons of my own. A few months ago, one of them came home and announced that he was going to join the Territorial Army. I was so pleased for him, because I believed that he was doing it for the right reasons. He would improve his skills and make new friends, and more important, he was going to offer himself as a reserve for what I believe to be one
  606
  of the best armed forces in the world. We should salute the work that they do, as many hon. Members have done in the House today.
  If I were a woman in Belgrade and my son came to me and said that President Milosevic wanted him to sign up—as he is asking a million men to do—to go to Kosovo and continue that hideous work, what would I say as a parent? My view would be entirely different, of course. I say to the women in Belgrade, "Do not allow your children to be used in such a way by such an evil regime. Do not allow that to happen. We did not give birth to those children to allow them to be used by people who have no understanding of the human rights of others."
  It is important that those messages get through. We must tell ordinary people throughout Yugoslavia that they are free people who can make up their own minds. I have little doubt that they would also like to get rid of the regime. We can have a free Europe only when there are equal partners in Europe. We cannot allow action such as we have witnessed to take place in our part of the world. That must not happen. I am proud that we have taken action collectively to try to stop it.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but there have been so many interesting speeches—some of which I will comment on obliquely in my remarks—that I decided to participate. It is sad that we did not have the chance to have this debate earlier, and are having it now, while military action is taking place. Several speakers made that point.
  Everyone is agreed that Milosevic is an extremely nasty piece of work. He is responsible for the collapse of Yugoslavia, with his bid to form a Greater Serbia. He bears more responsibility than anyone else for the terrible events in Bosnia. It was the Serbs who began the policy of mass ethnic cleansing, which has been the most abhorrent feature of the events in former Yugoslavia over the past few years. We could, and I believe probably should, have tried to stop Milosevic earlier. We should have taken the Bosnian action that we took much sooner than we did.
  On Kosovo, it is a tragedy that, for 10 years, the Kosovars had been practising peaceful resistance to the Serbs, and that they were ignored by the west. Rugova, a man who believed in peaceful resistance, has lost the argument with his people. He argued that, if the Kosovars carried on pursuing his peaceful line, the west would eventually come to their aid, but the west did not come until violence by the Serbs radicalised the Kosovar community. Only when the violence escalated was the west prepared to act. Now that the west has acted, the credibility of the western alliance is on the line. We should back our forces. We have no alternative but to back this action and to see it through as best we can. Operations are under way, so the legal and institutional issues—whether the war is just and whether there is a sufficient body of international law to justify intervention on humanitarian grounds—scarcely matter. The issue is whether we can succeed in these operations and achieve our objectives.
  On Tuesday, the Prime Minister cited two objectives. The first was an humanitarian objective, which he defined more closely by saying that we had to deplete the Yugoslav army to the point where it could no longer

  607
  continue with the oppression. He put forward a second objective only in response to questions. Referring to other parts of the Balkan region, he said:
  "The best insurance against the spread of conflict is to take precisely the action that we are taking. We know from bitter experience that we cannot afford such instability on the borders of Europe."—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 165.]
  In other words, the Prime Minister was positing the geopolitical objective of arresting and hoping to prevent the spread of conflict.
  My deep concern is that, although we have the best of intentions, military action will not achieve either objective. The risk is that it will increase suffering, lead to greater displacement of people and perhaps even increase ethnic cleansing. I find even more worrying the prospect that, also with the best of intentions, we may increase the risk of conflict spreading to neighbouring countries, particularly Macedonia.
  Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we are sending entirely the wrong message to Russia? The North Atlantic treaty has been very effective and its fifth article spells out the fact that NATO forces will engage only in defence of our mutual interests, but we are witnessing the phenomenon of NATO acting offensively at a time when central and eastern European countries are joining NATO. What message does that send to Russia?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a lengthy intervention.
  Mr. Tyrie: The wider issues of the west's relations with those countries that could still pose a medium-term threat to our security are crucial. Foremost among them are our relations with Russia. I will say a few words about that later, but I want to discuss Macedonia.
  Macedonia, which sits just to the south of Kosovo, is the only country of former Yugoslavia to succeed in breaking away without recourse to conflict. Furthermore, it has a large ethnic Albanian minority—about a third of the population. When Macedonia broke away and became independent, the view was widely held that it would be impossible for it to sustain that independence, but, under extremely skilled and wise leadership from Gligorov, it has succeeded.
  Macedonia has not only succeeded in remaining independent and preventing incursions by its neighbours—it has not been swallowed up by them, as many predicted—but prevented ethnic conflict domestically, by integrating the Albanian community into the process of government. Macedonia deserves the highest possible praise for what it has achieved politically. I am deeply concerned about one possible repercussion of our action: if Serbia made an attempt to get at western forces based in Macedonia, Macedonia could be dragged slowly into a wider southern Balkan conflict. If that were to happen, the destabilisation of the whole of the southern Balkans would become an extremely unpleasant prospect. The Greeks have made clear their determination to take a view, possibly a military view, should Macedonia collapse. The Bulgarians have held a claim on Macedonia way back to the mid-19th century and the treaty of San Stefano. Leaders in Bulgaria from time to time make bellicose remarks about Macedonia. It is widely believed that the Bulgarian secret service was behind the assassination attempt on Gligorov a few years ago, which almost killed him.
  608
  People have asked, "What other option was there?" There were other options besides the policy that we are pursuing. One would have been to act earlier against Milosevic. Another would have been to try, even now, to guard against the spread of the conflict to Macedonia and to prevent further destabilisation of Albania. The opportunity for those options is fast passing with this military action. We must all hope that the campaign that is under way succeeds in its objectives, even if many of us share doubts about whether they are achievable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to Russia. In the long run, all of us in the west must pay much greater attention to the dangers that have come with the hurt pride, the inflamed nationalism and the anti-western sentiment that we have stirred up in Serbia. We must all recognise that Serbia is a microcosm of parts of the east where people feel that they were the losers from the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war; biggest among those is Russia.
  Almost everyone in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union feels that they were gainers. The Asian republics of the former Soviet Union feel that they were gainers. Ukraine and the Baltic republics think that they were gainers. Russia, which is a deeply nationalistic country with a long and proud history, feels itself to be a big loser. We must recognise that, when a country as important and as large as Russia feels that its national interest has been damaged and its pride has been hurt, it may react.
  The skill with which the west approaches what I believe will be a growing problem in the longer run—of dealing with Russia and an increased need to recognise its sensitivities—and the skill with which the west manages the problems of the rest of the former Soviet Union are big issues. Such issues lie behind the enmity that we have witnessed in the past few days. For the moment, we must deal with a smaller country that has also lost its empire, feels deeply aggrieved and is determined to hang on to what it considers and has always considered to be part of its territory: Kosovo.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Time is short, so I shall be brief and discard most of my prepared speech.
  The military intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a source of great sadness. It has come about because of the racist, nationalist leadership in Belgrade and its internal security police, who continue to engage in ethnic cleansing.
  My central point is that, as we start a new century and a new millennium, we must try to halt the rise in holocausts. If the United Nations will not do that, someone else must. Cambodia and Rwanda have been dreadful stains on the international community.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cohen: No, I cannot.
  Like the Nazi slaughter of the Jews, what happened in Cambodia and Rwanda was a dreadful stain on the international community. There is a genuine baseline for human rights and humanitarian action under international law, but it must be strengthened. The international criminal court is an important start, but NATO states must become more fully democratic and uphold human rights.

  609
  The issue of sovereignty is regarded as inviolate, even when such atrocities occur. Holocausts and humanitarian disasters take place in some countries, but there is no external intervention. I would compare the sovereignty of states with the sovereignty that the head of a household had a hundred years ago. The man of the house could beat his wife and abuse his children and the rest of society would do nothing. Even a decade ago it was not illegal for a man to rape his wife. That domestic sovereignty was inviolate, just like international sovereignty is now. Women and children were considered second-class citizens. In Kosovo, the majority of Kosovar Albanians are treated as worse than second-class citizens.
  I believe that the use of humanitarian human rights to prevent holocausts should be placed on a par with sovereignty in international law. War makes me sick, but we must stand up to ethnic cleansing.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John Maples: Nothing I have heard today has changed my view that in Mr. Milosevic we are dealing with an extremely evil person leading an extremely evil regime. He has ruined the chances of a peaceful transition in the Balkans over the past 10 years, and he has ruined the prospects for his own country. He has committed vile crimes in Bosnia, and they are beginning to be repeated in Kosovo. For that reason, we support the efforts that the Government have made over the past year to stop what is happening, and to bring long-term peace to the Balkans. We support the air campaign which, as I understand it, has been designed to force Mr. Milosevic to conclude the agreements that we have negotiated in France, and to desist from the atrocities in Kosovo.
  Emotions have run high on both sides of the debate, however, and I do not think that emotions should be allowed to dictate a great nation's foreign policy. I have some questions to ask the Government, which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to answer. I want us all to be able to understand the Government's strategy better.
  This has been one of the best debates in which I have participated. We have heard widely differing views, strongly and sometimes passionately expressed. We have heard different views from members of the same party. We have heard passionate speeches opposing the Government's policy from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).
  We have heard equally passionate speeches supporting the Government from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). Difficult questions were raised in the thoughtful speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward), for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). We have heard speeches supporting and opposing the Government's policy across and within parties.
  As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, the debate has featured a very selective use of history, but I do not want to go into that. I think that it is time to look
  610
  forward, and to spend a little time examining the Government's aims and the methods that they have chosen to employ. Those who have spoken passionately in favour of the Government's cause have a dilemma, in that those who are in favour of their policy are actually in favour of the removal of the Milosevic regime. I think that they must acknowledge that that is not likely to be achieved merely with air power. Those who are against the Government's policy—in some cases, for very good and solid reasons—have no answer to the question, "What would you do about the atrocities that are being committed in Kosovo?". That seems to me to be the central issue between the two sides, and in the debate generally.
  There is a moral dimension to the issue. We all want to stop suffering anywhere in the world if we can. If we knew that we could stop things like this easily, we would of course do so. In his explanation of Government policy, the Prime Minister has made a great deal of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, and it is true that it is awful: the pictures that we see are appalling and distressing, and make us all want to do something about the situation. However, a great many similar crises are taking place in the world, in a great many other places. They do not reach our television screens; perhaps they are happening a long way away, in a continent of which we know nothing. There are no calls for western troops to become involved in those crises. What happened in Chechnya five or six years ago was an almost exact parallel with what is happening in Kosovo, but there was no question of our intervening there. We must be careful about how far we carry the issue of moral obligation.
  Mr. Benn: Chechnya is a good example. Whether or not there was any prospect of it, there is no doubt that the Russians believed that the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe might at some stage involve an intervention in the Russian Federation.
  Mr. Maples: I would love to debate the future of NATO with the right hon. Gentleman some time, but I will not let myself be distracted now.
  Last night, the Minister of State said on television that there was a duty, or an obligation, to intervene to prevent humanitarian disaster. I think that there must be more than that for a Government to intervene: there must be a real issue of national interest as well. In the case of Kosovo, it is a question of the stability, or otherwise, of the Balkans. Is there a danger of the crisis in Kosovo leading to a wider war? I would be interested in the Secretary of State's view of how the situation might develop. Do we still think that a flood of refugees into Macedonia might destabilise that country? Do we think that the demands for a Greater Albania might cause problems in the region?
  There was until recently a United Nations force in Macedonia that was designed to stop that destabilisation. Its authority from the United Nations has been removed. What do we do now? Does the Secretary of State think that, in the long run, there is a serious possibility that the conflict might draw in Turkey and Greece? That is a central issue.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Chichester have raised the question of relations with Russia, which have obviously been badly damaged by the decision to begin bombing. Russia cannot be

  611
  allowed to veto NATO action. We cannot allow it to say what is, or is not, in our interest and how we should pursue it. At the same time, our relations with Russia are extremely important and it is not in our interest that they should be damaged. Perhaps that damage has been inevitable following the events of the past two or three days, but I hope that serious efforts will be made soon to repair those relations.
  The central question in relation to the Government's policy is: will the bombing work? The Prime Minister seems very confident that it will. If we knew that it would, every hon. Member, or almost every hon. Member, would wholeheartedly support the Government, but we know of too many cases where it has not worked and has reinforced political support for the regime that has been the target.
  There is a possibility that the new generation of smart weapons and extremely accurate bombs and cruise missiles, which enable specific targets to be taken out while minimising civilian damage, may raise the cost to an aggressor and give us leverage that we would not have had with very inaccurate bombing. If that proves to be the case, it will open a whole new arena of possibilities in the management of international crises. It remains to be seen whether that happens.
  The Government's objectives are to get Milosevic to sign up to the agreement and to degrade his military capability for action in Kosovo, but he does not need that advanced, sophisticated military capability to continue to commit atrocities in Kosovo; trucks and automatic rifles will be enough. Can the Secretary of State give us some idea—I know that he cannot tell us details of the air campaign—of how long he expects the operation to last?
  Usually, bombing is the precursor to a ground attack, as was the case in the Gulf and has classically been the case in many other wars. The imposition, or introduction of ground troops to the conflict before there is a peace agreement would add a new dimension to the conflict. Hon. Members have expressed serious reservations about that.
  On Tuesday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he ruled that out. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence said the same in equally categorical terms in evidence to the Select Committee on Defence. We take that as an absolute commitment.
  For the NATO force in Macedonia to fight its way into Kosovo would be dangerous. A much bigger force would be needed. Some people have estimated that it would take 100,000 to 200,000 troops. I am not in a position to judge, but it would certainly require more than the 28,000 that are planned to be in Macedonia. They could end up suffering heavy casualties.
  One is reminded that troops often go into conflicts on one side and end up upsetting that side. Northern Ireland is a perfect example. We went in to help the republican side and ended up as its enemy, getting shot at.
  We have to concede that there is a strong possibility that the bombing will not work. What will the Government do if it fails? They are not prepared to use ground troops—we agree with that—so what will they do? Will they escalate the bombing until they get some result, not knowing for sure whether they will achieve their objective, or will they walk away from the conflict?
  There has been much talk of NATO credibility, but once having started the conflict, walking away would damage its credibility considerably. On the other hand,
  612
  there is a risk—a real danger—of getting sucked deeper and deeper into the Balkan quagmire. The Conservative party has made clear its opposition to the use of ground troops before there is a peace agreement—to our troops fighting their way into Kosovo.
  Mr. Wells: How credible do you think NATO would be if, having bombed, we did not put in ground troops and there was no outcome? Do you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must address the Chair. I call Mr. Wells.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Wells to complete his point.
  Mr. Wells: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My point is that that would leave NATO's credibility in enforcing peace in complete tatters.
  Mr. Maples: I was trying to explain that that is the dilemma that I see the Government facing. It is a question for the Secretary of State and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I shall be interested in his response. If the bombing does not succeed there will be enormous pressure for NATO to use the troops that are sitting in Macedonia. I believe that they have become a hostage to fortune and I query the wisdom of having pre-positioned them. The alternative, if the bombing fails, is to use that force or to extract it. I will be interested in the Secretary of State's views on that.
  We can talk about NATO action, but none of this would be happening without the involvement of the United States. It is US air power, intelligence and communications that make such operations possible. Without the United States, the European members of NATO do not have the means or, I suggest, the will to act on their own. I hope that this will bring a healthy dose of realism to the ambitions of the European Union to develop military capability independent of NATO and the United States.
  For a long time I have felt that we need a long-term strategy for the Balkans. We have never really had that. In the past, we have reacted to events, to television pictures and to atrocities and we have tried to deal with them on an ad hoc basis without a long-term plan or endgame, as some people might put it. I hope that the Secretary of State will develop that in his reply. What sort of a Balkans do we foresee at the end of our intervention in Kosovo? There may be other areas that we will have to look at, because Serbia might become aggressive in Sanjac in the north of the country and it now looks as if there are difficulties in Montenegro. The entire area is unstable. The Bosnian Federation looks equally unstable, if not more so, and without the United Nations force which is there at present, it is unlikely that the Federation Government or the Dayton solution will be able to continue.
  There are many unresolved conflicts around the Balkans and I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether the Government have a long-term view. If we do not, it is difficult to see where the different actions are leading us. We need to know that there is a strategy.

  613
  Do we foresee a Balkans of even smaller nation states with all the implications that that has for redrawing boundaries and difficulties over whether ethnic minorities lie on one side or the other? What role do we see for Serbia in the future of the Balkans? How can Macedonia be stabilised, and how can the ambitions for a greater Albania be contained?
  As I have said, there are many unresolved issues which we will have to address in one way or another if we want to bring lasting peace and stability to the Balkans. I hope that the Government have addressed those problems. If they have not, the danger is that we will end up reacting to events or, worse, reacting emotionally to television pictures without a long-term plan for what is in our nation's best interest, which is to establish stability in the Balkans. How we achieve that is extremely difficult and I am not sure that we should be embarking on these military adventures without some concept of where we want to end up.
  One of the ingredients for that solution will be more democratic governments in the region—there are far too few at present. I suspect that an essential ingredient will be an end to Milosevic and his regime. That has been one of the main troublemakers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester made clear, the rise of Serb nationalism has been at the heart of the break-up of Yugoslavia. Economic development is always an ingredient. Slovenia has become relatively quiet and I suspect that that is largely because it is getting on with earning a living. I know that it was easier for Slovenia because there were fewer minorities.
  If we can help with the economic development of areas where there is peace, there is a chance of distracting people from age-old ethnic conflicts and persuading them that it is not worth fighting because we can create something that is worth living for and protecting. However, lasting stability will need more than that. I should like to hear the Secretary of State develop that theme. How much have the Government thought the issue through? Will they share their thinking and their strategy with the House?
  Kosovo presents a daunting challenge to statesmen and generals. All the countries of NATO and those in the Contact Group who are outside NATO face that challenge. The House and the Government have committed our armed forces. We have put them into action and asked them to kill and to risk being killed on our behalf. We often talk as though the situation were an international game of chess, but we are asking people to risk their lives. We have to have confidence in the policy that we are asking them to implement. Our forces and their families will know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. We know that they will, as always, acquit themselves with skill and courage. We wish them good luck and great success in their endeavours.
  I question whether the bombing campaign will be successful. I am sure that those doubts are in the Government's mind as well. We must all hope that the Prime Minister is right that the bombing will stop the atrocities in Kosovo and bring Milosevic back to the negotiating table so that we can put in place a peace agreement that NATO forces can help to implement and police.
  614
  However, there is a strong possibility that the bombing will not achieve its objectives. If it does not, the options that the Government will face are unattractive. The pressure to involve the NATO ground troops stationed in Macedonia will be very strong, as will the pressure to escalate the air strikes. The only alternative to those two courses of action is to withdraw and admit that we have not achieved our objectives. None of those is a satisfactory outcome.
  I hope that the Government have thought the issue through. I hope that they have a long-term plan for resolving the crisis and pursuing the action on which they have embarked, but I am not confident that they are clear about what they will do next if the bombing fails.
  6.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). This has been a remarkable debate. Sombre, serious, passionate and crossing party lines, it has done a lot of credit to the House of Commons. That makes it all the more difficult to reply to the debate and to pick up many of the points. I hope that the House will indulge me by allowing me to answer some of the serious, detailed points that have been made and not take too many interventions. A lot has been said and asked and I should like to deal with those points in the remaining minutes.
  As a direct result of Siberian intransigence—sorry, I should get the country right. I assure the House that those who are in charge of targeting know better. As a direct result of Serbian intransigence, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the House last night, British forces participated in a substantial strike by NATO forces against targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO has taken that action because all other means of preventing a human catastrophe in Kosovo have been frustrated by the Serbs.
  Despite the intense diplomatic efforts of the international community to secure a peaceful solution to the conflict in Kosovo and to prevent a humanitarian disaster, the Serbian Government have refused to allow a peaceful solution to the crisis. The result, as we have all seen, has been a developing humanitarian catastrophe in which Yugoslav and Serbian security forces are destroying whole villages and making tens of thousands homeless. Only yesterday, before we had to embark on air strikes, the Ministry of the Interior special police were reported to be razing villages to the ground in central Kosovo in the areas around Podujevo, Srbica and Komorane. That was only 24 hours ago, when, I believe, President Milosevic still doubted our resolve and our ability to do something, and still believed that the air attacks would not take place.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who once held this onerous position, asked me to report on what happened last night, when NATO aircraft and naval forces began military operations against targets in Yugoslavia. The offensive action—involving sea and air-launched cruise missiles as well as manned aircraft from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain—was supported by aircraft from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Turkey, flying essential fighter cover, air refuelling and defence suppression missions. In all, 13 NATO air forces were involved.

  615
  The first targets, mainly facilities associated with the Yugoslav air defence system, were hit just after 7 o'clock. Assets used included air-launched cruise missiles fired by US B52 aircraft, which had taken off from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire earlier in the day, and Tomahawk land attack missiles fired by United States Navy ships and, for the first time, by HMS Splendid.
  Follow-on attacks were conducted by manned tactical aircraft, including RAF Harrier GR7s, based in southern Italy, using Paveway 2 laser-guided bombs. Other targets included facilities associated with military units directly involved in aggression in Kosovo. Let me repeat for emphasis what I said last night and throughout today: all the targets and any future targets are military, not civilian. They are chosen with enormous care.
  Just over an hour after the first cruise missiles impacted on their targets, six RAF Harriers were tasked to attack an ammunition storage facility to the east of the Tomahawk target. Four of the aircraft were armed with two Paveway 2 1,000 lb laser-guided bombs—the type used extensively and with considerable success during Operation Desert Fox—and the other two acted as escort.
  The bombers were tasked against explosive and ammunition storage buildings in a Yugoslav military ammunition storage facility that was known to support the Ministry of the Interior special police, who have been at the forefront of repressive actions against the Kosovar Albanian population. Such facilities contribute significantly to the Serbian security forces' repressive capability.
  It is too soon to give any results of the United Kingdom attacks but, as confirmed earlier today by the NATO Secretary-General and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, overall, the attacks by NATO aircraft and ships are assessed to have been successful.
  Several hon. Members have questioned the degree of international support for NATO action. The 19 nations in NATO that are involved are united in their resolve. The United Nations Security Council, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, met last night. The Security Council is not made up only of its permanent members—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia—but of other members of the international community. NATO's action has received the support of Security Council members Canada, Argentina, Slovenia, Malaysia, Gambia, Bahrain, the Netherlands and Gabon, in addition to France, Britain and the United States. Apart from China and Russia, the only opposition came from Namibia. Indeed, the UN Security Council, of which China and Russia are permanent members, has repeatedly condemned the actions of the former Yugoslavia in Kosovo.
  Three UN Security Council resolutions—1160, 1199 and 1203—have condemned Serb actions in Kosovo. We believe that the UN understands that we could not allow Milosevic to attack the civilian population of Kosovo with impunity.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the four non-NATO members of the European Union. I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—who has had to return to Berlin—to make it clear that Sweden, Austria, Finland and Ireland were all fully supportive of the declaration adopted by the European Council, and did not seek to distance themselves from it in any way. Of course, the European Union is not NATO,
  616
  but all member states were united in support for a strong and clear statement. They did not seek to make any amendments to any draft that was tabled.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that statement does not endorse military action? Why does it not do so?
  Mr. Robertson: The European Union is not NATO. The EU members who are in NATO made the declaration supporting military action, as one would expect.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I am afraid that I must continue if I am to answer the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and others.
  Russia has figured largely in the debate, from quite surprising sources not known in the past to give much support to Russia's role within the world. This is an issue of some concern. British-Russian relations have improved markedly over the past two years, and we value those relations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the Russian Prime Minister Mr. Primakov earlier today. The Russian position is well known, but the discussions between the two Prime Ministers were perfectly friendly.
  Hon. Members have asked about the military objectives of the Government and of NATO. They are clear cut; to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe by disrupting the violent attacks currently being carried out by the Yugoslav security forces against the Kosovar Albanians, and to limit their ability to conduct such repression in future. We have not set ourselves the task of defeating the Yugoslav army. We are engaged in an effort to reduce Milosevic's repressive capacity, and we are confident that we will achieve that.
  Hon. Members have asked when the bombing will stop, and when we will assess that we have achieved the objectives. What happens next is essentially up to Milosevic himself. The next stage is there for him. At Rambouillet, the Kosovar Albanians signed up—in compromise to their principles and objectives—to a text that would have protected the integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Milosevic can agree to that deal at any time. If we are convinced that he is genuine, the air attacks will stop. The international community also expects Milosevic to show, in more than just a nominal sense, that he will stop the violence and carnage in Kosovo.
  I wish to refer to the question of a legal base, which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) dealt with in some detail. He made an interesting and valuable point which the House should bear in mind; that the principles of international law—indeed, international law itself—did not start with the UN. International law preceded the UN, and these principles are there whatever the UN charter says. They are clear.
  There are those in the House who doubt that there is a legal base, and have questioned the legality of the action. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark)—who has left the Chamber—asked a question about civil liability with which I wish to deal. We are in no doubt that NATO is acting within international law. Our legal justification rests upon the

  617
  accepted principle that force may be used in extreme circumstances to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Those circumstances clearly exist in Kosovo.
  The use of force in such circumstances can be justified as an exceptional measure in support of purposes laid down by the UN Security Council, but without the Council's express authorisation, when that is the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. UN Security Council resolution 1199 clearly calls on the Yugoslav authorities to take immediate steps to cease their repression of the Kosovar Albanians and to enter into a meaningful dialogue, leading to a negotiated political solution.
  Several hon. Members asked for a precedent for attacking a sovereign nation from the air in the light of the legal provisions. That point has been answered by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has more reason than most of us to know. I was here, at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, when there were calls from all over the country and all over the world to save the Kurds who were being systematically exterminated by Saddam Hussein. The precedent, the principle and the emergency situation were the same, and we took action to save the Kurds. The no-fly zones are still in place, and thousands of Kurds who would not otherwise be alive today remain in them.
  The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea asked about civil liability if any weapon were to hit civilian targets. I understand the legal position to be that no circumstances can arise from our actions that would give rise to liability for compensation for damage to civilian property.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Defence Secretary and some of my hon. Friends all asked about strain on our armed forces. Even those who have not raised that issue in debate are concerned about that point. Ours are the finest fighting forces in the world, but they are involved in more active operations today than at any other peacetime period. Of course, the term "peacetime" takes on a new meaning in the dangerous post-cold war world.
  Some have prayed in aid the Chief of Defence Staff's reference to planning assumptions in the strategic defence review. He gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence last July, saying that the assumptions are planning tools and that
  "it would be a mistake to think that the levels were absolutely in stone".
  As we explained throughout the review, we may, in particular circumstances, decide to do less than its assumptions provide for, or we may be able to do more. SDR planning was based on being able to mount two concurrent operations at full brigade level. Maintaining deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo will be very demanding but the overall forces involved are not of that order.
  The Chief of Defence Staff is content with the current proposals. If we deployed, we would not be talking about indefinite deployment. As the situation improves, we will look to reduce numbers. After the likely replacement of the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps with another headquarters, the numbers should fall markedly in that theatre.
  618
  Several hon. Members have raised the issue of ground forces. Some have said that there is no solution that does not involve land forces fighting their way into Kosovo, or being part of a force that was doing so. The Liberal Democrats have chosen to talk about achieving some United Nations protectorate, and maintaining it with the land forces who would be opposed on entry to Serbia.
  We have not set ourselves the task of defeating the Yugoslav army. We are engaged in an effort to reduce Milosevic's repressive capability and we will achieve that. We have no intention of sending ground forces into Kosovo except with the agreement of both parties. This is a limited military action with a strictly humanitarian objective, which we believe can be achieved through air strikes. We do not think that it would be right to escalate this into a major ground invasion, in which many lives might be lost and the humanitarian crisis could be made worse.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Is there a single general at the Ministry of Defence who has been prepared to advise the Secretary of State in writing that he believes that the stated objectives of the NATO command can be achieved by air strikes alone?
  Mr. Robertson: It is the view of the chiefs of staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff that what we are doing is right, appropriate and achievable.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The Secretary of State has not answered the question.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may disagree with me. I am the chairman of the Defence Council, and there is civilian control of the military in this country. In this case, they are in absolute agreement with the political decision that has been taken, not just by me or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but by the Governments of all 19 NATO countries. I know that we are talking in the British Parliament and that we have British preoccupations, as we should because we are committing British forces to this endeavour, but this is a NATO operation. It has been planned, it has been debated and it has been the subject of consultation since last October and before. Military commanders from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe right down the chains of command in 19 countries have come to that conclusion. It is not for me or the hon. Gentleman to question their military judgment. At the end of the day, it will be for politicians to decide, having balanced all the factors. That is what I have and the Defence Ministers of those countries have done.
  Hon. Members have expressed anxieties about what we are doing. Whatever position one takes, it is possible to express concern about the use of air strikes as the way to stop what we know will otherwise be a catastrophe, with ethnic cleansing, war crimes and the destruction of human beings, crops and villages. It is entirely possible to make such criticism, but what are the alternatives? I have not always agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but tonight he made a passionate speech that I thought was right. He recognised the weaknesses and problems involved, but at the end he asked how we could live with the atrocities taking place and do nothing. He could not think of any other alternatives.

  619
  What alternatives are there? We have tried diplomacy to exhaustion over the past year. Every chance has been given. It is in the self-interest of Yugoslavia and Serbia to accept the Rambouillet accords. The separatist movement in Kosovo has accepted staying within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It has compromised. What suggests to President Milosevic that he should not sign up to something so eminently sensible? A year after the diplomacy started, after all the chances, the killing goes on. They were doing it yesterday, and they would be doing it today if the attacks had not taken place.
  We could try appeasement. That was the policy before the second world war. There were those who believed in it. Why do not we give them Kosovo?
  Mr. Benn rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put.
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Noes have it. Mr. Robertson.
  Mr. Robertson: We could try appeasement but I do not think that anyone in the House or the country would go along with that at all. We could stand by and watch the butchery continue. We could watch the television pictures and know that what they showed was only a small component of what was going on in that tragic country.
  Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is normal for the Chair to put the Question several times to be satisfied. I shouted "Aye" and, in fairness, it would be right for the House to have a chance to register its opinion on the principle of the matter. I put it to you that it would be right to have a vote tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accepted the motion and put it to the House. It appeared to me, on listening to the voices, that it was decisively beaten. My decision was not challenged at that time, otherwise we would have proceeded to a Division. Mr. Robertson.
  Mr. Robertson: If we did not take a stand against the savage, merciless, brutal violence being perpetrated today in Kosovo, what hope would there be for our continent in the 21st century? As the Prime Minister said, if the Balkans ignite in flames, the conflagration could spread to many other parts of Europe, and not just neighbouring countries. The lessons of history—and not just of this century—are that we must stand up to aggressive bullies.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Derriford Hospital Transplant Unit
  7 pm
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I wish to present a petition that has been signed by 110,000 people, both in my constituency and from surrounding constituencies. Mrs. Sue Sellis, chairman of the friends of the hospital trust and a patient of the transplant unit, has led a campaign, with magnificent support from the Plymouth Evening Herald newspaper, the community health council and the health authorities that purchase services from the hospital. The petition was prompted by a Royal College of Surgeons report on the nation's transplant services that appeared to cast a shadow over the future of Plymouth's unit. The magnitude of support for the petition may best be understood by considering the position of a patient in the Isles of Scilly who would have to travel the equivalent of the distance from Carlisle to Bristol for treatment were the unit to close.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the Friends of Plymouth Derriford Hospital Kidney Unit
  Declares that the renal transplant unit of Plymouth Derriford Hospital provides a vital local service greatly valued by people in Plymouth and across Devon, Cornwall and Dorset.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to recognise this in respect of any discussions which take place between his Department and the Royal College of Surgeons in respect of their recent report on transplant services.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the table.

  British Hostages (Chechnya)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  7.2 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On 9 December 1998, in response to a private notice question from the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)—who is in his place tonight—the House heard a confirmation of the previous day's sad reports about the murder of four hostages in Chechnya. Three of the hostages were British nationals and one was a New Zealander. One hostage, Mr. Rudi Petschi, was my constituent and his family live in my constituency.
  Since then, I have tabled several written questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I have met the Minister to discuss the matter. I thank the Minister for agreeing to that meeting. However, several issues continue to concern me. Many questions remain unanswered, and we hope to hear more at the inquest about what happened to Mr. Petschi and his colleagues, who worked for Granger Telecom.
  I welcome this opportunity tonight to express to the Minister my on-going concern about not just events in Chechnya but the way in which cases such as this are dealt with, and how Members of Parliament can respond to them. There seems to be a grey area in terms of what action we can expect of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when British nationals are taken hostage—and, in this case, subsequently murdered—in places such as Chechnya.
  We recognise that it is unsafe even for the Foreign Office to maintain an official presence in some parts of the world—and Chechnya is one such place. Therefore, my remarks are made against that backdrop: it is not an easy situation. None the less, when incidents such as this occur, relatives naturally turn to their Members of Parliament. I believe that we should have a clearer idea of what we can or cannot expect the British Government to do in securing the safe return of hostages and in handling information about hostages taken in hostile parts of the world. There seems to have been an increase in hostage taking; unfortunately, it is becoming a regular event in various parts of the world. One hesitates to say so, but it seems that many political organisations or regimes now see hostage taking as a way of making a political point. All hon. Members are concerned about the frequency of hostage taking, which sometimes occurs much closer to home than Chechnya.
  Last week, at my meeting with the Minister at the Foreign Office, I told him of a request made by Mr. Petschi's widow. The Minister has placed in the Library the advice given to the employing company, Granger Telecom, and we have had a chance to study that. The Foreign Office has a duty to make it clear that Chechnya is a dangerous place and its advice is that people—whether from a company, a charity or any other organisation—should not go there for whatever reason. I am satisfied that the Foreign Office made that information available to Granger Telecom. Although there may be a duty of care on the employing companies, Mrs. Petschi is concerned about their employees. She asks that the Foreign Office should ensure that, from now on, its advice is not merely given to companies in the form of a written
  622
  brief; the Foreign Office should also state in writing that that document should be made available to every employee or associated person who will go to a part of the world to which the Foreign Office has advised people not to travel. She is anxious that individuals should be made fully aware of the dangers. That is a simple request for a widow to make.
  Notwithstanding such advice, we realise that people make a judgment; some of them are prepared to take a risk. We might then debate whether the protection afforded them by the employing company or the charity adequately met the danger or the threat in that country. However, I feel that there is a duty for the Foreign Office and I am glad to record Mrs. Petschi's request to the Minister.
  Before the Granger Telecom employees were taken hostage, the Foreign Office had had the experience of dealing with the case of Camilla Carr and John James, who were taken hostage while they were working for a charity. I accept that the Foreign Office's experience of hostage taking has been influenced by that case. Fortunately, although the hostages were held for a long time, they came out alive. The subject of my repeated questions to the Minister—I have now had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him—is the information that comes out in such cases. In the case of the hostages in Chechnya, most of the information coming into the public domain—whether people knew where the hostages were or what was going to happen—came out through Russia on the interfax. How does the Foreign Office treat such information?
  In the case of Camilla Carr and John James, the Foreign Office received much information and, with the benefit of hindsight, one can say that it was mainly rumours. I accept that that poses a dilemma for the Minister. Should the Foreign Office react to every bulletin or piece of paper that is received? In his discussions with me, the Minister has made a case—not an unreasonable one—that one cannot expect the Foreign Office to respond in detail and immediately to every piece of information. However, I maintain that, in the case of the Granger hostages, information that was seen as yet another rumour was instrumental in triggering the death of the four hostages.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining tonight's debate. She will know that, as well as being the constituency Member of Parliament for Peter Kennedy, who was murdered in Chechnya, I was by some strange fate also the constituency Member of Parliament for Camilla Carr and John James, and so I have that experience of hostage taking as well. That taught me that there is so much rumour going about that we as Members of Parliament also have a responsibility to sift through that information. Although I accept that the Foreign Office needs to keep the channel of communication open, we, too, bear a responsibility in that respect.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was after sifting through that information—albeit retrospectively—that, in December, I raised, during the private notice question on the Wednesday when we knew that the hostages had been murdered, the particular case of the interfax that had come out of Moscow on the previous Sunday.

  623
  When I visited the Foreign Office last week, the Minister kindly gave me a bundle of internal messages and telecommunications that he had received, and I am grateful to him for sharing those documents with me. I studied them carefully. The Minister appears to have concluded that the death of the hostages was a result of two warring factions—two armed gangs, one holding the hostages, the other attempting to release them—attempting to resolve the situation and that the Chechen security forces played no part; and the interfax that came out of Moscow from the head of Chechen security, warning that a rescue attempt was to be made, was not relevant to the subsequent murder of the hostages within the next day or so.
  I have studied the information carefully and I am not of the view that there was no connection between the fax that came out of Moscow and the subsequent murder of the hostages. Some of information in that fax might have been inaccurate, in that the head of Chechen security indicated that the Russians were going to make an attempt to rescue the hostages and that the hostages were being held over the border in Russian territory. However, on 13 December—the Sunday following the death of the hostages—The Sunday Times published a detailed article on the subject. It states:
  "It looked like a Soviet military convoy, but the men dashing along the highway early last Monday morning in a line of Jeep-like Russian uasiki"—
  I assume that those are tanks—
  "were 150 Chechen anti-terrorist commandos on a rescue mission. Their destination lay to the south, across the snow-covered plain, under the shadow of the Caucasus mountains. From Grozny, the Chechen capital, it took them only 40 minutes to reach the pastel-painted houses on the outskirts of Urus Martan, the most prosperous town in the war-shattered republic. Dodging potholes, they slowed down."
  In subsequent correspondence with me, the Minister says that he thinks it quite likely that that hostage rescue attempt that went so terribly wrong took place in Urns Martan. I have double-checked with representatives of The Sunday Times, who have assured me that the genesis of that report the following Sunday leads them to believe that it is accurate. It appears unlikely that, if the whole affair had been merely two gangs led by warlords fighting it out in secret, there would have been a military convoy en route on the Monday morning, bearing in mind that it was on the Tuesday that we heard reports of the heads of the hostages being found, and on the Wednesday that the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to tell us that the Government had no prior knowledge of a rescue attempt.
  I want the Minister to take my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered, because this is not a witch hunt or an attempt to put him on the spot. The interfax that came out of Moscow was received by the BBC listening service at Caversham near Reading on the Sunday morning and conveyed to the Foreign Office. The Minister's written answers to me confirm that it was read by Foreign Office officials at 9 am the following Monday. It was also received by the Moscow embassy, but not read until the Monday morning. I am not for one minute saying that, if that interfax had been read on the Sunday, the four men would be alive today; that would be quite wrong of me. However, if every piece of information is treated as a rumour, when a hostage taking occurs, there is no reassurance for Members of Parliament, or for people whose relatives have been taken hostage, that the key
  624
  piece of information, if and when it comes, will be treated in such a way that, at some point, it might be pertinent to some form of intervention that will save lives.
  I shall not go so far as to suggest to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that intervention by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Sunday morning, perhaps by notifying Granger Telecom—the third party that was on the ground in Chechnya—could have reinforced the clear message that the Foreign Office had already given. The Minister had made it clear that the Foreign Office would never have encouraged a rescue attempt on the terms on which that attempt took place because it would have jeopardised British lives.
  I reassure the Minister that I do not expect the Government to be involved in any negotiations about ransoms. He made the Government's policy clear to me and my colleagues in a meeting that took place before the hostages were murdered. The opinion in the House is that the Government should not negotiate ransoms for hostages, hard as that may be on their relatives.
  It is clear, however, that in hostage situations in hostile territories such as Chechnya, the Government have to rely on a third party. In this case, the third party was the employing company, Granger Telecom, which had taken the initiative and responsibility for liaising, through Chechen Telecom, with the Chechen security force. Granger Telecom would have been the Foreign Office's official contact if it had wanted to validate any of the rumours.
  It is therefore important for the future that the Foreign Office put in place a better system to identify information and judge whether it requires a reaction. Clearly, when the Minister came to the Dispatch Box on the Wednesday, he was not aware that the Foreign Office, or the Moscow embassy, had received notification of the interfax two days earlier, and I find it hard to believe that he could have known about that. I think that the papers were being dealt with routinely because they were viewed as rumours and it is difficult to decide when action should be taken.
  The Minister wrote to me concerning the handling of such information. He stated:
  "You asked about dealing with media dispatches in Moscow and London on a Sunday. In London, we have a resident duty officer system for emergencies: this officer works and sleeps in the FCO main building over the weekend. FCO Consular Division (which liaises with hostage families) and Counter-Terrorism Policy Department each also have a weekend duty officer, on call at home. FCO News Department also has a weekend duty officer system. This officer is on call, and may be at home or in the FCO, depending on the time of day and media pressure. Unlike the BBC Monitoring Services, the FCO does not have the resources to monitor, as a matter of routine, all the product of all the world's media over a weekend. In Moscow there is also a weekend duty officer system, plus a rapid call-out system for urgent telegraphic messages."
  I do not expect there to be an army of people monitoring all the information on the internet from around the world but, if the Foreign Office is to play any role in hostage cases, it is surely incumbent on it to put in place a routine or system that at least triggers interest, whether the information arrives on a Sunday or a Wednesday. I find it unacceptable that those messages were not dealt with until the following day and, by Monday lunchtime, the FCO had felt that it was appropriate to send the messages to Granger Telecom. That is almost 30 hours after the information came into the public domain.
  The Minister will know that Mrs. Petschi, the widow of one of the hostages, was notified of that information on the Sunday because her friends picked it up on the

  625
  internet. If the general public can pick up such important information on the internet, I beg the Minister to put in place in the FCO a system that can separate the wheat from the chaff. However difficult that task may be, we should at least have a system. I ask him also to assure us that the information will be investigated with a view to how the situation should be handled, because, in future situations, it may be important that information is dealt with quickly.
  We await the coroner's inquest, and I know that the Minister hopes to take evidence personally, here or abroad, from key people involved in the Chechen Government and security force, so that he can establish more facts. There is no doubt that I will want to return to the House with this matter when there is more information.
  The purpose of this debate is to tell the Minister that, although I appreciate his co-operation—I do not say this vindictively—the systems in the FCO need to be considered. Alternatively, the Foreign Office may have to say that, in areas as hostile as Chechnya, where the Government clearly cannot guarantee to act on behalf of British nationals, it is unrealistic for Members of Parliament and the general public to ask it to play an active role. Perhaps the Foreign Office should come to the conclusion that, in such dangerous places, it will be as helpful as it can following a kidnapping but will play a passive role.
  Once something like this event happens, Members of Parliament and relatives of those taken hostage expect that they will have the full force of the Government behind them, but, with the best will in the world, it might be unrealistic to demand that. If that is so, it would be better, for future reference, if the FCO published guidelines on what it can and cannot reasonably be expected to.
  7.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for giving me the opportunity to respond in a debate on this important subject. Issues concerning the horrendous deaths of Rudi Petschi, Stanley Shaw, Darren Hickey and Peter Kennedy have been before the House before, and are rightly so again. I also thank the hon. Lady for the manner in which she has raised this subject, and conducted my meetings and discussions with her.
  I know that the whole House will join her and me in expressing deep sympathy for the families of the four men, as well as admiration for the way in which, with considerable dignity and courage, they have coped. I say that particularly about Mrs. Petschi's very constructive approach to a number of issues.
  In my statement to the House on 9 December, I gave an assurance that every effort was being made to get to the truth. Despite our best efforts, which continue, we have not yet been able to obtain a report from the Chechen authorities on their investigation into the crimes. It remains right that we should not send British officials to Chechnya, given the evident dangers there. We have invited representatives of the Chechen authorities to meet us in London or Baku to give a thorough account of what happened, and of what they are doing to bring the
  626
  criminals to justice. I have received information today that the Metropolitan police will meet Security Minister Atgeriev in Baku on 27 March, when they will pursue these matters. Hopefully, they will be able to give us a much clearer view of what happened.
  I return to the events that led up to the hostage taking. It is clear that Chechnya has been highly unstable and, of course, impoverished since the war with the Russian Federation ended in 1996. It is now even more unstable and dangerous. It might be helpful to the House if I outlined our best provisional assessment of what happened.
  As we know, the four men were in Grozny working on a contract to install telecommunications equipment for Chechen Telecom. Chechen Telecom was directly responsible for the men's security. On Sunday 4 October, as soon as news of the kidnap reached Moscow and London—this is an important point—Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials called the head office of Granger Telecom in Weybridge to discuss the crisis. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton should know that the Foreign Office works in exactly the way she wants it to do. When information is relevant and seen to be relevant, action is taken—on Sundays, as on any other day of the week.
  The Chechen authorities, especially Chechen Telecom, assumed full responsibility for resolving the case. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is absolutely right to say that the Foreign Office cannot undertake to do everything in these circumstances, especially in a hostile environment such as Chechnya. We relied on the Chechen authorities and, indeed, the ability of Granger Telecom to take the matter forward.
  I met Granger management two days after the hostage taking. After that, a pattern of regular contact with the families and with the men's employers was rapidly established. In Russia, we used contacts that we had built up with the Russian and Chechen authorities during the 15 months of the kidnap of Jon James and Camilla Carr to urge the early and safe release of the four men.
  The Russians confirmed what we already knew: that they did not exert control in Chechnya. They had no means of securing the safe release of the men. Prior to that, Valentin Vlasov, President Yeltsin's special envoy, was kidnapped in Chechnya. He was released, but not rescued by the Russian authorities, on 12 November last year. More recently, General Gennady Shpigun, the representative in Chechnya of the Russian Interior Minister, was kidnapped at Grozny airport and is still in captivity.
  We accept that the Russians do not have the ability to rescue hostages. However, we made it clear to the Russians that the security of the four men was our prime concern, and we urged them not to take any action that might jeopardise their security.
  In late October, FCO officials in London met the Deputy Prime Minister of Chechnya, Mr. Atgeriev, who is the Minister responsible for security. We stressed to him that the safety of the four men was the British Government's overriding concern, and that the Chechen authorities should do nothing that would jeopardise the lives of the hostages. We were given assurances to that effect.
  Since that time, Mr. Atgeriev has been in contact with the Foreign Office, specifically on 10 December, two days after the remains were found. He recalled that when he

  627
  met FCO officials in October, they had emphasised to him the supreme importance of safeguarding the hostages' lives. There was no ambiguity about our Government's attitude in the minds of Chechen officials. Mr. Atgeriev expressed sorrow that the Chechen authorities had not managed to do as we had asked. There was no ambiguity on their part.
  It may be helpful if I outline briefly the principles that govern the Government's response to hostage cases overseas. This is relevant to some of the hon. Lady's points. We treat the safety and well-being of hostages as our prime concern. We acknowledge the responsibility of the host Government for resolving satisfactorily a kidnap case on their territory.
  Our writ does not run everywhere. We certainly did not claim to have a writ that ran into Chechnya. There are severe limits on what the Foreign Office can undertake to do. That is a realistic statement of fact, which the hon. Lady recognises and has expressed to me. I repeat to the House that it is important that people do not believe that the Government have universal power or capacity in such extremely difficult situations, especially in the terrain and circumstances that make hostage taking possible.
  I should reaffirm that the long-standing policy of successive British Governments, as the hon. Lady noted, is to oppose concessions to hostage takers. The Government will not pay, or sanction, or facilitate the payment of ransoms. That is a continuation of the policy of all British Governments, which the House accepts and endorses. That was made clear to and accepted by the men's families and employers at an early stage.
  In early December—we do not yet know when—Chechens—we are not in a position to say whether those were the security forces—opposed to the kidnappers captured one of their number and may have sought to use him as a lever to secure the release of the four men. We are fairly certain that an armed confrontation with the kidnappers followed, and that those who attacked the criminals came off worst. The kidnappers then murdered the four hostages, probably as a brutal act of defiance and a warning to their attackers not to try that again. It was an act of terror that we condemn, but it could not have been connected to the interfax report.
  I have answered a number of written questions, to which the hon. Lady referred. I hope that I have made it clear to her that the media report was not relevant to the fate of the hostages. I say that partly because our position was crystal clear to the Chechen authorities. They knew
  628
  that we deplored any attempt to put our citizens and a New Zealand citizen at risk by premature or risky rescue attempts. That was unambiguous.
  I have sought to explain why the media report was, like many public—
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way, but I have only two minutes left and I want to make this point for the record. We had no foreknowledge of the sequence of events that led to the deaths of the hostages, and the media report in question does not constitute such a warning. The report was one of a series and it does not constitute a missed opportunity to warn the Chechen authorities of the dangers of an ill-judged rescue attempt. They were aware of our concern about those dangers.
  The hon. Lady may be right that the report, which referred to Russian security forces, was perhaps designed to mislead, but it could have misled only because the Russians were not capable of undertaking the kind of rescue attempt to which the report referred.
  The hon. Lady made a point about travel advice. The travel advice has been clear and unambiguous. It states:
  "We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic because of the unstable security situation. Kidnapping for financial gain is common. Westerners are particularly vulnerable. Those who travel to Chechnya despite this advice are taking severe risks, and must accept"—
  this is important; it is central to her point—
  "that the ability of the FCO and the British Embassy in Moscow to render assistance is severely limited."
  She wanted me to make that point and it had already been made in the travel advice. I hope that she accepts that we did not oversell what we could do and understands that, by not overselling, we were trying to convey a real sense of danger to those who wanted to travel.
  I am looking carefully at the point that Mrs. Petschi wanted to be raised, about what can be done to remind employers and travel agents—those with responsibilities—that they have absolute duty to those in their care. It is complicated, and I cannot give the hon. Lady an easy answer, but my—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eight o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to public funds of British military activities relating to Iraq since the end of Operation Desert Fox. [75672]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Operation Desert Fox ended on 19 December 1998. Expenditure on subsequent British military activity relating to Iraq in January and February 1999 is approximately £10 million.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate weight of ordnance fired against targets in Iraq between Wednesday 17 March and Saturday 20 March. [78716]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information relating to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76171]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 651–52.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76896]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chadwick to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 25 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the numbers of people currently employed by the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA), currently and at its inception, and the date of publication and cost of the 1997–98 Report, in my capacity as Chief Executive of the NRTA.
  The NRTA currently employs 4,600 Naval and civilian personnel. At its inception in April 1995, the Agency employed 5,100 Naval and civilian personnel. The Agency Report for 1997–98 is currently being printed, after a delay in producing financial figures due to the
  332
  requirement for reconciliation with the Ministry of Defence's overall Opening Balances. The cost of production will be in the order of £4,500.
  I will arrange for a copy of the Agency Report for 1997–98 to be forwarded to you when it is available.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Vetting Agency; and how many were at its establishment. [76636]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Vetting Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Wilson to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 25 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of staff employed by the Defence Vetting Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Agency employed 349 staff when it was established on 1st April 1997. The strength of the Agency at 1st February 1999 was 365. The bulk of the additional 16 staff are 3-year Fixed Term Appointees, recruited for the specific purpose of clearing a developing backlog in one particular part of the organisation. As you are aware, the Agency plans to collocate at York by early 2001, at which time the strength will reduce to about 310. The exact figure will depend to some extent on how well a number of underlying management assumptions bear up.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Brimstone and Storm Shadow Programmes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current forecast(a) in-service date for and (b) cost of (i) the Brimstone and (ii) the Storm Shadow programmes; and what was the forecast in each case at the time that the contract was placed. [77262]

  Mr. Spellar
  The in-service dates for the Brimstone and Storm Shadow programmes remain the same as those forecast at the time the contracts were placed, namely October and December 2001 respectively.

  The forecast programme cost for Brimstone was £783 million compared with a current estimate of £793 million. The forecast programme cost for Storm Shadow was £858 million compared with a current estimate of £878 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the work for the(a) Brimstone and (b) Storm Shadow programmes is being placed with UK registered companies; and what was the forecast proportion when the contract was placed. [77263]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the time the Brimstone contract was negotiated, the proportion of work by value, expected to be placed with UK registered companies was some 63 per cent. There has been no significant change in this percentage since placement of the contract.

  When the Storm Shadow contract was placed, it was envisaged that in excess of 70 per cent. of work would be placed with UK registered companies. Matra BAe Dynamics have to date placed 85 per cent. of work by value; of which 80 per cent. has been placed in the UK.
  333

  Aircraft (In-service Dates)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, columns 34–35, on in-service dates for aircraft, what are the reasons for the different definitions of in-service. [77265]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current practice is to define in-service dates as the date by which an equipment, or a specified number of equipments, will contribute to the operational capability of the Service concerned. The in-service date quoted for the Hercules C130J conforms with this practice. The in-service dates for Eurofighter, Merlin HM Mk 1 and Merlin HC Mk3 were defined some years ago when the practice was to take account of a range of operational, production and international factors.

  DERA
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his future plans for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [77903]

  Mr. Spellar
  My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is expecting initial advice from a team studying the Public Private Partnership options for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at the end of this month. Following a period of discussion and consultation, Ministers would hope to make a decision and an announcement about the future of DERA later this year.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the turnover of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is civil. [77059]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Colvin, dated 25 March 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the turnover of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in view of my responsibilities as Chief Executive.
  The turnover of DERA for the financial year 1997/98 can be broken down into a number of constituent parts. Total income, as stated in our last Annual Report and Accounts, was £1006.3 million, of which £105.7 million came from non-Ministry of Defence sources. Defence related activities for either UK industry or foreign customers accounted for £38 million of this figure. Of the remaining £67.7 million which came from civil markets, £27.8 million was from British Government Departments other than the Ministry of Defence.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the titles of the study groups established by his Department to examine the globalisation of technology transfer; what are the terms of reference of each; and when they are due to report. [77904]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am not aware that any working groups have been established specifically to study the globalisation of technology transfer. The UK continues to 334
  benefit from a wide-ranging programme of international collaboration in defence research, principally with our NATO Allies.

  US Advanced Research Projects Agency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions there have been between his Department and the American Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and if he will make a statement. [77902]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, as the UK MOD's main source of defence scientific and technical expertise, has regular exchanges with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on a range of research matters. These discussions form a part of the UK's wider collaborative relationship with the US.

  Auxiliary Oiler Contract
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 209, on auxiliary oilers, if he will estimate the extent of the anticipated slippage. [77993]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Prime contractor, Marconi Naval Systems, is currently reviewing the Auxiliary Oiler programme. It would not be appropriate for MOD to speculate in advance of the company completing their review and reporting to the MOD.

  HMS Illustrious
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the recent overhaul of HMS Illustrious. [78227]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Illustrious is currently on sea trials following maintenance work at Portsmouth. As is normally the case, the sea trials will be followed by a period of defect rectification work. The total project cost will not be known until this work is complete.

  Nimrod
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what negotiations he is currently holding about replacements for Nimrod aircraft; and when he expects to make an announcement as to their effect on RAF bases in the United Kingdom. [78250]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 March I999]: The in-service date, ISD, for the RAF's new maritime patrol aircraft, Nimrod MRA4, which is currently under development by BAe, is April 2003. Resource and technical difficulties with the programme at BAe have led the company to advise that they do not expect to achieve the ISD before early 2005. Negotiations are underway on revisions to the Nimrod MRA4 contract, which will include recovery of liquidated damages for late delivery. The current Nimrod MR2 aircraft will continue to provide the UK's maritime patrol capability until the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft are delivered to RAF Kinloss. The delay is not, therefore, expected to have a significant effect on the current operations of RAF Kinloss.
  335

  Defence Bills Agency
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned basis of the Defence Bills Agency's future operations; and what key targets have been set for 1999–2000. [79037]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 330–31, I announced the decision to extend Agency status for the Defence Bills Agency for a further five years from 1 April 1999. Following this decision, a new Framework Document has been agreed for the Agency and I am today placing a copy of this in the Library of the House. In parallel, a new Service Level Agreement has been agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Agency which sets out demanding objectives for the period up to 31 March 2004. The key targets derived from the Service Level Agreement for the year 1999–2000 are as set out:

  1. To reduce transaction costs by 8 per cent. for bills and 5 per cent. for invoices by 31 March 2000.

  2. To produce accounting and financial management information to time and quality set out in ISO 9001/3.

  3. To pay 100 per cent. of correctly-presented bills within 11 calendar days of receipt as part of the Department's 30 day payment target.

  4. To raise accurately 95 per cent. of invoices within 4 days of receipt of a correctly-authorised claimable document.

  5. Within the permitted tolerances, to meet the performance targets prescribed in the Service Level Agreement.

  6. To produce within 3 months a feasibility report on partnership options and, if possible to make arrangements to proceed with partnership within one year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  West London Line
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received with regard to the opening of new stations on the West London line at(a) Chelsea Harbour and (b) Stamford Bridge. [77792]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since 2 May 1997, we have received four representations supporting a station at Chelsea Harbour and one representation regarding a station at Stamford Bridge.

  Fiveways Corner, Mill Hill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the major works at Fiveways Corner, Mill Hill,(a) to commence and (b) to be completed. [77864]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Work on the Fiveways Corner Improvement scheme is expected to start before the end of April and we expect it will take about 18 weeks to complete.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the cost per mile of the Jubilee Line extension; when he expects it to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [77826]
  336
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Extension to the existing Jubilee Line is 16kms/10 miles long and London Transport's estimate of final cost is £3.2 billion.

  London Transport plan to open the Extension in three phases (firstly Stratford to North Greenwich in late spring, then on to Waterloo in late summer and finally to Green Park where it will connect with the existing Jubilee Line in late autumn). Commissioning work is already in hand and trains are currently being tested on the line between Stratford and North Greenwich. The Government are confident that London Transport and Bechtel will deliver the Jubilee Line Extension in time for the Millennium.

  Private Hire Vehicles (Licences)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions have been held between his Department and local authority licensing departments on the licensing of vehicles for private hire where the construction of the vehicle allows for the potential carriage of more than eight passengers; [77673]

  (2) how many prosecutions of operators of licensed private hire vehicles for operating vehicles with the potential to carry more than eight passengers where those vehicles have previously been licensed by a local authority taxi licensing department have been undertaken in the last year. [77678]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The law defines private hire vehicles as vehicles constructed or adapted to carry fewer than nine passengers. Consequently, it is not possible for a local licensing authority to license as a private hire vehicle any vehicle which can carry more than eight passengers. I am not aware of any particular case where a licensing authority has licensed as a private hire vehicle a vehicle with a passenger-carrying capacity in excess of eight and I am, thus, not aware of any prosecutions arising from such a situation.

  Small-engined Vehicles
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the total number of cars in the United Kingdom have engine capacity below 1100 cc. [78009]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the most recent statistical analysis of the vehicle records held by DVLA and DVLNI in September 1998, some 8% of vehicles registered in the Private and Light Goods class had an engine capacity not exceeding 1100 cc.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the performance indicators set for the Government Office for London, in dealing with planning inspectors' reports; and if he will make a statement. [78333]

  Mr. Caborn
  The target for dealing with Inspectors' reports on called in applications is 80 per cent. within 13 per cent. weeks and 100 per cent. within 20 weeks. For appeals, targets are 80 per cent. within 8 weeks and 100 per cent. within 13 weeks.
  337
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) longest, (b) shortest and (c) average time taken by the Government Office for London in processing planning inspectors' reports for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [78331]

  Mr. Caborn
  The details are in the table:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Longest

  51

  86

  34

  Shortest

  6

  6

  7

  Average

  13

  23

  13

  Note:

  Time in weeks

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce measures to improve access to the countryside for horseriders and cyclists. [78221]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 726.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to announce the remaining members of the new Countryside Commission. [78354]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), on 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 888–89.

  Small Cars
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of cars currently registered in the United Kingdom are estimated to be below 1100cc. [78408]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the most recent statistical analysis of the vehicle records held by DVLA and DVLNI in September 1998, some 8% of vehicles registered in the Private and Light Goods class had an engine capacity not exceeding 1100 cc.

  Genetically Modified Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many genetically modified animals, including fish, have escaped into the environment in the United Kingdom since 1990. [78593]

  Mr. Meacher
  None, to our knowledge.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out detailed future spending plans for his Department. [79071]
  338
  Mr. Prescott
  I have today published my Department's Annual Report for 1999 (Cm 4204), and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The Report sets out the Department's achievements over the last year and its detailed plans for delivering a fairer society, a cleaner environment and a more efficient economy. We have already published targets covering all areas of the Department's work in our "Public Service Agreement". Now we are setting out detailed spending plans showing how we will meet those targets and deliver our objectives. These include an additional £4.1 billion investment by the Department over the next three years, as well as an extra £8.3 billion for local authorities. The Report also includes a summary of our Departmental Investment Strategy, to be published shortly, which will set out how the Department ensures that capital investment delivers its objectives, whilst achieving value for money.

  Business Aviation
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the remaining parts of his Department's study of Business Aviation in the South East will be published. [79203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The report on Part 2 of the study of Business Aviation in the South East which we commissioned last year, "The Economic Impact of Business Aviation", has been published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Part 1 was published in July last year. As policy decisions arising from the study of airports issues in the South East of England and the East of England, announced by the Government on 11 March, may impact on Business Aviation, work on the final part of the study, "Future Capacity for Business Aviation", will not be finalised until the South East airports study has reported. At that time, we shall consider the implications for the work which has been done so far on future capacity for Business Aviation, and whether further work is needed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78150]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following tables show the breakdown for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and overall figures for Wilton Park. The figures for box 4 and 5 have been combined as they are very small. At present, 80 per cent. of the 1998 Appraisal Performance Markings have been received.

  Neither Wilton Park, nor the Department as a whole, uses the Cabinet Office's "four fifths rule" to assess potential adverse impact.
  339

  (a) Wilton Park

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  Not yet available

  Total

  Number

  8

  21

  6

  0

  5

  40

  Percentage

  20

  52.5

  15.0

  0

  12.5

  100

  (i) Breakdown by grade

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  SMS

  103

  24.3

  159

  37.5

  44

  10.4

  1

  .2

  424

  DS5/5S and HCS6/7

  107

  18.3

  230

  39.4

  62

  10.6

  3

  .5

  584

  DS6/SEO

  23

  8.7

  130

  49.2

  66

  25

  3

  1.1

  264

  DS7D/8

  45

  28

  65

  40.4

  25

  15.5

  0

  0

  161

  DS7M/HEO

  73

  13.2

  253

  45.8

  134

  24.2

  8

  1.4

  553

  DS9/E

  118

  12.6

  400

  42.8

  214

  22.9

  14

  1.5

  935

  Specialist

  62

  7.6

  410

  50.1

  179

  21.9

  2

  .2

  818

  Secretarial

  122

  25.2

  202

  41.7

  112

  23.1

  4

  .8

  484

  Support grades

  12

  3.8

  107

  33.4

  93

  29.1

  3

  .9

  320

  AO/DS10/EA

  87

  10.3

  362

  43

  238

  28.3

  3

  .4

  842

  AA

  9

  10.8

  35

  42.2

  26

  31.3

  1

  1.2

  83

  (ii) Breakdown by gender

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  Total

  Male

  466

  13.3

  1,502

  42.7

  755

  21.5

  29

  .8

  3,516

  Female

  295

  15.1

  851

  43.6

  438

  22.4

  13

  .7

  1,952

  (iii) Breakdown by ethnic background

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  Total

  White

  648

  15.1

  1,849

  43.2

  898

  21

  32

  .7

  4,280

  Ethnic minority

  19

  9.6

  81

  40.9

  59

  29.8

  1

  .5

  198

  Not recorded

  94

  9.5

  423

  42.7

  236

  23.8

  9

  .9

  990

  (iv) Breakdown by part-time or full-time

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  Total

  Full-time

  760

  14.1

  2,315

  43

  1,167

  21.7

  42

  .8

  5,379

  Part-time

  1

  1.1

  38

  42.7

  26

  29.2

  0

  0

  89

  (v) Breakdown by disabled or not-disabled

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  Total

  Not disabled

  754

  14.1

  2,303

  43

  1,165

  21.7

  39

  .7

  5,357

  Disabled

  7

  6.4

  50

  45.9

  28

  25.7

  3

  2.8

  109

  Cuba
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the jailing of political dissidents in Cuba. [78123]
  340

  (b) FCO

  Box markings

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  Not yet available

  Total

  Number

  761

  2,353

  1,193

  42

  1,119

  5,468

  Percentage

  13.9

  43.0

  21.8

  3.8

  20.5

  100

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are very concerned about the jailing of political dissidents in Cuba, and in particular with the sentencing of the four members of the "International Dissidence Working Group" in Havana 1 on 15 March. This group exercised the freedom of
  341
  expression, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and were held without charge since July 1997. We do not accept that citizens who do so should be criminalised by state authorities.

  Together with EU partners and bilaterally (including when Isabel Allende, Cuban Vice Foreign Minister met my noble Friend Baroness Symons on 25 February), we have made representations to Cuban authorities expressing serious concern and deep regret about the sentences. The EU Presidency issued a public statement on 17 March which said it was deeply disappointed that its repeated appeals for the unconditional release of the "Four" have been ignored, and that neither diplomats nor international media representatives were allowed to attend the trial.

  Falklands Flights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on tourism in the Falklands of the proposed reduction in Tristar flights to the Falklands. [78388]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The reduction in the frequency of RAF Tristar Airbridge flights to the Falkland Islands was one of a range of efficiency proposals identified by the Strategic Defence Review. It represents a rationalisation of the use of the Tristar aircraft following technical improvements that allow them to carry more passengers. We foresee no significant effect on tourism in the Falklands.

  Sandra Gregory
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking in relation to the case of Ms Sandra Gregory, convicted on a drugs charge in Thailand. [78225]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Following her conviction for drug offences in Thailand in 1993, Ms Gregory transferred to a British prison in 1997 under the terms of the UK/Thailand Prison Transfer Agreement. The Agreement does not allow sentences to be reviewed once a prisoner is repatriated, but does allow the prisoner to benefit from our parole system. Ms Gregory will be eligible for parole in 2003.

  Ms Gregory has asked the Government to support her Royal Pardon Petition. We have declined to do so because our policy is to support Petitions only when a prisoner is terminally ill or when a relative is terminally ill and dependent relatives may be left with no-one to care for them. These circumstances are not present in Ms Gregory's case.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1125–27, if he will list the British overseas territories that comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [78000]
  342
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The European Convention on Human Rights has been extended to Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St. Helena and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been extended to Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Group, St. Helena and Dependencies and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands risk being in breach of the ECHR and/or the ICCPR insofar as they have retained legislation which criminalises homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, furthermore, risk being in breach of the ECHR and the ICCPR if they administer judicial corporal punishment, which is still on their statute books. We are not aware of any legislation in the Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, St. Helena and Dependencies or the Pitcairn Islands which might place these territories in breach of either the ECHR or the ICCPR. We are taking steps to ensure that all of the Overseas Territories are in full compliance with the UK's international human rights obligations. Further details can be found in Chapter Four of the White Paper on Britain and the Overseas Territories, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries he advises tourists to avoid because of the threat of the Millennium bug; and if he will make a statement on his public awareness campaign. [78430]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer to my reply of 12 March 1999,Official Report, column 398 to the hon. Member and also to my reply of 18 March 1999, Official Report, column 761 to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Our travel advice notices will aim to provide practical information to allow travellers to make their own informed decisions. We will continue to monitor other countries' preparedness and will issue new advice accordingly.

  Strategic Export Controls
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to update the Summary of Government Commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls. [79182]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We will shortly be placing a copy of the updated Summary in the Libraries of the House.

  During the course of research for the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls a number of technical errors were discovered in the Summary, which forms an Appendix to the Annual Report. These errors, which pre-date 1 May 1997 are:
  the entry for Burma should have read "Does not cover contracts existing at the time of imposition". Previous versions of the Summary had stated that existing contracts were covered. (1991 EU embargo).

  343
  the entry for Liberia should have specified that the embargo did not apply to ECOWAS peacekeeping forces. Previous versions of the Summary had omitted this point. (1992 UN embargo).
  the entry for Sudan should have read "the embargo does not cover contracts existing at the time of imposition". Previous versions of the Summary had stated that existing contracts were covered. (1994 EU embargo).
  the date of the introduction of the EU arms embargo against China should read 27 June rather than 26 June 1989 as in previous versions.

  In addition, for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia we have added that the embargoes were originally imposed in 1991. The 1996 Ministerial statements (referred to in the Summary) confirmed the EU's position on arms exports to these countries.

  We have taken the opportunity of publishing the Annual Report to correct these errors.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to publish the Annual report on Strategic Export Controls. [79184]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have published the Annual Report today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office. The Report will also be available on the FCO website.

  Narcotics Trade
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government of Iran's role in combating the trade in narcotics. [79185]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of the efforts that Iran makes to counter the narcotics trade, an effort which deserves to be more widely recognised. Most of the heroin sold in Britain originates in Afghanistan. Iran is a key country on the heroin route from Afghanistan to Europe and is in the front line in the war against this trade. It has made good efforts in recent years to stem the traffic. Close to 3,000 deaths among frontier guards in the past 20 years is a regrettable reflection of the commitment that Iran has made to try to combat this menace.

  In that connection, I should like to announce that the Government are donating £300,000 to the United Nations Drug Control Programme to provide Iranian frontier personnel with 1,020 bullet proof vests. This donation will enhance the capacity of Iran's frontier personnel to combat the drug traffickers and to reduce the sad toll of casualties which they have borne.

  No supplier has yet been nominated for these goods. If they are sourced from the UK, an export licence would need to be granted. If such a licence were granted, this would represent an exception to our arms embargo on Iran and would be announced.
  344

  Abdul Rahin
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the decision will be made on the application for entry clearance by Abdul Rahin, husband of Shaheen Akbar, interviewed at Islamabad on 16 December. [78721]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in Islamabad for details of this case. My noble Friend Baroness Symons will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  EU Council
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for April and list the major European Union events for the next six months. [79183]

  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of business:

  April 1999

  Venue

  Event

  8

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  12–16

  Strasbour g

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference 'Barcelona III'

  16–18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  8 April—Brussels—Political Committee

  No agenda yet available

  12–16 April—Strasbourg—European Parliament Plenary

  No agenda yet available

  13 April—Luxembourg—Consumer Affairs Council

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Directives 90/619/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/2/EC

  Policy debate

  Communication from the Commission on an action plan (1999–2001) on priorities for consumer policy

  Debate

  Council conclusions

  Consumer-policy aspects of the negotiation of insurance contracts in the internal market

  Progress report from the Commission

  Forthcoming revision of the Directive on general product safety

  Progress report from the Commission

  Directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

  Adoption

  15–16 April—Stuttgart—Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference "Barcelona III"

  No agenda yet available
  345
  16–18 April—Dresden—ECOFIN (Informal)

  No formal agenda

  19–20 April—Luxembourg—Agriculture Council

  No agenda yet available

  20 April—Brussels—Political Committee

  No agenda yet available

  22 April—Luxembourg—Telecommunications Council

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on a common framework for electronic signatures

  Common position

  Commission's Green Paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors, and the implications for regulation: Towards an Information Society Approach

  Conclusions

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on postal services

  Policy debate

  Status of the internal market in telecommunications, with Report on implementation

  Debate

  Globalisation and the Information Society: the need for strengthened international coordination

  Update from the Commission relating to developments on electronic commerce

  Digital Television

  Information from the Presidency

  Year 2000 computer problem

  Update and possible resolution

  24–25 April—Luxembourg—NATO Summit

  No agenda yet available

  26 April—Luxembourg—Political Committee

  No agenda yet available

  26–27 April—Luxembourg—General Affairs Council

  Issues arising from the Special European Council

  Amsterdam Treaty

  Enlargement

  Common strategies

  EU-Turkey

  Europe strategy

  Romania

  Preparation of Association Council

  Estonia

  Preparation of Association Council

  Slovakia

  Preparation of Association Council

  Ukraine

  Preparation of Cooperation Council

  Western Balkans

  EU-China

  Preparation of summit (end of April/beginning of May, Beijing)

  Myanmar

  Extension of common position

  Middle East peace process
  346
  29 April—Luxembourg—Industry Council

  The economic situation

  Information from the Commission on economic developments Globalisation of the world economy

  Commission communication

  Policy debate

  Competitiveness of European industry

  (a) Benchmarking

  Reports on benchmarking activities at the levels of framework conditions, sectors and enterprises

  Conclusions

  (b) Ongoing debate on competitiveness

  Information on industrial aspects of related work in other Councils

  Report by the Presidency

  (c) Industrial aspects of enlargement

  Information from the Commission

  SMS

  (a) Proposal for a Council Directive combating late payment in commercial transactions

  Common position

  (b) Commission communication on management training

  Presentation by the Commission

  (c) Follow-up Business Environment

  Simplification Taskforce (BEST)

  Conclusions

  Communication on tourism and employment

  Presentation by the Commission

  Shipbuilding

  Situation of the shipbuilding industry

  Information from the Commission

  Coal and steel industry

  Expiry of the ECSC Treaty

  Financial aspects

  New Regulations on State aid for steel

  Conclusions

  Industrial aspects of electronic commerce

  Commission Communication

  Presentation by the Commission

  Sectoral issues

  OETH assessment and recommendations for its future

  Conclusions

  Competition policy

  (a) Commission communication on the application of the EU competitiveness rules to vertical restrictions: follow-up to the green book on vertical restrictions

  Political agreement

  (b) Report from the Commission on modernising competition rules

  Information from the Commission

  29–30 April—Brussels—K4 Committee

  No agenda yet available

  European Calendar: April-September 1999

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.
  347

  Venue

  Event

  April 1999

  8

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  12–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference 'Barcelona III'

  16–18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  May 1999

  3–7

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  6–7

  Berlin

  Political committee

  6

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  7–9

  Weimar

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Bremen

  WEU Council

  10–11

  Berlin

  Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  17

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  EEA Council

  18

  Brussels

  Co-Operation Council with Russia

  18–19

  Weimar

  Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  Brussels

  Research Council

  21

  Brussels

  Development Council

  25

  Brussels

  Joint ECOFIN and Labour and Social Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  27

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30 May–1 June

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  June 1999

  1

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  3–4

  Cologne

  European Council

  7

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  10

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  10

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  10–13

  European Parliament Elections

  14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (possible)

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  17

  Bonn

  EU-Japan Summit

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  Internal Market

  21

  Bonn

  EU-USA/Canada Summit

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (possible)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  25–29

  Rio de Janeiro

  EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit

  28

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  29

  Brussels

  Political Committee (possible)

  July 1999

  2–3

  Oulu

  Industry and Research Ministers (Informal)

  6–7

  Savonlinna

  Culture Ministers

  8

  Hameenlinna

  Political Committee

  9–10

  Oulu

  Labour/Social Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  12

  Brussels

  Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Committee

  16

  Brussels

  Budget

  18–20

  Savonlinna

  Culture/Audiovisual Ministers (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19–20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  348

  349

  Venue

  Event

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  20–23

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22–23

  Helsinki

  K4 Committee

  23–25

  Helsinki

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  August 1999

  No Council Business

  September 1999

  1

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  4–5

  Saariselka

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  6–7

  Brussels

  Agriculture Standing Committee

  9–10

  Turku

  K4 Committee

  10–12

  Turku

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  12–14

  Tampere

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee (Informal)

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs Committee

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Kittila

  Article 113 Committee

  16–17

  Turku

  Justice and Home Affairs (Informal)

  20

  Brussels

  Political Committee (Possible)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Standing Committee

  23

  Brussels

  Telecommunications

  24

  Brussels

  K4 Committee (Informal)

  24–25

  Tampere

  Education Committee (Informal)

  27–28

  Kuopio

  Ministers of Housing

  27–28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Ministers

  30

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  30

  Helsinki

  Equality Conference

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Indonesia (Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current ECGD liabilities in respect of exports to Indonesia. [77033]

  Mr. Wilson
  ECGD's exposure on Indonesia is £1,603 million, of which £41 million is in respect of unrecovered claims.

  Assisted Areas (Kent)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in support of retaining assisted area status for Dover and other areas of Kent. [77052]

  Mr. Wills
  Under the public consultation for the assisted areas review, a joint submission was received from Kent County Council, seven District Councils and Medway Unitary Authority arguing for assisted area status for Dover and six other areas of East and North East Kent.

  Hon. Members representing Kent constituencies, including my hon. Friend, local Councillors and a number of local companies, have also made representations in support of the case for these areas.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to assist the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. [77053]

  Mr. Byers
  Manufacturing is a vital part of the economy. Its competitiveness is assisted by my policies for promoting best practice, encouraging the development 350
  of efficient supply chains, promoting the application of new technology, and developing beneficial regional partnerships.

  Small Businesses (Regulations)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce the amount of management time expended by small business on dealing with Government regulations. [77054]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that one of the key tasks of my Department's new Small Business Service will be to help small businesses get to grips with regulation, providing them with practical assistance to cut the burdens of compliance.

  Steel and Engineering Industries
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the Chancellor's Budget statement on the steel and engineering industries. [77055]

  Mr. Battle
  By locking in the economic stability that our policies have already achieved, such as low inflation, and through our programme of targeted tax cuts, such as the reduction in Corporation tax to the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere in the world, sectors such as steel and engineering should benefit and have a stable climate in which to compete.

  Fresh Meat (Supermarkets)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading inquiry into supermarket retailing of fresh meat. [77056]
  351
  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading is carrying out an inquiry into the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading hopes to be in a position to announce its conclusions in April.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from business leaders on the measures announced in the Budget to encourage research and development. [77057]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government recognise the important role which research and development (R&D) plays in a modern knowledge-driven economy. This was the theme of the consultation document published jointly by HM Treasury and DTI on Budget Day 1998 entitled "Innovating for the Future: investing in R&D".

  The findings from this review have already influenced both the planning for future Budgets and the Government's Competitiveness White Paper "Our Competitive Future—Building the Knowledge Driven Economy" published last December and its follow-up Implementation Plan (published by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 10 March).

  The Budget announcements on 9 March included details of the Government's intention to introduce a research and development tax credit for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the 2000 Budget. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 10 March the publication of the Inland Revenue's technical paper to consult further with business on the detail of this measure. This represents a key output from the Innovating for the Future consultation which, in addition to the tax treatment of R&D, considered a range of questions looking at how best to remove barriers to innovation.

  Around 200 representations were received. Of those commenting specifically on questions relating to tax credits, respondents can be divided into five main types: companies; business organisations; professional and union bodies; accountant and tax firms; and academic institutions. Individual companies gave a mixed view on tax credits from those firmly in support to those who felt such a measure might be less effective. The main business organisations also provided a variety of opinion with the CBI, for example, arguing that the feasibility of a targeted credit for SMEs should be assessed; the CBI reaffirmed their support for a specific SME measure in their Budget submission earlier this year. Professional and union bodies were almost totally in favour of tax credits (as were the majority of academic institutions) although the main accountancy, insurance and tax firms generally provided a more cautious response; a number advocating further analysis before any measures might be introduced.

  A main theme to emerge from the consultation was the concern that any R&D investment measure introduced should also provide assistance to the most cash-constrained small companies in their start-up and early stages, when they are "tax exhausted" and would not immediately benefit from extra allowances to reduce their corporation tax. This message was also emphasised by the Williams Group's report to the Treasury (November 1998) analysing barriers to growth faced by high-tech
  352
  small firms. In the light of these views, and the Government's own research and analysis, the Government announced at the Budget their intention to introduce a comprehensive R&D tax credit for SMEs, which would also involve a payable element for companies not yet in taxable profit.

  In addition to this key measure other important outputs from the Innovating for the Future consultation are as follows.

  Intellectual Property
  Establishing a rational and less complex system for the taxation of intellectual property (IP) was an important conclusion to emerge from many respondents. IP is one of the key outputs of firms' innovation and R&D investment. The 1998 Pre-Budget Report therefore announced that the Government would consult, by the 2000 Budget, on two possible measures to reduce tax compliance costs and distortions on business decisions affecting IP transactions:
  moving towards a simpler system of IP taxation, essentially following the accounting treatment for relieving expenditure on IP purchases and taxing proceeds; and;
  simplifying the taxation of royalty payments which accrue to the owners of intellectual property rights.
  In addition, the Competitiveness White Paper set out details of the Government's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) action plan. This focuses on making the IPR system more affordable and accessible including a review of the impact of fees charged by the UK Patent Office. Work will also be taken forward to ensure the system is better able to keep pace with developments in new technology by, for example, agreeing EC Directives on copyright in the information society and stronger protection for software-related inventions. The action plan would also involve reform of the civil law system for IPR litigation; a push for an EC patent which is affordable and easy to enforce and work to ensure that EU harmonisation of "second tier" or "petty patents" benefits UK firms, particularly small companies.

  Accounting Treatment
  The consultation also highlighted the importance of measuring and reporting the value of innovation and intangible assets if firms are to manage their R&D activities effectively. The Government encourage companies to use the framework provided by current accounting standards as a means to inform their own R&D investment decisions and to disseminate information about their R&D activities to the market as a whole. As announced in the Competitiveness White Paper, the Government have therefore asked the Accounting Standards Board, in consultation with others, to take a fresh look at this issue. DTI will also be launching a best practice programme to identify and disseminate best practice for companies of all sizes in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their intangible assets.

  Science Exploitation, Management and Finance
  The Competitiveness White Paper and recently published Implementation Plan include a range of new and reinforced measures to promote competitiveness within the knowledge driven economy. This included a particular focus on creating and exploiting knowledge and many have a strong resonance with the comments received on the Innovating for the Future consultation. For example:
  the doubling of DTI funding for the popular TCS (Teaching Company Scheme);
  funding for a national network of Faraday Centres to bring together businesses, scientists and engineers to commercialise research;
  a significant extension of the Smart scheme to help more small manufacturing firms to turn their innovative ideas into commercial reality;
  the further development of the University Challenge Fund (the Chancellor's Budget Statement included an extra £15 million) and the establishment of a £25 million Science Enterprise

  353
  Challenge (announced in the Pre-Budget Report) to establish up to eight new enterprise centres in universities to promote business skills and the commercialisation of research;
  a national Venture Capital Challenge Fund to help provide, in partnership with private sector funding, risk capital to early stage high technology companies;
  Enterprise Management Incentives (EMIs) to allow smaller, higher-risk companies recruit and retain talented managers;
  new measures for corporate venturing, which look at tax incentives to encourage firms to invest in and become involved with small, high risk companies.

  Copies of responses to the Innovating for the Future consultation have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Small Businesses (Corporation Tax)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the new rate of corporation tax for small businesses. [77058]

  Mr. Wills
  Around 270,000 small and growing companies, that is two-thirds of all tax-paying companies, will benefit from the new 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax for small business, leaving them with more of their profits for retention, reinvestment and growth.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to discuss the liberalisation of trade with his international partners. [77060]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Secretary of State often meets his overseas counterparts individually and takes every opportunity to discuss with them specific issues relating to international trade and the importance of further liberalising world trade in general. He next expects to meet the majority of his international partners as a group at the World Trade Organisation's Ministerial conference in Seattle from November 30 to December 3 this year. The agenda for that meeting is not yet fixed but is expected to include the launch of a new Round of multilateral trade liberalisation negotiations.

  Liberalisation of trade is a matter covered by the Common Commercial Policy of the EU. The Secretary of State will next discuss this with EU partners in Berlin on 9–10 May 1999 at an Informal Meeting of Trade Ministers. Other opportunities to meet groups of trade ministers include the annual Ministerial meeting of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the biannual Asia-Europe meeting.

  Business Costs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the net change in(a) regulatory costs and (b) tax costs to business since 1 May 1997. [77061]

  Dr. Howells
  Any assessment of the net change in regulatory costs is, on its own, misleading because it ignores the benefits of regulation which are much more difficult to quantify. What matters is that we minimise 354
  costs and maximise benefits when obliged to regulate. Our regulatory impact assessment procedures are designed to achieve this.

  Details of the impact of particular tax measures introduced since 1 May 1997 are set out in the relevant edition of the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will reassess the annual cost to business of full implementation of the(a) minimum wage and (b) working time regulations following recent business experience. [77885]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I will always be prepared to reassess our estimate of costs in the light of experience.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Office of Fair Trading to report on its inquiry into supermarket profitability; and if he will make a statement. [77063]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that the Office of Fair Trading hopes to be in a position to announce its conclusions in April.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received on arrangements made by employers to avoid providing the full benefit of minimum wage to their employees. [77064]

  Mr. Byers
  Not only do most employers support the principle of the national minimum wage, but many firms have already adjusted their pay structures to take account of its introduction. The Inland Revenue will enforce the minimum wage by responding to complaints and targeting inspections on those sectors where underpayments are likely to occur.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the Bank of England's assessment of the inflationary implications of the minimum wage. [77066]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received a number of representations on the possible effect of the introduction of the national minimum wage, including its impact on inflation.

  Business Links
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the Business Links services; and if he will make a statement. [77067]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House last week which detailed our plans to create a new Small Business Service about which we will be consulting widely. As part of that consultation, I will be inviting views from Business Link Partnerships, small firms and their representative organisation, and other interested bodies, on how best we can deliver coherent, high-quality support programmes to smaller firms.
  355

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with(a) British Aerospace and (b) the Society of British Aerospace Companies concerning the consolidation of the European aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement. [77068]

  Mr. Battle
  I met British Aerospace to discuss the consolidation of the European aerospace industry in advance of the meeting of Industry Ministers of the six European nations most closely involved in discussions on this issue, held in Madrid on 21 January.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the coal industry. [77069]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom coal industry neither seeks nor receives special treatment. The Government are concerned to ensure that UK coal producers are able to compete on a level playing field with other sources of energy and with imported coal.

  The measures the Government are taking to remove distortions in the UK electricity market will ensure a level playing field for all fuels. It is for UK coal producers to respond to the challenge of an open and competitive coal market.

  I published last week a report by International Mining Consultants Ltd. (IMCL) commissioned by my Department on the prospects for deep mined coal production in the UK over the next twenty years. The report shows that there are sufficient reserves to sustain a competitive deep mine industry of significant size well into the new century.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations(a) he has made and (b) plans to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the impact on the financial services market of building society de-mutualisations. [77070]

  Dr. Howells
  I have not made, nor will I be making, any such representations.

  Euro
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to issue advice to businesses following the introduction of the euro. [77072]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has recently launched a Euro Planner floppy disc designed to help small and medium businesses deal with the euro. More than 40,000 copies of the Euro Planner have already been sent out.

  This is one part of the Government's broader strategy to help SMEs deal with the euro, which includes a national awareness campaign, supported by high-quality information on the euro; a network of twelve regional euro forum; the provision of practical advice through Business Links and other intermediaries and specific measures to facilitate the use of the euro by business.
  356

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department into the forms of packaging available for containment of (i) low, (ii) intermediate and (iii) high level radioactive wastes for its repatriation after reprocessing. [77943]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not commission research relating to specific packages: this is the responsibility of the designer concerned. The Department's role is to evaluate the safety case, made by designers, against the regulatory requirements which apply to certain types of package.

  Political Donations
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Government's response to the recommendation on political donations by companies made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom. [78860]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government agree with the Committee that the current arrangements for company donations, under which directors have discretion whether to contribute to a political party and whether to seek shareholders' consent, will not be satisfactory in an era of greater openness about party sources and uses of party funds. It has therefore accepted the Committee's recommendation that legislative provision should be made to require any company intending to make a donation (whether in cash or in kind, and including any sponsorship, or loans or transactions at a favourable rate) to a political party or organisation to have the prior authority of its shareholders. The Government would, however, welcome views on the implementation of this recommendation, and I have today published a consultative document seeking comments on the following three areas: the definition of a "political donation" with respect to donations by companies; the way in which companies legislation should be amended to give effect to the Neill Committee's recommendation that a company should have to have the prior authority of its shareholders; and possible changes to the existing disclosure provisions relating to political donations in Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985. The consultation will inform the drafting of a Bill to implement the main findings of the Committee's report, which the Government intend to publish by the Parliamentary Summer Recess.

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he list all the potential crop organisms on which Monsanto has secured European patents. [74829]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Up to the end of February 1999, six European patents for crop plants which have been modified in a particular way have been granted to Monsanto by the European Patent Office. The serial numbers of these patents are: EP0340197, EP0293358, EP0289479, EP0269601, EP0223452 and EP0218571. The inventions and the crops to which they

  357
  relate are specified in the patent specifications. Oppositions have been filed against two of the patents: EP0289479 and EP0269601.

  Biological Resources
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of patent issues, what assessment his Department has made of the compatibility of Article 27 of TRIPS and Articles 8, 15 and 16 of the UN Convention on Biological Resources. [74846]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Article 8 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity concerns conservation of biodiversity in its natural habitat, requiring contracting states to set aside protected areas. Article 15 recognise sovereign rights over genetic resources while encouraging access for environmentally sound purposes. Article 16 states that transfer of technology, including biotechnology, is an essential element for the attainment of the objectives of the convention, that is to conserve biodiversity, to use it in a sustainable way and to share equitably the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement is complementary to the objectives and substance of this Convention. If patents were to be granted for known plants or for discovering something that exists in nature, then, under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement, it is clear that such rights would be invalid. The TRIPS Agreement also encourages technology transfer. It is not a matter for TRIPS or intellectual property regimes to set the conditions for access to the genetic resources. This is for individual contracting States to the CBD to decide.

  Classic Collections (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will call for a report from the British Standards Institute regarding the alleged misuse by Classic Collections (UK) Ltd., Slough, of ISO 9000 accreditation; and if he will make a statement. [76130]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that this case involves allegations of misuse of the BVQI ISO 9000 certification mark which includes the National Accreditation of Certification Bodies (NACB) mark. My department licenses the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to use the NACB mark, to sub-license the use of the mark to UKAS accredited organisations such as BVQI and to control its use. I have asked UKAS to investigate these allegations of misuse and to take any necessary action. I also understand that the City of Sunderland Trading Standards Department is investigating the case and will take action under the Trade Descriptions Act if they think it is justified. As far as I am aware, the British Standards Institution has no role to play in this case.

  Trade Delegations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) South Africa, (b) Sri Lanka, (c) Thailand and (d) Uganda; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76559]
  358
  Mr. Wilson
  (a) My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), when Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Small Firms, led an investment mission to South Africa in July 1998. There are no planned Ministerial-led trade delegations.

  (b) The then Minister for Trade led a trade delegation to Sri Lanka in February 1995. There are no planned Ministerial-led trade delegations.

  (c) The Minister for Education, Scottish Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), when Economic Secretary to the Treasury, led a trade delegation to Thailand in March 1998. There are no planned Ministerial-led trade delegations.

  (d) There have been no recent Ministerial-led trade delegations to Uganda. There are no planned Ministerial-led trade delegations.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of projected increases in CO2 emissions as a result of the introduction of declining rate tariffs to larger domestic consumers by Northern Electricity; and if he will make a statement. [77110]

  Mr. Battle
  None. Any such impact is likely to be very small.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which makes of car with engines of up to 1100 cc were built in Britain in 1998; and how many were sold in the United Kingdom of each make. [78011]

  Mr. Battle
  The only make of car with an engine capacity of 1100ccs (or less) manufactured and sold in the United Kingdom during 1998, was the Nissan Micra (998 cc)—produced at the Nissan plant in Sunderland. 38,684 of this particular model and a total of 48,757 Micras (of all engine sizes) were registered in the UK in 1998.

  Source:

  SMMT.

  Domestic Appliance Safety
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to ensure that non-working surfaces on cooking and heating appliances do not reach dangerously high temperatures. [78355]

  Mr. Battle
  The safety of gas and electrical appliances is controlled by the Gas Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1995 and the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, which implement European Safety Directives into UK law. Both these Regulations address surface temperatures.

  European Safety Standards have been developed, UK participation being by the British Standards Institution, which give a presumption of conformity with the requirements of the Regulations. These standards do

  359
  include temperature limits, which officials within my Department are continually trying to see lowered, particularly as technology advances.

  A recent enforcement action by the UK resulted in the European Commission declaring one of these standards defective and asking the standards-making bodies to review the standards on household appliances to ensure that temperature limits are adequately addressed.

  Small-engined Vehicles
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the vehicle models that are(a) made and (b) imported into the UK that have engine capacities of (i) less than 1,000cc, (ii) 1,000cc to 1,100cc, (iii) 1,101cc to 1,200cc and (iv) 1,201cc to 1,250cc. [78369]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: The following tables list the vehicles available in the UK in 1999, by model, origin and engine size (up to 1,250cc):

  (i) Cars of less than 1,000cc

  Manufacturer

  Model

  cc

  Country of origin

  Subaru

  Vivio

  658

  Japan

  Daewoo

  Matiz

  796

  South Korea

  Daihatsu

  Cuore

  847

  Japan

  Daihatsu

  Move

  847

  Japan

  Perodua

  Nippa

  847

  Malaysia

  Fiat

  Seicento

  899

  Poland

  Citroen

  Saxo

  954

  France

  Vauxhall

  Corsa

  973

  Portugal

  Daihatsu

  Cuore

  989

  Japan

  Daihatsu

  Sirion

  989

  Japan

  Suzuki

  Alto

  993

  India

  Suzuki

  Swift

  993

  Hungary

  Suzuki

  Wagon R+

  996

  Japan

  Nissan

  Micra

  998

  UK

  Seat

  Arosa

  998

  Germany

  Toyota

  Yaris

  998

  Japan

  Hyundai

  Atoz

  999

  South Korea

  Volkswagen

  Lupo

  999

  Germany

  Volkswagen

  Polo

  999

  Spain

  (ii) Cars 1,000cc to 1,100cc
  No vehicles are produced in the 1,000 to 1,100 cc range

  (iii) Cars 1,101cc to 1,200cc

  Manufacturer

  Model

  cc

  Country of origin

  Fiat

  Seicento

  1108

  Poland

  Rover

  Rover 200

  1120

  UK

  Citroen

  Saxo

  1124

  France

  Peugeot

  106

  1124

  France

  Peugeot

  206

  1124

  UK

  Renault

  Clio

  1149

  France

  Suzuki

  Wagon R+

  1171

  Japan

  Vauxhall

  Corsa

  1199

  Portugal/Spain

  (iv) Cars 1,201cc to 1,250cc

  Manufacturer

  Model

  cc

  Country of origin

  Fiat

  Bravo/Brava

  1242

  Italy

  Fiat

  Punto

  1242

  Italy

  Ford

  Fiesta

  1242

  UK

  Mazda

  121

  1242

  UK

  Source:

  SMMT
  360

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to alter the accountability to him of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in response to the last sentence of paragraph 64 of Sir Richard Wilson's review of export promotion. [78438]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to alter the accountability of the ECGD. ECGD's Chief Executive will continue to be accountable to the Minister for Trade.

  Small Businesses (Rebates and Grants)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department plans to produce a guide to rebates and grants available for small businesses. [78627]

  Mr. Wills
  The publication "A Guide to Help for Small Firms" includes details of the wide range of support available to small businesses including financial help. It is currently being revised and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy and copies are placed in the Libraries of the House when it is published in mid-April.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to issue guidance to small businesses which want to apply for assistance from the Small Business Service. [78628]

  Mr. Wills
  A consultation paper on the specific role and functions of the Small Business Service will be published shortly with a view to the new service being set-up and running later in the year. In the meantime, a wide range of government support for smaller firms can be accessed through the national network of Business Links.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the appointment of the Chief Executive of the new Small Business Service. [78626]

  Mr. Wills
  It is hoped to make an announcement about the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service in the Autumn.

  Nazi Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will launch a claim scheme to compensate victims of Nazi persecution who had property in the United Kingdom that was confiscated by Her Majesty's Government during the Second World War under the Trading with the Enemy legislation. [78991]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce the launch of the Claim Scheme. It will have the following main features: claims can be made in respect of any property in the UK confiscated by HM Government under British legislation on enemy property or trading with the enemy, if it has not already been returned and compensation has not already been paid intended to cover its full value; the Government will pay compensation on the basis of wartime values increased by the change in the Retail Prices Index; compensation will be paid to victims of Nazi persecution who owned such property when it was confiscated, and
  361
  other people who can show that they were likely to have been the beneficial owner of such property if it had not been confiscated, if they or the original owner suffered Nazi persecution; claims will be determined by a panel of three assessors comprising a legally qualified Chairman, someone with financial expertise and someone with an understanding of belonging to a minority group.

  The right hon. Lord Archer of Sandwell QC who advised the Government about the claims procedure has agreed to chair the panel which will be called the Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel (EPCAP). It will assess all claims according to criteria set out in its Terms of Reference. A copy of the Constitution and Terms of Reference of the Panel has been placed in the Library of the House. The EPCAP will be supported by a Secretariat comprised of a team of DTI officials.

  To assist claimants the Enemy Property Internet website at "www.enemyproperty.gov.uk" has been updated with additional lists of those who had their property seized under the enemy property or trading with the enemy legislation. The website has a copy of the claim form and background information that can be downloaded and printed. It now has a database of over 30,000 names covering property originally belonging to residents of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. The database also includes records of people from other countries and those it was not possible to trace.

  Claimants will have until 30 September 1999 to submit their claims to the EPCAP Secretariat. Those who have already written to my Department indicating an interest in the Scheme will be sent claim forms by the EPCAP Secretariat. The payment of compensation will not start until after that date because there may be several claims for the same property and entitlement will need to be established. Claim forms can be obtained from the EPCAP Secretariat at the address below:

  Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel

  Room 116–118

  10 Victoria Street

  London

  SW1 0NN

  Telephone: 0171 215 3485

  Fax: 0171–215 3487

  Email: property.enemy@frmd.dti.gov.uk

  Regulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regulations he is planning to amend to make them more compatible with a flexible, innovative and entrepreneurial economy. [77636]

  Mr. Byers
  The Competitiveness White Paper published last December set out specific commitments to help create such an economy. Those concerning regulation include: reviews of the insolvency and bankruptcy laws, and company law; consultation on the case for reform of the mergers regime; reform of telecommunications regulation; and the introduction of legislation to improve the regulation of financial services.
  362
  The White Paper, and the Implementation Plan I published earlier this month setting out the steps the Government will take to meet these commitments, are available in the Library of the House and on the DTI's web site at www.dti.gov.uk/comp.

  Investment Programme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the targets and timetable for his plans to promote an investment programme in British economic capabilities. [77789]

  Mr. Byers
  The Implementation Plan for the Competitiveness White Paper details the milestones and target dates for programmes designed to stimulate the availability of the right finance for growth businesses and to provide them with the business skills to manage this finance. Measures include the establishment of an Enterprise Fund to leverage private investment capital, extending the Young Enterprise Scheme and consultation on corporate venturing.

  Details of the relevant commitments are set out in section A of the Implementation Plan. Both the White Paper and the Implementation Plan are available in the Library of the House and on the DTI's web site at www.dti.gov.uk/comp.

  Competitiveness
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in establishing competitiveness indicators to measure the improvement in the United Kingdom's performance in this respect. [77786]

  Mr. Byers
  The Competitiveness White Paper announced the publication of a set of competitiveness indicators—the Competitiveness Index. The department is aiming to publish the Index in July. Further information is given in the DTI Implementation Plan, which has been placed in the Library or can be viewed on the Internet at www.dti.gov.uk/comp.

  Business Collaboration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in encouraging collaboration between businesses. [77788]

  Mr. Byers
  The increasing importance of collaboration for successful businesses was a major theme in the Competitiveness White Paper. Many of the commitments in the paper are designed to help UK businesses to learn from others, including their competitors. These include the promotion of benchmarking, the spread of best practice and other schemes to encourage UK businesses to collaborate sectorally, regionally and locally.

  Details of the relevant commitments are set out in the White Paper Implementation Plan, which sets out the progress made on each commitment. For example, the DTI has already issued draft guidance to Regional Development Agencies for their review of the coherence and quality of business support in their areas and has agreed support for 22 Centres of Expertise in the Business

  363
  Link partnership network in 1998–99, and is committed to the development of further Centres over the next three years.

  Both the White Paper and the Implementation Plan are available in the Library of the House and on the DTI web site at www.dti.gov.uk/comp.

  Mobile Phone Industry
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on competition in the mobile phone industry. [77065]

  Mr. Wills
  Pursuant to his duties under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Director General of Telecommunications issued a consultation document, "Competition in the mobile market", on 4 February.

  The document presents the finding that Vodafone and Cellnet continue to have market influence but, as there are signs that effective competition is emerging, it is not appropriate now for regulatory controls to be applied to the price of calls from mobiles.

  I understand that the closing date for comments has been extended to 1 April. I shall not prejudge the conclusions reached.

  The DTI has consulted industry on proposed measures to ensure a competitive market in the next (third) generation of mobile services. I am now considering the responses received and will make a statement when I have come to a view.

  Coal Pricing
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to identify imports of coal and coal products which may be unfairly priced. [79069]

  Mr. Battle
  We wish to see an open and competitive market for coal and coal products. We mean to ensure that the market is not distorted by imports which do not reflect the costs of production and freight. To this end, we have encouraged the European Commission to take action against such marketing practices which are supported by aid applied for an unauthorised purpose and welcome the decision it took last June on German anthracite. We have also encouraged UK coke manufacturers to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that sales of French foundry coke in the UK market appear to be supported by unauthorised state aid.

  We are having continuing discussions with the Commission and with the Polish authorities and exporters about the pricing and future flows of Polish coal to the UK. We are also working with the industry to establish how far the prices of Chinese anthracite and coke cover their costs of production and freight.

  Greater transparency is a key component of our policy. We have accordingly agreed with HM Customs and Excise that they will in future publish country of origin data on coal imports from non-EU countries on a monthly basis, and we intend to work closely with them and with interested parties to improve the quality of the data.
  364

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's Insolvency Service Executive Agency for 1999–2000. [79070]

  Mr. Byers
  The Insolvency Service's planning assumption is that compulsory insolvencies will total 26,000 in the year to 31 March 2000, and I have therefore set it the target of completing case administrations to match new case input so that the number of cases outstanding at 31 March 2000 is maintained at the level as at 31 March 1999, with no more than 5 per cent. of cases being more than 36 months old. I have also set it the targets of reducing the unit costs of administering bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases by 5 per cent. in real terms over the period 1999–2002; and reducing the cost of investigations of bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases by 10 per cent. in real terms over the period 1999–2002. Despite this reduction, I expect The Service to continue to achieve at least the levels of proceedings for disqualification taken against unfit directors and reports on cases of criminal misconduct as in the current year.

  In addition, I have set The Service the following quality of service targets for 1999–2000:
  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within 8 weeks in at least 97 per cent. of all cases; and within 12 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;
  to hold the initial meetings of creditors within 12 weeks in 96 per cent. of all appropriate cases, and within 4 months in 98 per cent. of all appropriate cases;
  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 90 per cent. of bankruptcy cases, and at least 80 per cent. of company liquidation cases where there is evidence of criminality;
  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors; and
  to check and action at least 97 per cent. of Insolvency Services Account payment requisitions within 4 days or by the due date.

  The Service is also expected to action 100 per cent. of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and the Agency Chief Executive is expected to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Mortgages
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to give the Office of Fair Trading a role in relation to mortgage deals. [77049]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 10 March 1998,Official Report, columns 263–64, a package of measures to improve information for consumers on mortgages and on other credit marketing. These will give consumers a fairer deal and tackle confusion caused by lenders presenting information in different ways. The Office of Fair Trading would have enforcement responsibilities under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in relation to these measures.

  I have no further plans to extend the role of the Office of Fair Trading in relation to mortgage deals. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be carrying out a review later this year on the regulation of mortgage advice.
  365

  Inward Investment (Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for inward investment in Sussex. [77071]

  Mr. Wills
  The prospects are positive and better than they were a year ago. A number of significant inward investors are pursuing inquiries with the appropriate organisations in Sussex.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Cumbria County Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 77, if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter to the Leader of Cumbria county council; [76189]

  (2) if his Department has received written communications from Cumbria county council informing it that they intend to spend their full standard spending assessment on education. [76190]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote in January to the leader of the county council to urge Cumbria to use all of the cash increase in the education of SSA to support education and I repeated that message in February. Copies of all the letters which have been sent by Ministers to Cumbria county council on this issue have been placed in the Library.

  The Department has received written communications from the county council indicating that the increase in the education directorate's budget will match the £9.4 million cash increase in Cumbria's education SSA. We will monitor Cumbria's formal budget returns to confirm that all of the cash increase has been used to support education services.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who would fit the Government's target category for the new deal for young people left unemployment between January 1993 and May 1997. [77176]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information is provided in the following table, based on the monthly count of people claiming jobseeker's allowance or national insurance credits:

  18–24 year old 6 month plus claimants of unemployed-related benefits

  January 1993 to May 1997

  Total offlows from the claimant count

  1,654,434

  Average monthly offlow from the claimant count

  33,089

  Total change in stock of claimants

  200,960

  Average monthly change in stock of claimants

  -4,019

  Total change in stock of claimants (%)

  -54.2

  Monthly percentage point change in stock of claimants

  -1.1

  Note:

  All data are seasonally unadjusted
  366

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78151]

  Mr. Mudie
  The 1998 performance markings for the DfEE and for the Employment Service are shown in the following tables. At Senior Civil Service level (former Grade 5 and above) no distinction is made between staff in the DfEE and those in the Employment Service. Because of the small numbers involved at Senior Civil Service level, a breakdown of performance markings by grade, ethnicity, part-time/full-time working and disability would breach individual confidentiality and therefore cannot be provided.

  The DfEE and the ES undertake tests that go further than the four fifths rule by proceeding directly to a full statistical analysis of the data to determine which differences observed are statistically significant.

  Senior Civil Service by gender

  Percentage

  Box 1

  Boxes 2+ or 2

  Boxes 3+ or 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Women

  9

  32

  59

  0

  0

  Men

  8

  35

  57

  0

  0

  Total

  8

  35

  57

  0

  0

  DfEE staff to Grade 6

  Percentage

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D/E

  Grade level including equivalents

  Administrative Assistant (AA)

  2

  34

  59

  5

  Administrative Officer (AO)

  3

  38

  55

  4

  Executive Officer (EO)

  2

  35

  59

  3

  Higher Executive Officer (HEO)

  4

  43

  52

  2

  Senior Executive Officer (SEO)

  4

  44

  51

  1

  Grades 7 and 6

  5

  41

  53

  1

  Personal Secretary and Senior Personal Secretary

  13

  39

  46

  2

  Total

  4

  39

  55

  3

  Gender

  Women

  4

  39

  54

  2

  Men

  3

  39

  55

  3

  Ethnicity

  Non-white

  3

  27

  66

  5

  White

  4

  41

  54

  2

  Not known

  4

  37

  55

  4

  Part-time/Full-time

  Full-time

  4

  40

  54

  3

  Part-time

  2

  31

  65

  3

  Disability

  Staff with a disclosed disability

  2

  34

  59

  6

  Staff without a disability

  4

  39

  55

  2

  Note:

  Due to rounding some totals may not add up to 100 per cent.
  367

  Employment Service staff to Grade 6

  Percentage

  ES pay band

  DfEE equivalent

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Pay Band 9

  AA

  5.7

  68.7

  25.5

  0.1

  Pay Band 8

  AO

  6.9

  79.5

  13.6

  0.1

  Management Pay Band 7

  EO

  9.2

  82.2

  8.6

  0.0

  Management Pay Band 6

  EO

  12.5

  80.1

  7.4

  0.0

  Management Pay Band 5

  EO

  19.0

  77.5

  3.5

  0.0

  Management Pay Band 4

  HEO

  11.9

  81.4

  6.5

  0.3

  Management Pay Band 3

  HEO

  17.6

  76.7

  5.7

  0.0

  Management Pay Band 2

  SEO

  21.9

  75.6

  2.5

  0.0

  Management Pay Band 1

  SEO

  19.2

  76.1

  4.8

  0.0

  Senior Management Pay Band 3

  Grade 7

  22.2

  69.4

  8.3

  0.0

  Senior Management Pay Band 2

  Grade 7

  23.8

  72.1

  4.1

  0.0

  Senior Management Pay Band 1

  Grade 6

  36.8

  57.9

  5.3

  0.0

  Total

  9.4

  79.3

  11.3

  0.1

  Note:

  Due to rounding some totals may not add up to 100 per cent.

  Employment Service staff to Grade 6

  Percentage

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Gender

  Women

  9.7

  80.7

  9.6

  0.0

  Men

  8.5

  76.2

  15.1

  0.1

  Ethnicity

  Non-white

  8.8

  78.2

  12.8

  0.2

  White

  11.2

  80.3

  8.4

  0.1

  Not known

  7.8

  78.6

  13.5

  0.0

  Part-tim/Full-time

  Full-time

  10.5

  78.3

  11.1

  0.1

  Part-time

  5.6

  82.6

  11.7

  0.1

  Disability

  Staff with a disclosed disability

  7.4

  78.9

  13.5

  0.2

  Staff without a disability

  9.5

  79.5

  11.0

  0.1

  Note:

  Due to rounding some totals may not add up to 100 per cent.

  Scientific Equipment Expenditure
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money has been allocated to scientific equipment excluding computers in schools in the last five years; [78233]

  (2) what plans he has to allocate resources for expenditure on scientific equipment and laboratories in schools over the next two years. [78234]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The returns we receive do not disaggregate local education authority expenditure on scientific equipment. Nor are earmarked resources allocated for this purpose in future spending.

  School Records
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what right of access parents have to records concerning their child which are held by the school their child is attending; and if he will make a statement. [78537]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Education (School Records) Regulations 1989 give parents the right of access to 368
  educational records concerning their child, held by his or her school, within 15 school days of making a written request.

  Beacon School Status
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the criteria on which beacon school status is awarded. [78345]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The pilot group of Beacon schools was selected from those schools named in HMCI's annual report for 1996–97 as "best performing". Criteria for the selection of 125 new Beacon schools from September 1999 have been developed to enable a wider group of schools to apply this year. Full details of the criteria have been placed in the Library and are available on request or via the departmental internet site.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the (i) amounts bid for and (ii) grants made by his Department for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 for revenue expenditure to meet his class size pledge. [78630]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 192.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the bids made by local education authorities for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000 for(a) extra teachers and (b) new classrooms to meet the Government's class size pledge. [78633]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 271; 2 March 1999, Official Report, column 613; and 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 192.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority his estimate of the impact of class size reduction grants made by his Department for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000 in terms of extra(a) teachers and (b) classrooms. [78631]
  369
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  The impact of capital and revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes in 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Barnet

  3

  5

  —

  10

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  6

  27

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2

  —

  2

  12

  Bedfordshire

  10

  —

  15

  53

  Bexley

  5

  14

  2

  15

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  5

  4

  Blackburn

  3

  9

  7

  13

  Blackpool

  7

  5

  3

  17

  Bolton

  3

  —

  7

  60

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  9

  5

  Bracknell

  2

  —

  5

  8

  Bradford

  2

  46

  —

  66

  Brent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  6

  7

  15

  Bristol

  3

  —

  3

  14

  Bromley

  5

  14

  4

  27

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  7

  20

  83

  Bury

  16

  44

  3

  49

  Calderdale

  1

  13

  —

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  —

  11

  69

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  10

  —

  14

  100

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  5

  —

  8

  56

  Coventry

  3

  50

  4

  42

  Croydon

  1

  7

  —

  17

  Cumbria

  3

  10

  14

  51

  Darlington

  3

  —

  4

  14

  Derby

  14

  75

  2

  59

  Derbyshire

  22

  100

  24

  133

  Devon

  8

  79

  2

  75

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  4

  37

  Dorset

  3

  31

  10

  61

  Dudley

  4

  —

  7

  17

  Durham

  3

  24

  5

  46

  Ealing

  4

  20

  5

  17

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1

  16

  14

  39

  East Sussex

  6

  8

  4

  58

  Enfield

  3

  —

  8

  27

  Essex

  7

  —

  16

  77

  Gateshead

  2

  9

  —

  8

  Gloucestershire

  4

  —

  8

  56

  Greenwich

  1

  —

  2

  0

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Halton

  2

  —

  —

  23

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  12

  —

  10

  108

  Haringey

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Hartlepool

  2

  5

  2

  7

  Havering

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  10

  12

  16

  Hertfordshire

  4

  35

  5

  102

  Hillingdon

  12

  22

  16

  16

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  8

  11

  Isle of Wight

  2

  11

  1

  15

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  11

  —

  12

  80

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  7

  23

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  26

  9

  Kirklees

  6

  44

  10

  57

  Knowsley

  1

  —

  5

  12

  Lambeth

  3

  —

  2

  4

  Lancashire

  30

  57

  61

  121

  Leeds

  3

  33

  9

  111

  Leicester City

  4

  35

  11

  17

  370 371

  The impact of capital and revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes in 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Leicestershire

  10

  26

  6

  57

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  3

  6

  9

  31

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  3

  9

  Luton

  1

  —

  10

  10

  Manchester

  9

  —

  1

  3

  Medway

  3

  —

  3

  28

  Merton

  —

  —

  27

  9

  Middlesbrough

  1

  5

  —

  12

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  4

  16

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8

  40

  1

  28

  Newham

  6

  16

  7

  10

  Norfolk

  5

  29

  13

  71

  North East Lincolnshire

  8

  —

  2

  29

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  39

  2

  41

  North Somerset

  3

  —

  1

  19

  North Tyneside

  5

  —

  5

  14

  North Yorkshire

  7

  —

  19

  70

  Northamptonshire

  3

  —

  13

  24

  Northumberland

  3

  22

  10

  37

  Nottingham City

  6

  8

  2

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  —

  38

  80

  Oldham

  13

  —

  14

  43

  Oxfordshire

  12

  37

  17

  57

  Peterborough

  —

  10

  6

  31

  Plymouth

  —

  36

  —

  33

  Poole

  5

  —

  4

  12

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  4

  6

  Reading

  2

  —

  3

  10

  Redbridge

  7

  —

  4

  9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  4

  —

  4

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  —

  10

  8

  Rochdale

  4

  —

  9

  32

  Rotherham

  1

  16

  13

  23

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Salford

  2

  14

  4

  15

  Sandwell

  15

  82

  4

  50

  Sefton

  5

  5

  7

  23

  Sheffield

  —

  22

  3

  45

  Shropshire

  7

  —

  3

  40

  Slough

  —

  5

  8

  16

  Solihull

  22

  43

  13

  32

  Somerset

  5

  —

  9

  58

  South Gloucestershire

  14

  34

  9

  48

  South Tyneside

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Southampton

  —

  —

  4

  9

  Southend on Sea

  3

  —

  2

  9

  Southwark

  —

  —

  2

  —

  St. Helens

  4

  —

  7

  8

  Staffordshire

  4

  —

  9

  87

  Stockport

  9

  14

  11

  44

  Stockton on Tees

  5

  —

  2

  10

  Stoke on Trent

  2

  —

  19

  24

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  11

  22

  Sunderland

  1

  —

  1

  6

  Surrey

  6

  —

  4

  71

  Sutton

  6

  11

  4

  12

  Swindon

  7

  —

  —

  25

  Tameside

  —

  27

  9

  28

  Telford and Wrekin

  4

  13

  1

  19

  Thurrock

  1

  —

  5

  6

  Torbay

  4

  —

  5

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  7

  —

  6

  21

  Wakefield

  11

  6

  7

  28

  Walsall

  6

  5

  6

  18

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  10

  5

  10

  372 373

  The impact of capital and revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes in 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  LEA name

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Added classrooms

  Extra teachers

  Warrington

  4

  4

  10

  8

  Warwickshire

  3

  39

  4

  52

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  6

  7

  West Sussex

  17

  —

  12

  38

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wigan

  10

  23

  16

  33

  Wiltshire

  6

  21

  16

  50

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2

  —

  2

  15

  Wirral

  4

  —

  13

  20

  Wokingham

  5

  —

  6

  6

  Wolverhampton

  6

  —

  12

  21

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  14

  40

  York, City of

  2

  10

  2

  18

  National totals

  633

  1,528

  1,020

  4,308

  Gifted Pupils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's definition of a gifted pupil; what criteria schools will use to identify such pupils to qualify for support under the Excellence in Cities Initiative; if all schools will be entitled to resources attached to the scheme; and if schools will be expected to bid for the resources. [78715]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The measures for gifted and talented pupils in "Excellence in Cities" are for the most able 5–10 per cent. of pupils in every secondary school within the specified areas, including those with particular talents such as music and sport. Schools will identify these pupils through a combination of measures, including test scores and teacher assessments, in accordance with best practice. Pupils at every secondary school within the specified areas will benefit from the initiative. The funding mechanisms for these measures will be discussed with LEAs and others.

  Departmental Finances
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the total levels of unapplied(a) revenue and (b) capital reserves carried forward by his Department from 1997–98 to 1998–99; and what are the anticipated levels of reserves to be carried forward to 1999–2000. [78706]

  Mr. Mudie
  Running costs provision of £69,945,000, covering both the Department's headquarters and the Employment Service, was carried forward from 1997–98 into 1998–99, along with £958,000 of non-voted capital provision and £50,817,000 of welfare-to-work expenditure. It is too early to say with any precision what the carry over provision will be from 1998–99 to 1999–2000.

  School Categories
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many state primary and secondary schools in England and Wales he estimates to be(a) specialist schools, (b) city technology colleges, (c) education action zones, (d) foundation schools not in any other specific category, (e) aided schools and (f) community schools by 2002. [78708]
  374
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of state primary and secondary schools in England by September 2002 in the categories listed is expected to be:

  Primary

  Secondary

  (a) Specialist schools

  0

  at least 700 (800 by September 2003)

  (b) City technology colleges

  0

  15

  (c) Schools in education action zones

  1,000

  150

  (d) Foundation schools

  300

  600

  (e) Voluntary schools

  6,200

  500

  (f) Community schools

  11,500

  2,400

  Notes:

  1. Specialist schools may be foundation, voluntary or community schools and are double counted in this table. Similarly, schools in education action zones are double counted in this table.

  2. The table covers England only. There are no plans for specialist schools, city technology colleges or education action zones in Wales.

  3. Figures for specialist schools and education action zones are based on current targets.

  4. Figures for foundation, voluntary and community schools are broad approximations based on current numbers in current categories, and include middle schools deemed secondary.

  Music and Ballet Scheme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will extend the music and ballet scheme (England) to schools in the Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [78592]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have commissioned a review of the music and ballet scheme in England and are currently considering its interim report. The geographical location of schools and the provision available at regional level are among the factors being taken into account. We expect to receive the final report after Easter and to announce our future plans in the summer.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress he has made in establishing a Cabinet Committee on productivity and competitiveness. [77697]
  375
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 1 December 1998,Official Report, columns 118–19.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter of 7 January from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West about ministerial visits to Falkirk, West. [78495]

  The Prime Minister
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 7 March.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants for membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, represented both shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland. [77983]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are no applicants who declared themselves as representing more than one shade of political opinion. Of the 154 applicants, 23 recorded that they had had a political affiliation in the last ten years. The breakdown is as follows:

  Number

  Alliance

  6

  Communist Party of Ireland

  1

  Labour

  2

  Liberal Democrat

  1

  PUP

  1

  SDLP

  5

  UDP

  1

  UUP

  3

  UK Unionist

  1

  Womens Coalition

  2

  Workers Party

  1

  Note:

  One candidate indicated two parties.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of the peace process. [76682]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on 24 March 1999,Official Report, columns 379–82.

TREASURY

  Co-operatives
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the development of co-operatives. [77062]
  376
  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury consulted on proposals to update industrial and provident societies legislation last year, to prepare the way for a Bill when an opportunity arises.

  Earnings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in work who will have earnings above the lower earnings limit and below the threshold for paying national insurance contributions, in each year till 2001–2002. [76660]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Earnings Threshold for employees' primary Class 1 contributions will not be introduced until April 2000.

  Estimated average weekly number of employees Great Britain with earnings above the lower earnings limit and below the earnings threshold paying National Insurance Contributions. The figures do not take account of the national minimum wage, which will be introduced on 1 April 1999

  Thousand

  Year

  All employees

  2000–01

  430

  2001–02

  960

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in work have earnings below the lower earnings limit for National Insurance; and if he will provide(a) figures on the same basis for each of the last 10 years and (b) estimates of the figures for the next three years. [76661]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: I have been asked to reply. The information is in the table.

  Estimated average weekly number of employees in Great Britain with earnings above the lower earnings limit for National Insurance Contributions in each year in the period from 1988–89 to 2001–02. The figures do not take account of the national minimum wage, which will be introduced on 1 April 1999

  Thousand

  Year

  All employees

  1988–89

  2,940

  1989–90

  3,020

  1990–91

  3,020

  1991–92

  3,250

  1992–93

  3,170

  1993–94

  3,040

  1994–95

  2,970

  1995–96

  2,990

  1996–97

  3,110

  1997–98

  3,100

  1998–99

  3,130

  1999–2000

  3,120

  2000–01

  3,050

  2001–02

  3,020

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department
  377

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken to reduce the storage and maintenance costs for the United Kingdom 1841 to 1991 decennial census returns since Sir Peter Levine reported on them in 1997; and if any of the returns has been identified for early destruction. [78268]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to this question.

  Decennial census returns, whether held by the Public Record Office or the Office for National Statistics, are stored and maintained in the most cost effective manner possible while respecting their safe keeping and preservation and the occasional need for access to those which are open. No additional action has been taken to reduce costs since 1997.

  No returns have been identified for early destruction.

HEALTH

  Viagra
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the finalised Department of Health guidelines on the use of Viagra. [78591]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the close of the consultation on 25 March, we will consider the many responses received (approximately 800), before coming to a final decision on the availability of Viagra and other drug treatments for impotence on the National Health Service. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  £000

  Trust name

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Trust surpluses/(deficits)

  Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  112

  173

  (1,844)

  (893)

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,028

  27

  202

  Birmingham Heartlands NHS Trust

  1,671

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Birmingham Heartlands NHS Trust

  n/a

  2,718

  557

  n/a

  n/a

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  812

  264

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  765

  (346)

  229

  378

  Black Country Mental Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  130

  76

  (8)

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,299

  718

  1,042

  631

  13

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  2,183

  1,026

  (284)

  9

  Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  769

  19

  39

  55

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,824

  2,149

  1,096

  325

  Dudley Priority Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  946

  656

  407

  (261)

  First Community NHS Trust

  153

  192

  241

  40

  70

  George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  103

  (141)

  (1,783)

  40

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  777

  280

  1,419

  (101)

  (1,574)

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance NHS Trust

  n/a

  164

  195

  89

  44

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  492

  (61)

  (135)

  61

  Herefordshire Community Health NHS Trust

  86

  180

  52

  93

  (150)

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  491

  945

  612

  (83)

  (549)

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals Trust

  2,941

  325

  300

  529

  (721)

  North Birmingham Community Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  332

  185

  220

  258

  North East Worcestershire Community Healthcare Trust

  481

  360

  263

  n/a

  n/a

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  4,173

  1,396

  437

  (1,035)

  (1,199)

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,713

  1,385

  276

  (9)

  378

  Human Vaccines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on which date it was decided to discontinue use of those human vaccines which in their early stage of manufacture had used bovine material prohibited for use in human food; [78595]

  (2) what was the last date on which human vaccines, where bovine material prohibited for use in human food was used in the early stage of manufacture, were used on humans; [78594]

  (3) how those human vaccines, which in their early stage of manufacture used bovine material prohibited for use in human food, were disposed of. [78596]

  Ms Jowell
  No vaccine has been disposed of or discontinued because of use in the early stage of manufacture of bovine material which is prohibited for use in human food. Bovine material prohibited from use in the human food chain is not prohibited from use in the manufacture of medicinal products, including vaccines, but manufacturers are required to apply stringent quality measures to these materials to ensure their quality and safety. These quality measures have been in place since 1989, and require manufacturers to source material from countries with no reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, to consider the potential infectivity of tissues used and to comply with rigorous provisions on processing and quality control.

  NHS Expenditure (West Midlands)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the estimated surplus or deficit of each(a) health authority and (b) hospital and other trust in the West Midlands for the last five years. [78223]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table. Health authorities and family health service authorities merged after 1995–96, so health authority figures thereafter are not directly comparable.
  379

  £000

  Trust name

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  North Warwickshire Healthcare Trust

  1,327

  337

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Warwickshire NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,647

  621

  0

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health Trust

  n/a

  987

  340

  317

  (45)

  Premier Health Trust

  205

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Premier Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  (413)

  663

  (594)

  35

  Rob Jones and A. Hunt Orthopaedic NHS Trust

  n/a

  112

  285

  307

  (3)

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  389

  185

  267

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  383

  748

  366

  21

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,154

  689

  (124)

  (612)

  Rugby NHS Trust

  (151)

  245

  93

  43

  (1,557)

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,237

  764

  58

  235

  Shropshire's Community Health Service Trust

  n/a

  496

  262

  339

  144

  Shropshire's Mental Health NHS Trust

  574

  379

  173

  263

  165

  Solihull Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  131

  272

  95

  (49)

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  2,210

  232

  260

  150

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  (1,546)

  (940)

  327

  (300)

  97

  South Warwickshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  (64)

  (120)

  70

  (35)

  13

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Service Trust

  n/a

  (304)

  351

  (37)

  90

  South Worcestershire Community NHS Trust

  251

  158

  289

  n/a

  n/a

  Southern Birmingham Community Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  719

  1,082

  829

  (352)

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service Trust

  77

  246

  149

  112

  77

  The Foundation NHS Trust

  (1,840)

  229

  197

  251

  88

  The Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  901

  304

  343

  710

  153

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,474

  158

  10

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust

  266

  111

  42

  62

  30

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  (223)

  1,191

  417

  619

  1,368

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  715

  359

  153

  15

  (476)

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  n/a

  37

  (172)

  28

  (111)

  West Midlands Ambulance NHS Trust

  321

  358

  672

  423

  (196)

  Wolverley NHS Trust

  275

  (155)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  183

  189

  83

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  n/a

  (944)

  576

  327

  16

  Worcestershire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  419

  (145)

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DHA/RHA surpluses/(deficits)

  HA name

  Coventry Health Authority

  1,695

  (188)

  (3,142)

  Dudley Health Authority

  3,877

  (4,257)

  808

  East Birmingham District Health Authority

  220

  n/a

  n/a

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  946

  (565)

  110

  Mid Staffordshire District Health Authority

  920

  n/a

  n/a

  North Birmingham District Health Authority

  226

  n/a

  n/a

  North Birmingham Health Authority

  n/a

  (3,025)

  1,092

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  2,727

  (811)

  (609)

  North Worcestershire Health Authority

  1,080

  (1,897)

  (2,218)

  Sandwell Heath Authority

  840

  1,090

  (1,180)

  Shropshire Health Authority

  1,269

  (1,323)

  (135)

  Solihull Health

  798

  (3,324)

  (1,423)

  South Birmingham Health Authority

  19,909

  1,747

  (5,321)

  South East Staffordshire District Health Authority

  (388)

  n/a

  n/a

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  n/a

  (196)

  695

  Walsall Health Authority

  142

  70

  (493)

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  4,010

  (848)

  (3,654)

  West Birmingham District Health Authority

  718

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  (11,619)

  9,667

  (14,030)

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  (652)

  315

  (425)

  Worcester and District District Health Authority

  582

  14

  (1,131)

  FHSA surpluses/(deficits)

  FHSA name

  Birmingham FHSA

  (1,141)

  (1,761)

  (46)

  Coventry FHSA

  (500)

  724

  (2,864)

  Dudley FHSA

  (606)

  983

  (1,087)

  Hereford and Worcester FHSA

  (196)

  (923)

  (1,016)

  Sandwell FHSA

  (566)

  (93)

  (545)

  Shropshire FHSA

  (553)

  (1,039)

  333

  Solihull Health

  481

  (925)

  (344)

  380

  381

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Staffordshire FHSA

  1,495

  1,020

  (3,522)

  Walsall FHSA

  53

  37

  (1,676)

  Warwickshire FHSA

  (1,360)

  (1,185)

  (3,851)

  Wolverhampton Health Executive

  (162)

  (13)

  (606)

  £000

  HA name

  1996–97

  1997–98

  HA surplus/(deficits)

  Birmingham Health Authority

  2,701

  (11,462)

  Coventry Health Authority

  (623)

  (391)

  Dudley Health Authority

  (3,450)

  (2,778)

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  (990)

  (464)

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  3,305

  1,418

  Sandwell Health Authority

  2,847

  (365)

  Shropshire Health Authority

  (4,326)

  (3,472)

  Solihull Health Authority

  155

  166

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  (4,706)

  (2,489)

  Walsall Health Authority

  (2,528)

  1,221

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  783

  2,181

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  (3,336)

  (684)

  Worcestershire Health Authority

  (3,239)

  (4,396)

  Note:

  n/a = not applicable (Trust/HA did not exist)

  Source:

  For all tables—Summarised Accounts

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the forecast surpluses and deficits for NHS trusts in 1998–99 quarter 3. [78521]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Violence against Women
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the planned Government paper on violence against women will address(a) rape and sexual assault, (b) the problems faced by adult survivors of child sexual abuse, (c) sexual harassment, (d) female genital mutilation, (e) violence and abuse of girls, (f) the law as it relates to those who wish to claim asylum on the ground of gender violence, (g) the law on homicide as it relates to victims of domestic violence who kill abusive partners and (h) funding for (i) rape crises centres, (ii) refuges and (iii) other services for women and girls who have suffered violence or abuse. [78486]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's paper will highlight practical examples, from different organisations, agencies and local authorities, of how violence against women is being successfully tackled across the country. These good practice models will be supported by practical measures which are being developed across Government.

  The publication will be based on the prevention of violence against women wherever possible and the provision of protection, services and justice for women where violence has occurred. Amongst other issues, it will address rape and sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment, female genital mutilation, and funding for rape crisis centres, refuges and other support services for women and girls who have suffered violence or abuse.
  382

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the revised timetable for the consideration of responses to proposals contained in the Medicines Control Agency Consultation Document MLX249, and on the timetable for legislative action arising from those proposals. [78560]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency is presently considering the responses to the proposals with a view to making recommendations to Ministers. In the light of those recommendations, we will consider whether or what legislation should be put before Parliament. As we have previously said, we are not tied to the April 1999 date suggested in the proposals.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the companies to which the Medicines Control Agency has written in the last 12 months indicating that it is considering classifying as a medicine, products which that company currently markets as a food, indicating in each case the ingredients concerned and the(a) scientific and (b) legal basis for the action. [78565]

  Ms Jowell
  No. The Medicines Control Agency has considered the classification of over 900 products in the last twelve months and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of providing scientific evidence to support an application for a product licence for the Medicines Control Agency; and what is the average time taken by the Agency to consider such applications. [78564]

  Ms Jowell
  The cost of providing scientific evidence to support an application for a product licence is met by the applicant and the Government have made no estimate of the average cost of application. The average time taken to consider such applications varies according to the type of application. These are detailed in the Medicines Control Agency's Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library. The mean time for the assessment of new active substances in 1997–98 was 44 days.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) herbal products and (b) blends of herbs with vitamins that are sold as foods, the Medicines Control Agency is considering for assessment as medicines, indicating the ingredients concerned in each case. [78566]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency is not considering for assessment as medicines any herbal products or blends of herbs with vitamins legitimately sold as foods.
  383

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 10 February regarding a constituent and to his letter of 24 February regarding a constitutent (ref. POH(2)5608/20). [78488]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to my hon. Friend's letter of 24 February on 23 March. I replied to my hon. Friend's letter of 10 February on 24 March.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the changes at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon. [77834]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 227.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an Immigration and Nationality Directorate office in Cardiff. [78230]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has an office in Cardiff operated by 13 staff from the Immigration Service Ports Directorate. They have responsibility for processing arriving passengers and immigration law enforcement work. There are no current plans for additional offices.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies who applied for the contract for the computerisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [78632]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Seven companies responded to the notice advertising the competition. They were Amdahl UK, Andersen Consulting, Computer Science (CSC), EDS, IBM UK, Siemens Business Services and Unisys. The National Audit Office report on the Casework Programme, published on 24 March, concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate managed the procurement in a business-like way.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Horseriders)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise police recording methods so that statistics on road traffic accidents involving horseriders and horses are separately collated; and if he will make a statement. [78224]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a review of data requirements in 1997–98, it was agreed that details of horseriders would be separately identified in the information which is recorded by the police on road injury accidents from 1999. Unridden horses and horse drawn vehicles will not be separately identified.
  384

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to introduce a new crime of corporate manslaughter. [78238]

  Mr. Boateng
  An inter-departmental working group of officials, which includes a member of the Law Commission, is currently considering the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report no. 237, "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter", which includes the creation of a new offence of corporate manslaughter.

  Once we have the group's conclusions we will consider how to take forward the recommendation on corporate manslaughter.

  Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the working group operating under the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council to finalise the draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance containing proposals for cooperation on the interception of telecommunications. [78392]

  Mr. Straw
  The German Presidency hopes to conclude the draft Convention at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 27–28 May 1999.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [79154]

  Mr. Straw
  We looked afresh at the scheme as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The review recommended no changes to the basic structure of the scheme. In the financial settlement following the review, more money was made available for the scheme, with the aim of ensuring that the number of cases settled equalled or exceeded the number of new applications received so that the number of cases outstanding remained broadly constant or fell. We want to see the resources now available are used as effectively as possible for the benefit of victims and taxpayers alike.

  We are accordingly undertaking a public consultation exercise inviting views on whether and, if so, how the scheme might be refined or improved within the parameters of the present tariff-based arrangements and the financial provision set for the next three years. A consultation document entitled, "Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime—Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme", is accordingly being sent to a wide range of practitioners, interested organisations and the media. The document will be made available to other inquirers on request. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The consultation document sets out the background to, and rationale for, the scheme. It summarises historical details of applications received and awards paid, and sets out performance plans for the coming three-year financial cycle. It offers suggestions on how the tariff or injuries might be changed to improve internal consistency and to make it more comprehensive, and summarises a number of other suggestions put forward at various times on what

  385
  other changes might be made. It also identifies ways in which scheme resources could be released to pay for changes considered desirable if the cost of those changes exceeded the provision available.

  The consultation document invites comment by mid-June. After that, we will analyse carefully the responses received and consider how best to take matters forward.

  In the interim, I have today laid before Parliament a draft of alterations to the scheme, seeking to add additional injury descriptions to the tariff of awards. This is without prejudice to the consultation exercise. The purpose is the limited one of enabling the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to settle outstanding claims from applicants whose injuries are not currently listed in the tariff but which are considered sufficiently serious to qualify for at least the minimum award of £1,000. The proposed changes require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure before they can take effect.

  Private Security Industry
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce proposals on regulation of the private security industry. [79155]

  Mr. Boateng
  I intend to publish a White Paper containing the Government's proposals for a framework for comprehensive regulation of the private security industry tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of Altrincham and Sale, West have been subject to approved(a) interception of mail and (b) telephone tapping since 1 May 1997. [78524]

  Mr. Straw
  In accordance with long-established policy and consistently with the statutory provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, it is not the practice of Government to confirm or deny, either that a warrant of interception has been issued, or that interception has taken place in any particular case. This policy, by extension, is applied to revealing figures for specific areas of the country, as this may assist the people who, because they represent a threat to national security or because they are suspected of involvement in very serious crime, are subject to interception measures.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to make the monitoring of internal telephone calls in the workplace an offence if done without the employee's consent. [78493]

  Mr. Straw
  During the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill debate in this House on 2 September 1998,Official Report, column 749, I announced that I had put in hand a comprehensive review of the interception regime, and that a consultation document on this would be published in due course. The consultation document will address the issue of interception on private telephone
  386
  networks which was the subject of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halford v United Kingdom. Legislation will be introduced at the earliest available opportunity. In the meantime, the Government will shortly issue guidance, explaining to operators of non-public networks, the steps that they should take in order to give effect to the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that such a breach does not recur. I shall place a copy of these guidelines in the Library.

  CCTV Surveillance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the possible registration of CCTV surveillance systems with the police; and if he will make a statement. [78489]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to require public space Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems to be registered with the police.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 will provide a framework for the statutory regulation of public space CCTV systems. Controllers of such systems will have to notify details of their processing to the Data Protection Commissioner and comply with a set of enforceable principles of good information handling practice, including the need for personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost would have been of increasing basic pension in line with earnings since 1 May 1997; what the value of such an increase would have been to a single pensioner; what the actual increase in basic pension has been since 1 May 1997, and what the cost has been; and what the cost of the winter payments to pensioners have been in each year since 1 May 1997. [76658]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information is in the tables.

  Estimated cost (net of means-tested benefits) of uprating basic state pension by prices from April 1997 level

  £ million

  Excluding linked benefits

  Including linked benefits

  1998–99

  770

  920

  1999–2000

  1,520

  1,790

  Estimated additional cost (net of means-tested benefits) of uprating basic state pension by earnings from April 1998 onwards

  £ million

  Excluding linked benefits

  Including linked benefits

  1998–99

  100

  120

  1999–2000

  510

  600

  387

  Value of category A pension (100 per cent. rate for a single person under 80)

  £

  Actual rate

  Rate if uprated by earnings from April 1998 onwards

  1997–98

  62.45

  62.45

  1998–99

  64.70

  65.00

  1999–2000

  66.75

  68.20

  Estimated cost of winter fuel payments

  £ million

  Cost

  1997–98

  200

  1998–99

  200

  Notes:

  1. Table 1 shows the estimated cost of uprating the basic State pension by prices compared with a situation where no uprating takes place after April 1997. Table 2 shows the extra cost, over and above uprating by prices of uprating by earnings from April 1998 onwards.

  2. Estimates of total costs in first two tables are rounded to nearest £10 million and are cash figures.

  3. Contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department

  4. Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 and 1996–97 Family Resources Survey and the May 1997 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Hammersmith and Fulham currently have incomes above the minimum income guarantee but below the income tax threshold. [77836]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Hendon are above the level of the minimum income guarantee and below the income tax threshold. [77576]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefits (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in Hendon are in receipt of(a) disability living allowance and (b) incapacity benefit; [77573]

  (2) how many people aged over 50 years in Hendon are in receipt of incapacity benefit; [77574]

  (3) how many people aged over 50 years in Hendon are in receipt of jobseeker's allowance. [77575]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 25 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, how many people in Hendon are in receipt of, (a) Disability Living Allowance,
  388
  (b) Incapacity Benefit, and how many people aged over 50 years in Hendon are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance.
  The information that is available is in the attached table. I am afraid it is not all in the format requested. This is because normally the Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics by BA District. These Districts do not necessarily correspond with Local Authority boundaries or Parliamentary constituencies. The BA Edgware District is one such District with offices at Barnet Hill, Hendon, and Edgware. The information about Incapacity Benefit is for this District. The information for Jobseeker's Allowance closely reflect the 1991 wards of Burnt Oaks, Colindale, Edgware, Hale, Hendon, Mill Hill, and West Hendon. The figures for Disability Living Allowance are for the postal area of the Parliamentary Constituency of Hendon.
  I hope you find this helpful.

  Recipients of Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, and Disability Living Allowance for Hendon and the surrounding area

  Benefit

  No. all ages

  No. over 50 years of age

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  —

  433

  Incapacity Benefit

  5,740

  3,320

  Disability Living Allowance

  2,337

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures for Jobseeker's Allowance are as at 14 January 1999 and include credits only claims (National Insurance Contributions), and reflect the 1991 wards of Burnt Oaks, Colindale, Edgware, Hale, Hendon, Mill Hill, and West Hendon.1

  2. Figures for Incapacity Benefit are as at 31 May 1998 and are from a 5 per cent. sample that excludes a small number or clerical cases, and are for the BA Edgware District which includes the BA offices at Barnet Hill, Hendon, and Edgware.2

  3. Figures for Disability Living Allowance are as at 31 May 1998 and are from a 100 per cent. count, and are for the postal district of the Parliamentary Constituency of Hendon.2

  4. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Sources:

  1The Office of National Statistics

  2Analytical Services Division

  Benefits Agency/POCL System
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings to public funds of(a) the piloting of and (b) each of the first five years of the operation of the Benefits Agency/POCL system. [78314]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that, on current plans, the trial of the Payment Card will result in savings of £17 million during the period of the trial. A further £64 million will be saved by the Order Book Control Service over the same period.

  The estimated savings in each of the first five tax years following national roll-out of the systems

  £ million

  Savings

  2000–01

  188

  2001–02

  189

  2002–03

  189

  2003–04

  189

  2004–05

  189

  Note:

  Includes savings from other measures including Order Book Control Service that are gradually superseded by the Payment Card during national roll-out.
  389

  Benefit Claimants (Bank Accounts)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of benefit (i) claimants and (ii) recipients of state pensions who have neither a bank account nor a National Savings Account. [78231]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimates of total number of benefit claimants who have neither a bank account nor a National Savings Account vary. The various sources of information available suggest the proportion to be in the region of 10–20 per cent.

  The information available suggests that the proportion of recipients of state pensions who have neither a bank account nor a National Savings Account is in the region of 5 per cent.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the final out-turn figure for the Benefit Integrity Project in terms of net expenditure; and if he will estimate the amounts of(a) under and (b) over payments identified. [78324]

  Mr. Bayley
  Administrative costs for the year 1997–98 were £8.267 million. Current estimates of the costs for the year 1998–99 are £12.6 million. For the latest estimate of net programme savings, I refer my hon. Friend to my oral answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, columns 16–17. A breakdown of this estimate into underpayments and overpayments is not currently available, although underlying information on the amount of weekly Disability Living Allowance that groups of claimants on different rates of benefit have either gained or lost is provided in the monthly statistical summaries held in the Library.

  Final estimates for administrative and programme costs and savings associated with the Benefit Integrity Project will be calculated after the Project ends on 31 March 1999 and will be published in due course.

  Pregnant and Lactating Mothers (Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of(a) pregnant and (b) lactating mothers receiving (i) income support and (ii) family credit. [78278]

  Appeals heard and decided

  Appeals decided in appellant's favour

  (Percentage of appeals heard and decided)

  Lapsed on review/superseded

  Incapacity benefit: all work test

  1996

  38,474

  18,026

  (47)

  269

  1997

  51,896

  22,453

  (43)

  1,742

  1998

  48,031

  19,361

  (40)

  2,533

  Incapacity benefit other than all work test

  1996

  3,120

  1,035

  (33)

  49

  1997

  4,682

  1,299

  (28)

  833

  1998

  5,302

  1,343

  (25)

  1,347

  Note:

  Lapsed on review and superseded includes cases that could have been due to a re-instatement of benefit, but can include other causes.

  Source:

  100 per cent. computer extract from Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) systems.
  390
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  The number of pregnant women receiving milk tokens in receipt of Income Support was 45,000 as at August 1998. At the same date 570,000 recipients of Income Support received milk tokens for children aged five years or less.

  No information is available in respect of Family Credit.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Income Support claimants and are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. The figures cover those women who are provided with milk tokens during pregnancy up to the birth of the child and those claimants who are provided with milk tokens for children up to the age of five.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1998.

  Dependent Children (Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 674–76, on income support and family credit, if he will publish further figures showing how many (a) two-parent and (b) one-parent families have dependent children aged (i) under 12 months, (ii) one to two years, (iii) three to four years, (iv) five to 10 years, (v) 11 to 15 years and (vi) 16 to 18 years; and if these figures and those in his earlier answers relate to the whole of the United Kingdom. [78332]

  Angela Eagle
  The information for my previous answer relates to Great Britain only.

  The additional information requested is not currently available. Once the estimates have been made, I will write to the hon. Member with a full reply.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful appeals there have been against a refusal of incapacity benefit for the years 1996 to date. [78281]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  391

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 10 February (ref. 2/3644/41) regarding a constituent. [78487]

  Mr. Timms
  A reply was sent on 23 March 1999.

  Basis Southern Command
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many arrests have been made in January by Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service Southern Command; [74345]

  (2) what is the current budget for Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service; and of this, what proportion is allocated to the (a) Northern and (b) Southern Commands; [74347]

  (3) how many arrests made by BASIS Southern Command have led to (a) prosecutions and (b) successful convictions since its establishment. [74346]

  Mr. Timms
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 March 1999, c. 886–87]: Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison, and I have asked him to send a further letter to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 25 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many arrests have been made in January by BASIS Southern Command; what is the budget for BASIS; and of this, what proportion is allocated to Northern and Southern Commands respectively; how many arrests made by BASIS Southern Command have led to a) prosecutions and b) successful convictions since its establishment.
  During January 1999 the BASIS Southern Command made twenty-five arrests.
  The budget for BASIS is managed centrally and not split into two commands. It covers not only the Investigation Staff but also Support Staff and Goods and Services. The budget for this financial year is £8.2m of which £6.34m has been spent to date.
  BASIS was formed in April 1998. Since that date the police have made 375 arrests based on information supplied by BASIS Southern Command. One hundred and forty-eight of these have been submitted for prosecution of which ninety-four have to date been successful.
  I hope that this is helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much agrimonetary compensation was paid in Scotland in each year since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices. [77751]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No agrimonetary compensation was paid by the UK Government until 1997–98. £23.36 million (£23.94 million at 1998–99 prices) was paid in 1997–98.
  392

  Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the distribution of the funds raised from the £1,000 tuition fee paid by university students. [77740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is not available. Whether a contribution from a student or some or all of the fee paid on their behalf by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, tuition fees are paid direct to institutions. Institutions distribute the funds as they see fit.

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

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers were made bankrupt in each year since 1992. [77797]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on bankruptcies by occupation is not available. The figures in the table come from the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy and shows the number of sequestrations of people employed in the agriculture and horticulture industries in Scotland in each year since 1992. The figures cover employees as well as the self employed, and so many include people other than farmers. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Number of sequestrations in the agriculture and horticulture industries in Scotland, 1992–1998

  Year

  Number of sequestrations

  1992

  35

  1993

  19

  1994

  12

  1995

  13

  1996

  14

  1997

  7

  1998

  11

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals were made bankrupt in Scotland in each year since 1992. [77767]

  Mr. McLeish
  The number of sequestrations in Scotland under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 between 1991–92 and 1997–98 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of sequestrations

  1991–92

  8,587

  1992–93

  11,970

  1993–94

  4,022

  1994–95

  2,340

  1995–96

  2,380

  1996–97

  2,534

  1997–98

  2,701

  Land Reform
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the costs of the introduction of his land reform proposals. [77750]
  393
  Mr. Macdonald
  I am satisfied that the overall package of proposals for land reform which we launched on 5 January will benefit the people of Scotland.

  The cost of introducing our land reform recommendations will depend on the result of further technical development of the proposals, which is ongoing.

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

  Road Projects
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) road building and (b) motorway and trunk road improvement proposals and their total cost for each year from 1997 to 2001. [77764]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Local roads are the responsibility of the local authorities. Details of schemes and expenditure are not held centrally. Total net expenditure for the motorway and trunk road programme in Scotland was £203 million in 1996–97 and £170 million in 1997–98. The estimated expenditure for 1998–99 is £155 million. Planned net expenditure for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is £163 million and £176 million respectively. Major new schemes completed or due to be completed between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2001 are:

  M8/M9 Newbridge Interchange, October 1997;

  A1 Oswald Dean to East of Innerwick, January 1998;

  A92 Halbeath Interchange, March 1998;

  A96 Blackburn to Kintore, September 1998;

  A830 Polnish to Loch Nan Uamh, October 1998;

  A75 The Glen Improvement, May/June 1999;

  A74(M) DBFO, Spring 1999:

  A828 Creagan Bridge, Summer 1999;

  A86 Rubha Na Magach to Aberarder, Summer 1999;

  A1 Spott to Oswald Dean, Winter 1999; and,

  A7 Hawick Relief Road, Winter 2000–01.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road(a) building and (b) improvement projects were cancelled in 1997. [77763]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No trunk road schemes were cancelled by my right hon. Friend in 1997. On taking office, we announced a review of the Scottish trunk roads programme and imposed a moratorium on major schemes in the inherited programme with the exception of the A828 (Creagan Bridge) and the A75 (The Glen). Minor schemes and other items of trunk road expenditure were unaffected by the review.

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

  Full-time Education
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of young people aged 15 to 25 years were in full-time education in each year since 1992. [77742]
  394
  Mrs. Liddell
  The number of young people aged greater than or equal to 15 but under 251 in full-time education2 in Scotland from 1991–92 until 1996–97 (the last academic year for which full figures are available) was as follows:

  Academic year

  Number (000s)

  Percentage 3

  1991–92

  226.9

  31

  1992–93

  236.0

  33

  1993–94

  248.7

  36

  1994–95

  258.7

  38

  1995–96

  265.9

  40

  1996–97

  279.3

  43

  1 Age as at 31 December of the relevant academic year. Information on the numbers of people aged 25 is not readily available.

  2 Excludes students on non-vocational courses in further education colleges and those on non-credit bearing courses at higher education institutions.

  3 As a percentage of an estimated population of people aged greater than or equal to 15 but under 25 as at 31 December. Derived from mid-year population estimates provided by the General Register Office for Scotland.

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

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the medical profession on exempt categories relating to prescription charges in Scotland. [77596]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Since 1 April 1998, six representations have been received from the medical profession in Scotland on exempt categories of prescription charges. All the representations related to exemption from charges on medical grounds.

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

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the next prescription charge review in Scotland will include a review of exempt categories. [77597]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no plans at present to conduct a review of prescription charge exempt categories in Scotland.

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

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next review prescription charges in Scotland. [77598]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no plans at present to review prescription charges in Scotland.

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

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of young people aged 15 to 25 years attended(a) a further and (b) a higher education course in each year since 1992. [77741]
  395
  Mrs. Liddell
  The number of young people aged greater than or equal to 15 but under 251 attending a further education course or a higher education course in Scotland2 from 1991–92 until 1996–97 (the academic year for which full figures are available) was as follows:

  Further education Number

  Higher education Number

  Academic year

  (thousand)

  Percentage 3

  (thousand)

  Percentage 3

  1991–92

  75.8

  10

  102.7

  14

  1992–93

  66.4

  9

  112.4

  16

  1993–94

  62.1

  9

  118.4

  17

  1994–95

  55.5

  8

  123.9

  18

  1995–96

  70.4

  11

  124.9

  19

  1996–97

  79.1

  12

  133.2

  20

  1 Age as at 31 December of the relevant academic year. Information on the numbers of people aged 25 is not readily available.

  2 Excludes students on non-vocational courses in further education colleges and those on non-credit bearing courses at higher education institutions.

  3 As a percentage of an estimated population of people aged greater than or equal to 15 but under 25 at 31 December. Derived from mid-year population estimates provided by the General Register Office for Scotland.

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

  Business Insolvencies and Starts
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many business(a) insolvencies and (b) starts there were in Scotland in each year since 1992. [77768]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is as follows.

  (a) Statistics on insolvencies are produced by statisticians in the Department of Trade and Industry. The information is shown in the following table:

  Individuals

  Companies

  Year

  Sequestrations

  Total

  Compulsory liquidations

  Creditors' voluntary liquidations

  1992

  10,845

  670

  310

  360

  1993

  6,828

  551

  286

  265

  1994

  2,182

  414

  242

  202

  1995

  2,188

  441

  252

  189

  1996

  2,503

  441

  266

  175

  1997

  2,502

  477

  254

  223

  1998

  3,016

  566

  338

  228

  Note:

  Insolvent individuals in Scotland are subject to sequestration under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1993 amending the 1985 Act came into force on 1 April 1993, and will have affected the number of sequestrations in the Scottish courts.

  Source:

  DTI

  (b) The best official source of information relating to business starts is the VAT registration data. The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Business start-ups: enterprises registering for VAT in Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1992

  12,665

  1993

  12,600

  1994

  11,345

  396

  Business start-ups: enterprises registering for VAT in Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1995

  11,195

  1996

  11,275

  1997

  12,280

  Note:

  Pre-1994 figures are not entirely comparable with later figures because they counted VAT units rather than whole enterprises, and also because of an unusually large increase in the threshold for VAT registration in 1993.

  Source:

  DTI SME Statistics Unit

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of people claiming legal aid for each year since 1992. [77830]

  Mr. McLeish
  The total number of people claiming legal aid from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in each year was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  403,749

  1993–94

  390,914

  1994–95

  407,375

  1995–96

  419,186

  1996–97

  406,741

  1997–98

  419,172

  Applications for legal aid for children, contempt of court and solemn criminal legal aid are made to the court. The numbers of applications refused by the court are not kept centrally but the following shows the number of grants by the courts:

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  15,248

  1993–94

  15,065

  1994–95

  14,982

  1995–96

  14,355

  1996–97

  14,028

  1997–98

  14,347

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

  New Deal
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost of the New Deal in Scotland has been(a) per job created and (b) per person completing the scheme to date. [77827]

  Mr. Dewar
  The New Deal is a rolling programme and total expenditure so far covers some who have left the programme and some who are still participating. It is too early to assess precisely the cost per job or per person completing the programme to date.

  Lottery Funding
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the recipients, (b) the project and (c) the amount of lottery funding awarded in Scotland since May 1997 for projects costing more than £50,000. [77748]
  397
  Mr. Galbraith
  Awards totalling £370,424,087 for projects in Scotland costing more than £50,000 have been distributed by the 5 Good Causes since May 1997. However, as the list of awards is rather lengthy, I am placing tables containing the information requested in the House Library.

  Gas-Fired Power Stations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will(a) list the consents he has refused for gas-fired power stations and (b) estimate the proposed investments in each station by those applying for consents. [78012]

  Mr. Dewar
  I recently announced my decision to refuse consent to PowerGen's application for a new natural gas-fired power station at Gartcosh, North

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1. Cash

  Agriculture

  514

  535

  525

  486

  470

  524

  557

  Fisheries

  31

  30

  39

  31

  30

  29

  30

  Roads and Transport

  319

  252

  304

  312

  364

  361

  367

  2. 1998–99 prices

  Agriculture

  557

  562

  538

  486

  459

  499

  517

  Fisheries

  34

  32

  40

  31

  29

  28

  28

  Roads and Transport

  345

  265

  312

  312

  355

  344

  341

  Agriculture figures are for spending by my Department only and do not include spending in Scotland under schemes operated, on a UK basis, by the Intervention Board Executive Agency.

  By far the main component of Agriculture spending by my Department is in relation to CAP on-farm payments. Support under such measures is determined by the EU and the value of payments in Member States is sensitive to currency movements. Planned Agriculture spending figures for the three years beginning 1999–2000 reflect assumptions at the end of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the likely Sterling value of CAP on-farm payments. The actual level of spending on such schemes will be determined largely by changes flowing from the EU Agenda 2000 discussions. CAP provision is classed as Annually Managed expenditure and future spending needs will be decided on an annual basis.

  The figures for Roads and Transport include the external finance limits for Caledonian MacBrayne and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., but exclude provision for local authority capital expenditure which since 1996–97 has been included in the single allocation for local authority non-housing capital expenditure. From 1997–98, the Roads and Transport programme includes provision for the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority transferred from the Department of Transport to The Scottish Office. From 1998–99, it also includes provision for Bus Fuel Duty Rebate in Scotland.

  From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  398
  Lanarkshire. My decision followed the recommendation by the Reporter to the public inquiry into the application that consent be refused. I have not refused consent to any other gas-fired power stations.

  The level of investment Gartcosh would have involved is a commercial matter for the company.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's budget for(a) agriculture, (b) the fishing industry and (c) transport and roads in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for each year between 1995–96 and 1998–99 and what estimate he has made in each case for each year from 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [77330]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The information requested is as follows:

  Repossessions
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decrees were granted by Sheriff courts for the repossession of owner-occupied homes for each quarter of 1998. [78216]

  Mr. McLeish
  Figures in relation to repossession of owner occupied homes have been collected by the courts since a revised system of collecting Civil Judicial Statistics was instituted on 1 January 1994. The figures for decrees granted by the sheriff courts for each quarter of 1998 are as follows:

  1st Quarter: 1,158

  2nd Quarter: 1,155

  3rd Quarter: 1,373

  4th Quarter: 1,247.

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

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of their special transitional grant was spent by each local authority(a) in the independent sector and (b) on home care in each of the last five years. [77145]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The special transitional grant did not apply in Scotland.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  399

  FE Colleges
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the detailed remit of the intended review of the management of further education colleges in Scotland. [78992]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The new Scottish Further Education Funding Council is being asked by the Government:to review the quality of management of Scotland's FE colleges, taking account of recent reports on aspects of management within the sector, and in particular to:
  assess the effectiveness of current management of colleges;
  identify what range and mix of management skills, structures, systems and processes would best serve colleges;
  suggest how the management performance of colleges might be measured and monitored;
  make recommendations as to how best management practice can become the norm and how shortcomings can be identified early and addressed;
  and to report to Scottish Ministers by end 1999.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Darts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received of the recognising of darts as a sport by the Sports Council; what action he has taken to have darts so recognised; and if he will make a statement. [77442]

  Mr. Banks
  I am personally very supportive of Darts and the outstanding achievements by British Darts players over many years. I have received a number of representations about the recognition of Darts, including one recently received from the British Darts Organisation (BDO). The Sports Councils keep their recognition criteria under review and I have assured the BDO that this is something in which I shall continue to keep a close interest. I am doing all I can to keep the issue near the top of the Council's agendas.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a regulator to oversee the activities of professional football clubs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [77795]

  Mr. Banks
  I expect the football authorities to address issues relating to the administration of professional football, and I know they are currently reviewing structures and procedures.

  The Government have recognised the special role football plays in this country by establishing the Football Task Force to investigate issues of concern to all those involved with the game. The Task Force is currently considering the complex issues associated with the commercial aspects of the game, which may include whether some kind of football regulator is required. I will give careful consideration to any recommendations which the Task Force's forthcoming commercial report may make in this area.
  400

  Sports Council (Recognised Sports)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from organisations which have been refused recognition by the Sports Council; and if he will list the activities involved. [77880]

  Mr. Banks
  I have received a number of representations from organisations and activities which have not been recognised by the Sports Councils. In the last two years, two activities have been rejected for recognition by the Sports Councils. These were Greyhound Racing and Darts. However, the Sports Councils keep their recognition criteria under review and I am currently doing all I can to keep this issue near the top of the Councils' agendas. I will continue to pursue the recognition issue as a matter of priority.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the sports recognised by the Sports Council. [77879]

  Mr. Banks
  The following activities have been recognised:

  Aikido

  American Football

  Angling

  Archery

  Arm Wrestling

  Association Football

  Athletics

  Australian Rules Football

  Badminton

  Ballooning

  Baseball

  Basketball

  Baton Twirling

  Bicycle Polo

  Billiards and Snooker

  Bobsleigh

  Boccia

  Bowls

  Boxing

  Camogie

  Canoeing

  Caving

  Chinese Martial Arts

  Cricket

  Croquet

  Crossbow

  Curling

  Cycling

  Disability Sports

  Dragon Boat Racing

  Equestrian

  Exercise and Fitness

  Fencing

  Fives

  Flying

  Gaelic Football

  Gliding

  Golf

  401

  Gymnastics

  Handball

  Hang-Gliding and Paragliding

  Highland Games

  Hockey

  Horse Racing

  Hovering

  Hurling

  Ice Hockey

  Ice Skating

  Jet Skiing

  Ju Jitsu

  Judo

  Kabaddi

  Karate

  Kendo

  Korfball

  Lacrosse

  Lawn Tennis

  Life Saving

  Luge

  Modern Pentathlon

  Motor Cycling

  Motor Sports

  Mountaineering

  Movement and Dance

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Parachuting

  Petanque

  Polo

  Pony Trekking

  Pool

  Quoits

  Racketball

  Rackets

  Racquetball

  Rambling

  Real Tennis

  Roller Hockey

  Roller Skating

  Rounders

  Rowing

  Rugby League

  Rugby Union

  Sailing/Yachting

  Sand/Land Yachting

  Shinty

  Shooting

  Skateboarding

  Skiing

  Skipping

  Snowboarding

  Softball

  Sombo Wrestling

  Squash

  Street/Skater Hockey

  Sub-aqua

  402

  Surf-Life Saving

  Surfing

  Swimming and Diving

  Table Tennis

  Taekwondo

  Tang Soo Do

  Tenpin Bowling

  Trampolining

  Triathlon

  Tug of War

  Unihoc

  Volleyball

  Water Skiing

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling

  Yoga.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance. [78465]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The DCMS Year 2000 compliance programme has been audited by the Department's Internal Audit team as part of its oversight duties for the Department's processes and procedures. Internal Audit revisit the compliance work on a regular basis and review the regular returns which the Department provides to the centre. Internal Audit provides a robust and independent review of the Department's compliance programme and I do not feel that, in this case, an external assessment would add value to the process. It would also be costly.

  Information on the Department's compliance programme is provided to the centre on a regular basis and is then placed in the public domain, most recently as of the publication of departmental returns and tables summarising department's progress on 16 March.

WALES

  Eye Checks
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the annual cost of abolishing all charges for eye checks and (b) the annual number of people who currently make some payment for such checks. [78530]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  477,000 NHS sight tests were undertaken in 1997–98 at a cost to the NHS of some£6.7 million.

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

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the annual cost of abolishing all charges for dental checks and (b) the annual number of people who currently make some payment for such checks. [78529]
  403
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  All children are entitled to free dental examinations and in Wales around 30 per cent. of adults are either entitled to free NHS dental care or receive partial help with its cost.

  In 1997–98, 1.1million NHS dental examinations were carried out for adults in Wales. On the assumption that 70 per cent. of those were for patients who had to pay full NHS charges, around 770,000 of those examinations would have contributed some £3.5m in NHS patient charges.

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

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the London banisters' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70039]

  Mr. Hain
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 February 1999, c. 255]: I regret that there were a number of inaccuracies in the reply.

  The following barristers' chambers have also been instructed directly by the Welsh Office or via Treasury Solicitor's Office:

  (i) Atkin Chambers, Gray's Inn,

  4–5 Grays Inn Square,

  3 Serjeants Inn.

  (ii) In the list of barristers' chambers "Monkton Court" should have read "Monckton Chambers".

  In addition the statement that no London solicitors firms had been instructed was incorrect. Instructions have been given in both periods to the firms Wilde Sapte, and Bird and Bird.Please accept my apologies for these inaccuracies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Society's, Accounts Rules
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend Part II of the Solicitors Act 1974 to include amongst those Law Society rule changes which require his consent, the Law Society's Accounts Rules; and if he will make a statement. [78120]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The Lord Chancellor has no plans to alter the current arrangements for approving changes to the Law Society's Accounts Rules. Such changes are already subject to approval by the Master of the Rolls.

  Kent Magistrates' Court Committee
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999,Official Report, columns 479–80, on Kent Magistrates' Court Committee, if he will set out the circumstances of the one potential incident; and if he will list (a) the official or officials involved, (b) the nature of the fraud or mismanagement and (c) what advice or recommendations have been made by his Department. [78309]
  404
  Mr. Hoon
  The potential incident report in respect of the Kent MCC has not yet been resolved. The Magistrates' Courts Committee and the Kent County Council are taking further legal advice. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to release details at this stage.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what was the cost to the Legal Aid Budget of cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office in each year since 1995–96; [78219]

  (2) what proportion of the Legal Aid Budget was spent on cases prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office, broken down into (i) contested cases and (ii) pleas of guilty, in the last year for which figures are available. [78218]

  Mr. Hoon
  The name of the prosecuting agency is not recorded on the Department's Legal Aid Management Information database. It is not possible therefore to provide the information requested. However, for fraud and fraud related trials of 25 days and over in duration, which will mainly comprise cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office, expenditure in each year was as follows:

  £

  Year

  Expenditure

  1995–96

  15,106,215

  1996–97

  17,297,813

  1997–98

  20,662,712

  This expenditure is in respect of closed cases; that is where the case has been disposed of and all bills determined and will include expenditure incurred in previous years. It will not include interim payments made in respect of cases still current. It is not possible to estimate expenditure on guilty pleas and cases prepared for trial but which did not proceed to trial.

  Census
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) United Kingdom and (b) non-United Kingdom organisations have purchased, since 1991, micro-film or other copies of 1891 census enumerators' books for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. [78276]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Public Record Office's records of purchases are not arranged by the categories specified by the hon. Member and, therefore, the information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the total annual storage and maintenance costs for all 1841/51 to 1991 decennial census returns. [78317]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Public Record Office holds the decennial census records for 1841 to 1911. The total annual storage and maintenance costs for these records are currently estimated at £225,000. The decennial census records for 1921 to 1991 are held by the Office for National Statistics at an estimated annual storage and maintenance cost of £350,000.
  405

  Legal Aid Board Administration Account
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the deficit on the Legal Aid Board administration account for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what is the estimated deficit for 1998–99. [78353]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board is entitled to carry forward unspent annual provision for its administration costs held at the end of each financial year. The Board's administration did not exceed the amount which was made available, by way of grant-in-aid and cash carried forward, in 1996–97 or 1997–98, and is not expected to do so in 1998–99.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) under which Sections of the (i) Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (ii) any other Act he has issued regulations concerning conditions to be met by applicants for cultivation of genetically modified crops for (1) research and (2) sale, (b) the (A) dates, (B) numbers, (C) titles of any such regulations and (D) those which require approval by resolution of either House of Parliament and (c) what general exemptions from any part of any such regulations he has given to (x) which persons and (y) bodies and (z) for what reason. [72560]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 41.

  Public Analysts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give for each year since 1989 the number of(a) public analysts and (b) Public Analyst laboratories; [77524]

  (2) if all Public Analyst laboratories were accredited by 1 November 1998 under the terms of the Additional Food Control Measures Directive 93/99/EEC; [77516]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that local authorities make full use of the facilities provided by public analysts. [77509]

  Mr. Rooker
  Each local authority must appoint one or more Public Analysts. A list of Public Analysts is not centrally held.

  Under the Additional Food Control Measures 93/99, the UK is required to submit to the Commission a list of food control laboratories nominated to carry out analyses and/or examinations of foodstuffs. The list contains those Laboratories who have met the Standards for Official Food Control Laboratories which have been agreed between Government and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). I am not aware of any currently appointed Public Analyst Laboratory not covered by this accreditation.
  406
  A copy of the submitted list is available from the Library of the House. Arrangements are also being made to make it publicly available on the Ministry's website and to publish changes to it by that means.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of his powers in relation to animal welfare to prevent livestock vessels from sailing in rough weather conditions; and if he will make a statement. [77946]

  Mr. Morley
  The provisions of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 (which implements, in Great Britain, Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended) provide extensive protection for animals in transit. In the case of bad weather at sea, a master of a vessel must not, under Article 4, transport animals if, in his judgment, they are likely to be caused injury or unnecessary suffering due to adverse weather or sea conditions likely to be encountered during the voyage. Under Article 18, if a MAFF or Local Authority Inspector considers that animals are being transported or are about to be transported in a way likely to cause injury or unnecessary suffering, he or she may prohibit that transport. MAFF officials have on occasion accompanied livestock when they are transported from Dover in rougher weather conditions, in order to gather information on how the animals travel: these trips have not to date revealed any evidence to indicate that animals' welfare has been adversely affected.

  Quarantine Kennels
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice has been given since 1991 by his Department to quarantine kennel owners who submitted plans for expansion and improvement to their facilities. [77950]

  Mr. Rooker
  All plans for expansion and improvements submitted by quarantine kennel owners have been considered by the Department to ensure that they comply with the standard requirements for the design, construction, operation and management of such premises. Those plans which complied with the requirements have been approved. In cases where the submitted plan has not complied with the standard requirements, this has been explained and the kennel owner invited to submit amended plans.

  Freezer Trawlers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessel owners have notified his Department that they intend to convert to freezer trawlers. [78330]

  Mr. Morley
  Fisheries Departments have received notice of the intention to introduce or replace up to six pelagic freezer trawlers under the time limited arrangements announced on 1 December 1998.

  Fishing Vessels (Engine Capacity)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels were found to have underdeclared their engine capacity in the last year for which figures are available. [78329]
  407
  Mr. Morley
  As I explained in the written reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 1 December 1989,Official Report, column 119, checks to ensure that the engine power of fishing vessels is consistent with that registered and licensed are due to commence from 1 January 2000.

  Regional Development Funding
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what happens to unspent balances in respect of European Funds for South West Objective 5B at the end of the five year programme. [78374]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The Government's aim is to ensure that, by the end of 1999, all of the European Structural Funds allocated to the South West Objective 5b programme (and elsewhere) are committed to projects. Funds not committed by the end of 1999 would be lost to the programme. Projects will be monitored closely throughout the year to enable funds to be recycled to approved projects on a reserve list if there is a possibility that on-going projects will not use up their full allocation.

  After 1999, project managers will have two years in which to complete projects and claim grant. Provided that this is done on time and that claims fully match commitments, funds should have been spent at the end of the current programme period. Any unspent EU Structural Funds remaining at the end of the programme would be lost to the UK.

  New Forest Hounds
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) advice and (b) instructions, Ministers gave to the Forestry Commission before it reached a decision to suspend the licence of the New Forest Hounds. [78475]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I gave the Forestry Commission any advice or instructions before it decided to suspend the New Forest Foxhounds' licence last week. Action was taken under the terms of their licence following a previous written warning. The suspension was carried out after listening to all representations and is a matter for the Forestry Commission to decide. I have already made it clear that the Commission has my full support in the operation of the conditions of licence to hunt. This applies to all Forestry Commission land.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [78467]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: My Department's millennium programme comprises several parallel projects, co-ordinated by a central programme management team in the IT Directorate. Several projects, and the central team, have employed external consultants to review plans and progress. Currently, external consultants are reviewing MAFF's business continuity planning arrangements (in case some problems still occur, despite all our preparatory activity), and an independent
  408
  review is being conducted by MAFF's Audit, Consultancy and Management Services division. I am satisfied that these arrangements provide for adequate external and independent review of plans.

  Organic Farming Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total budget allocation for the first year of the Organic Farming Scheme. [78559]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Current provision for the Organic Farming Scheme for 1999–2000 is £6.2 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the procedure for coping with an excess of demand from farmers applying for grants under the Organic Farming Scheme over supply of available funds. [78558]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  If demand for aid under the Organic Farming Scheme exceeds financial provision in any year, the Organic Farming Regulations 1999 provide a mechanism for holding over applications until further provision becomes available. We will keep the position under review.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage that will be covered by grants from the Organic Farming Scheme in its first year. [78557]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Scheme has not yet opened. The total acreage covered in the first year of the Organic Farming Scheme will depend on the number of applications and on the type of land covered.

  Lindane
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent EC proposals on the use of Lindane in agriculture and horticulture. [78527]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU has established a programme to review the safety of all pesticides which were authorised (by at least one Member State) for use in agriculture and horticulture on 25 July 1993. Lindane is included in the first round of this programme.

  The EU review process begins with an evaluation by a "rapporteur" Member State. This evaluation is subject to peer review by experts from all Member States and consultation with the EU Commission's Scientific Committee on Plants before a decision is put to the Standing Committee on Plant Health and finally adopted by the Commission. In March 1995, Austria was appointed rapporteur for lindane and finally delivered its assessment to the Commission last December. The peer review process has just begun. In the normal course of events, there would not be a decision until well into 2000.

  We have carried out a preliminary assessment of the Austrian evaluation and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides will consider it at its next meeting. We shall be guided by the Committee's advice.

  It is our policy to approve only those pesticides for which it is established scientifically that there is a level of exposure at which no adverse effect occurs and that any exposure arising from the approved use would be well

  409
  below this level. If this new review indicates that lindane no longer meets this rigorous standard we will take prompt and appropriate action.

  GM Organisms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the advice he has offered supermarkets on the labelling and segregation of genetically modified organisms. [78366]

  Mr. Rooker
  Supermarkets were informed of the Government's policy that all foods containing GM material should be clearly labelled back in June 1997, when they received copies of the MAFF News Release 147/97 announcing this. Since then, all supermarkets, along with other interested parties, have been kept informed of the emerging legal requirements for the labelling of GM foods and were included in the two consultation exercises on the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulation 1999 which took place in July 1998 and February 1999. The following MAFF News Releases were issued at key stages in the development of EC and domestic legislation on GM labelling: 211/98 issued on 21 May 1998; 315/98 issued on 29 July 1998; 95/99 issued on 18 March 1999; and 99/99 issued on 19 March 1999. They are also aware of the list of some 60 non-GM suppliers which the Department produced last year (News Release 123/98 issued on 30 March 1998). Copies of all these News Releases are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings his Department has held with supermarkets to discuss genetically modified organisms. [78365]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the last year, supermarkets were represented, as indicated, at the following meetings on GM foods:

  ACNFP monitoring sub-group—Sainsbury (March 1998)

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords)—Iceland (April 1998)

  Officials—Safeway (May 1998)

  Officials—Sainsbury (June 1998)

  Officials—Tesco (September 1998)

  ACNFP monitoring sub-group—Safeway and Sainsbury (December 1998)

  Officials—Safeway (March 1999)

  Minister of State—Safeway and Tesco (March 1999).

  Professor Frank Woods
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the position held by Professor Frank Woods with the Food Advisory Committee. [78562]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) was formed in 1983, it has been standard practice for the Chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment to be included in the membership. Under this arrangement, Professor Woods has been a member of the FAC since 1992.

  Advisory Group on Vitamins and Minerals
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory 410
  Group on Vitamins and Minerals will next meet; with what agenda; and when he expects the group to conclude its work. [78563]

  Mr. Rooker
  The next meeting of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals is scheduled for 7 May 1999. In accordance with normal practice the agenda for the meeting will be published in advance of the meeting once it has been cleared with the Chairman of the Group. The Group is expected to conclude its work around the end of the year 2000.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who was the first chairman of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamins and Minerals; and when and for what reasons the chairman ceased to serve in that capacity. [78568]

  Mr. Rooker
  Professor Frank Woods was the first Chairman of the Expert Group. He decided in July 1998 to stand down for personal reasons.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the forthcoming report of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group in relation to the safety of vitamin B6 and other supplements is to be considered by the Food Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement on the role of Professor Frank Woods in the process. [78561]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals is primarily concerned with risk assessment and will be considering the scientific data on the safety of vitamins and minerals. Its membership reflects this role. The Food Advisory Committee (FAC) is a broader-based Committee which, among other things, is concerned with risk management. It will therefore take account of factors outside the remit of the Expert Group when considering what, if any, recommendations should be made to the Government in the light of the Expert Group's report. It will be the role of all the FAC members collectively to consider the report from the Expert Group and to offer advice to Ministers on whatever action the Committee considers ought to be taken in the light of the Expert Group's conclusions. Professor Woods is a member of FAC in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who was the Chairman of the Committee on Toxicity at the time of its most recent assessment of the safety of vitamin B6. [78569]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment at the time of its most recent assessment of the safety of Vitamin B6 was Professor Frank Woods.

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the meeting of commissioners to the International Whaling Commission of 5 February; and what discussion took place on the resumption of commercial whaling in relation to(a) species of whale and (b) countries eligible to resume whaling. [78485]
  411
  Mr. Morley
  The meeting to which the hon. Member refers was an informal meeting attended by a number of countries generally opposed to whaling; its principal purpose was to discuss how the countries concerned could best co-operate at the forthcoming International Whaling Commission annual meeting in Grenada in May. There was some discussion of the proposals put forward by Ireland for a complete and permanent ban on all high seas 412
  whaling, including scientific whaling, with some limited whaling permitted in individual country's coastal waters; it was generally agreed that these were unlikely to make any progress unless Japan was ready to consider ending its scientific whaling programme. The UK made it clear that, while we supported efforts to improve whale conservation, we continued to have serious reservations about some aspects of the Irish proposals, in particular those concerning coastal whaling.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Devon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

City of Westminster Act.

UNHRC: Iran Resolution
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What issues concerning Iran they intend to raise at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the European Union is again sponsoring a resolution on Iran at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, which is currently taking place until 30th April. The Government are ensuring that it will cover the EU's concerns about human rights in Iran, for example, on freedom of expression, women's rights and the situation regarding the Baha'is as well as the recent improvements under President Khatami.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I acknowledge, as does the special rapporteur, that some progress has been made towards President Khatami's goal of a civil society based on the rule of law. However, will the Minister ensure that, apart from the matters she has mentioned, which certainly ought to go into any resolution before the commission, the resolution also deals with the recent murders of intellectuals, the need for open trials of those who have been charged as responsible for those crimes by the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the killing of peaceful demonstrators—14 people in Sanandaj and one in Orumiyeh—in the recent demonstrations in Iranian Kurdistan, and the point the special rapporteur makes on the rights on minorities?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, yes, I mentioned only two or three of the well known, long-standing and outstanding issues with Iran. We shall be addressing the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We were encouraged that in relation to the recent
1414
murders of intellectuals and dissidents, 10 officers of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security have been arrested. We shall watch the outcome of that most carefully.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what progress have the Government made in halting the torture, amputations and stonings condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights last April? What specific discussions on that subject has the Foreign Secretary had with his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Kharrazi, and what action do the Government intend to take at this year's Human Rights Commission to protest against human rights abuses in Iran?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as I indicated, the European Union is drafting a resolution to put before this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The noble Baroness mentioned last year's resolution. We have taken every possible opportunity in dialogue at every level with the Iranians to express our strong disapproval of the use of the death penalty and the inhumane treatment of those arrested or not that we know has been taking place in Iran.
Under President Khatami and his government, elected in May 1997, there have been small improvements and we must all do everything we can to encourage them. However, we admit that there is a long way to go.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I fully recognise what the Minister said about the serious failures in human rights which still continue in Iran However, does she agree with these Benches that the: recent local government elections in Iran, which brought a substantial number of women and minorities into elected positions, are an encouraging step forward and that it is in the interests of Her Majesty's Government to support the proposals of President Khatami, given that he faces strong opposition within his country to carry them out?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She was right in everything she mentioned. The local elections, which took place on 26th February and brought an encouraging representation from successful candidates among women and ethnic minorities, were the first ever local elections in Iran. That is definitely a step in the right direction.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister twice mentioned the European Union in her answers. Can she tell the House to what extent the United Kingdom still has an independent foreign policy in this matter, if indeed it does?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have a completely independent foreign policy on all our bilateral relations with countries such as Iran. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that since 1992 the EU has followed a common foreign policy towards Iran, using a combination of critical engagements and trading links

1415
to try to influence Iranian behaviour. Any grouping which can increase the power of influence on events such as those in Iran is surely good.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness observe that the special rapporteur noted with deep regret the increase in the bounty offered by the XV Khordad Foundation for the murder of Salman Rushdie? Does she believe that that is contrary to the spirit of the Cook/Kharrazi agreement, and should be characterised as such in the resolution of the commission?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, yes. Dr. Kharrazi made his government's position on that bounty very clear; he dissociated them from it completely and they do not support it.

The Times: Pricing Policy Inquiry
3.8 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to receive from the Office of Fair Trading the results of the inquiry into the pricing policy of Times Newspapers.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the decision to undertake an inquiry into the pricing policy of The Times newspaper was taken independently by the Director-General of Fair Trading. It is a matter for him low and when he makes his findings public. I understand that the director-general continues to make good progress with his inquiry. He will announce his decision as soon as possible.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept hat my noble friend Lord McNally would regard that as a somewhat disappointing Answer? Initially his request for an inquiry was resisted on the basis that there was no case to answer. The Minister then promised a report by 28th February, and we are now told that it is progressing satisfactorily. Does he agree that that is an unsatisfactory response? Does he also agree that the issue is less about the behaviour of Times Newspapers and more about the creditability of the OFT? Does he further agree that that supports our case that newspapers need special legislation?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in trying to reply as appropriately as I can to transferred disappointment, perhaps I may say that the response is to a complex question. On the last occasion I was at the Dispatch Box, I gave the best indication that the inquiry would be completed by February. We are now into March and I have said that the director-general will
1416
announce his decision as soon as possible. I believe, without any doubt, that the matter is being attended to in the appropriate way.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, has the Minister been able to consider further the suggestion that I made to him on the last occasion this question was raised; that is, whether the enhanced investigative powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading, contained within the Competition Act 1998, should be implemented as soon as possible so that they can apply to all such inquiries as the one being conducted at present?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I am glad he returned to it. We have, indeed, followed up the point that he made. I can confirm that the enhanced investigatory powers to which he refers will be put into place—particularly in relation to the Fair Trading Act, as that is existing legislation—on 1st April 1999. That would not be applicable to this inquiry because all the data required by the director-general are in place. However, it will certainly enhance his investigatory powers as regards any future inquiry.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to "a complex question" raised by this matter. Can he identify, for the benefit of the House, what is complex about it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I believe that this is the fourth time that the matter has been brought to the attention of the director-general and, effectively, no case has been found. That means that it is not a simple matter. There must be additional information and new circumstances to bring the case again. The director-general has been looking at both those matters with care. He required a great deal of information. As we stated when we last discussed the matter in the summer, he would need a great deal of extra information to ensure that the complexities were well understood.
Lord Acton: My Lords, how long has the inquiry taken and how long did the previous three inquiries take?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, this inquiry started at the beginning of last year. It has now been running for just over a year. I shall let the noble Lord know the timing of the previous inquiries. It was before my period of office so I shall need to look up the detail.

UK Military Communication Satellites: Security
3.12 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the security of the computers on board the United Kingdom's military communication satellites is adequate.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the United Kingdom's military communication

1417
satellites are secure. Control of the satellites is effected through secure radio links, and all associated terrestrial communications are secure and separate from any publicly accessible communications system. The security of the on-board computers is therefore ensured. Nevertheless, we keep our security arrangements under constant review to ensure that they remain effective.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassuring reply. Will he reassure the House a little further by saying that the reports—which first appeared in the British press at the end of last month, and subsequently in the international press—that the computers on board a British military satellite had been illegally accessed by what are known as "hackers" who had shifted the military satellite out of its orbit are without foundation?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's concern about our security. I am aware of the press reports. However, as far as we are aware there is no foundation in such reports. I can confirm that there has been no unauthorised access into the United Kingdom's military communication satellite system. That system is monitored continuously to ensure that there is no possibility of the system being attacked without our knowledge.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Computer System
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the computer system in the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office to work satisfactorily, and what interim arrangements are in hand to deal with the backlog and the situation of those whose immigration and asylum status is uncertain.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we regret the recent disruption to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's caseworking operation during the first phase of the casework programme, a private finance initiative partnership with Siemens Business Services. The current plan is for the full computer system to be made available for testing in June and rolled out by early 2000. We have set up a joint team with Siemens Business Services to recover the previous level of service and catch up on the backlog which has developed. The applicant's status is protected where an application is made before expiry of permission to stay.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that at a time when the Immigration and Asylum Bill is being debated in another place we now have a backlog of over 200, 000 cases; the files are stored in garages, which are unsafe and those files cannot be located; people queue at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate from four o'clock in the morning, and applicants are advised that
1418
they can apply to their embassy for new passports because theirs cannot be located? Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to build up applicants' confidence in the system? Would he therefore undertake to issue regular briefings to the newspapers about the progress made, explain to applicants the procedures for claiming compensation from the Government, and not to take action against those in breach of their immigration status through no fault of their own?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord raises points of validity. The figures I have are not the figures he gave. They are still not good figures, by any stretch of the imagination. On 19th March, which is the most up-to-date material I have for your Lordships, there were 125, 165 cases waiting to be decided. Of those work-in-progress cases, 67, 000 were asylum cases. In the Case Allocation Unit there were almost 10, 000 asylum cases, making a total of 76, 853 asylum cases. So, it is not a good story by any means.
We give regular press briefings which I believe are of assistance. We propose to continue those regularly. As regards compensation, it has always been the practice that we consider ex gratia payments in individual cases if there is full supporting evidence to show actual and necessarily incurred additional costs. As to the third matter raised by the noble Lord, I appreciate that this is a matter of great concern. No applicant should be disadvantaged by the changes we are in the process of making.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present situation is absolutely deplorable? It is of benefit to those who have no right to asylum in this country, including some villains, but it is awful for genuine, honest asylum seekers who are entitled to asylum under our law and by all the laws of decency of this honourable land. What steps will be taken to deal with the matter even more speedily? Surely, the situation should never have arisen. Now that it has, we are not dealing with it fast enough.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that the situation should never have been allowed to arise. I have made it brutally plain that I regard it in the same way as noble Lords who have already contributed to this Question. On 15th March we set up a joint taskforce, which I outlined a moment ago, and which is to report by mid-April. This contract was let to Siemens Business Services in April 1996. We are therefore attempting to deal with an inherited situation as promptly and as fairly as we can.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as the noble Lord has admitted that something ghastly has happened and as it does not matter whether the arrangement was set up by the Tory government or by the present Government, can he please say that the heads of those who made the mistake will roll?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a novel constitutional doctrine of governmental and ministerial responsibility that it does not matter whose fault it was.

1419
I imagine that that might be of some comfort to me in the months to come. A National Audit Office investigation has already gone into this matter with great care. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, but I do not feel able to point to a single individual who needs his head removed in the way that the noble Earl has suggested.
I think that we both agree that the important point is that this situation should never have been allowed to develop. It is not satisfactory conduct of public administration. We are doing what we can to remedy the situation—I have been as plain as I can be about it—but it will take time, and I am sorry for that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that heads rolled massively on 2nd May 1997? Having inherited this situation, does my noble friend agree that speed is clearly of the essence and that the House will be reassured by what the Home Office is doing at present? However, is it not regrettable that it seems to be implied that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are bogus, but that is not true and the people who are here, awaiting the determination of their cases, are entitled to respect rather than being subject to such inferences?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree absolutely that anyone who is applying for asylum in a foreign jurisdiction is entitled to decent, civil and civilised treatment. It is taking time to put this matter right—I have given the dates. Although we hope to have the computer beginning to work properly by June of this year, it will be the early part of the year 2000 before the scheme is properly rolled out.
Lord Meston: My Lords, can the Minister say how many children are affected by this problem and whether steps are being taken to give priority to cases involving children?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot do that, but I can give the figure for general and settlement cases: there are 15, 000 work-in-progress cases and 13, 500 in case allocation, making a total of 28, 500 general and settlement cases. I believe that that gives part of the answer which the noble Lord is seeking. If I can obtain further material on this, I shall send it immediately to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I have two questions for the Minister. First, was there a penalty clause in the contract with Siemens and, if so, will it be invoked? Secondly, I understand that as the new computers will not be working until early next year, there may be problems with the existing computer system and the millennium bug. Can the Minister give us some assurances on that because we seem to have lost enough cases already?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the computer system will be year 2000-compatible. To answer the
1420
first question from the noble Countess, the contract which was let in April 1996 does not include penalty clauses for late delivery or failure of the system to meet specifications. There is a provision for financial penalties if Siemens is unable to maintain satisfactory levels of service. However, in respect of the distinct question put to me by the noble Countess, there was no penalty clause for late delivery.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government's promise of a fairer, firmer and faster asylum policy is in tatters, with the combination of a huge backlog of cases and the unworkable voucher system? It is a bureaucratic mess which is unfair on applicants, more expensive than it need be for taxpayers, and mean towards destitute asylum seekers. Will the Government change their mind on the Immigration and Asylum Bill which incorporates some of the worst features of the existing system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Immigration and Asylum Bill has not yet become law. The Government's policy is not in tatters. The White Paper was generally well received as a long-overdue, fundamental review of a system which is presently a shambles. We want to be firmer, fairer and faster. I believe that when that Bill passes through your Lordships' House—to general acclaim, I dare say—we shall have an asylum and immigration system which is capable of working fairly, firmly and efficiently.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with reference to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, can the Minister remind the House what percentage of applicants are found to deserve the right of asylum, what percentage are found to deserve the right of exceptional leave to remain and therefore, by subtraction, what numbers of applications are at best unfounded and at worst simply bogus?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not have those figures to hand—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may continue. I have given those figures on previous occasions. I shall write again to the noble Lord so that he may have the satisfaction of making such point as has merit.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is it not the case that although the Minister was accurate in what he said about the penalty clause in response to the question from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, Siemens will be paid mainly by reference to the savings to the department in question, when those savings are made? As well as the computer problems to which reference has already been made, are there not also simultaneous and enormous problems arising from the decision, which incidentally was taken after the election, I believe, to move some hundreds of thousands of files to Croydon, many of which were lost on the way, which is why documents

1421
relating not only to asylum seekers, but to businessmen and other visitors—I refer to their passports—have been lost somewhere between Lunar House and another building in Croydon?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Siemens Business Services has certainly incurred higher costs as a consequence of what happened with regard to the computer programme delivery and it has received less income than would otherwise have been the case. The noble Lord is right that the problems are not limited only to asylum cases. I tried to subdivide the figures earlier to make it plain that there is no such limitation. The noble Lord is also right that about 1, 000 staff and 150, 000 files were subsequently physically relocated. In conjunction with the computer problems, I say again (for perhaps the fourth or fifth time) that that relocation caused serious problems which should never have been allowed to come about.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that asylum seekers who, through no fault of their own, are awaiting determination will not be left destitute in the meantime?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no applicant will be disadvantaged by the changes that we are in the process of making. I made that plain in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Any asylum seeker, or anyone who has a right to the assistance of the state, will continue to benefit, irrespective of the problems that I have described.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Government publish a comprehensive reply to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General? In the meantime, have they anything to say about the recommendation that the Government should consider whether awarding such very large contracts in one lump (amounting to £77 million, I think) is a sensible policy, and whether the department had sufficient resources to manage a project of that magnitude? As so many large contracts entered into by government for the provision of computer services come unstuck—this is the latest of about five such instances—does not the noble Lord think that that recommendation should be taken particularly seriously?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, speaking for myself and for the department, I believe that any comments, criticisms or recommendations made by the National Audit Office should be given the most careful and scrupulous attention. Indeed, the great benefit of that report was that it sought to draw out lessons for future private finance initiatives. I believe that there are lessons to be learned. It is foolish to pretend the opposite. I hope that we shall endeavour to learn those lessons.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, as a matter of clarification of the second question that my noble friend Lady Mar
1422
asked, is the existing system millennium-proof or not? Did the Minister indicate that the future system would be millennium-proof?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said that the computer system, which is to be in existence when the millennium is upon us, is 2000 compatible.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to move more hearings for asylum seekers outside London and, if so, will that not cause many problems for legal advisers and the asylum seekers themselves? Will it not slow up the whole process?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it should not slow up the process. If one looks at the way it works at the moment, on some occasions the lists may be overfull in the London area, but with spare adjudication capacity outside London. If one has spare capacity and one wants speedy, efficient and fair determination, one ought to use that spare capacity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, by asking whether he is aware that, if my memory holds correct—and it may well not—of 100 applicants for asylum only about 17 are shown to be proper and appropriate applications and not the majority, as his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis suggested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, bearing in mind the consistently cordial relationship that the noble Earl and I have, I know that he was intending to be helpful. I know that his memory is infallible and therefore he may well be right. However, I do not have the figures in front of me and it would be wrong of me to pretend that I have them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in considering the National Audit Office report, should not noble Lords bear in mind that it found that the procurement was managed in a businesslike way at the start and that the contract still offers high net benefits?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is what the National Audit Office said, subject to satisfactory delivery.

Local Government Bill
3.31 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. In doing so I hope that the House will find it helpful to know that the

1423
Speakers' List for the debate on the situation in Kosovo will remain open until 4 p.m. in the Government Whip's Office.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) is dispensed with so far as is necessary to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Gilbert to be taken after the Third Reading of the Health Bill. —(Lord Carter.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will know that on Monday and Tuesday of next week we are dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill to reform your Lordships' House. Before there is a howl of protest from noble Lords opposite, this is not a ploy to delay the passage of the Bill. The date of the first day in Committee has already been fixed.
Before coming into the Chamber I checked on the number of speakers. There are now about 180 Members of your Lordships' House who wish to play a part in the debate. Furthermore, it has been announced that there is to be a Statement on Monday afternoon on a report on the Berlin summit. There is every possibility and likelihood of there being further government Statements including one on Kosovo.
It is also my understanding that the House should rise at 11 o'clock on Monday because the House sits at 11 o'clock on Tuesday morning. There is a convention that allows the staff who serve this House to have a 12-hour break between the two Sittings. In view of that fact it is unlikely that we shall be able to listen to more than 60 or 70 speakers on Monday. That means that even though we are starting the debate at about 11.30 on Tuesday, there will be between 110 and 120 speakers to be heard on Tuesday. We could be sitting into the small hours of Wednesday morning. Every extra minute that Peers speak will add another two hours to the debate.
It has also been brought to my attention that there is a very small number of speakers for the balloted debates on Wednesday. I would like to test the Government Chief Whip's mind and offer him two alternatives; either we sit again on Wednesday morning for two or three hours in order to complete the Second Reading; or the Government find an alternative time for the balloted debates when we return after Easter and devote that time to finishing the Second Reading.
I do this in a spirit of helpfulness and it is a genuine inquiry. I have been approached by many Members on my side of the House who wonder why we must sit so late on Tuesday when we can sit on Wednesday. As the House will know, many noble Lords have cleared their diaries for next week in order to deal with this particular issue. I very much hope that the Government Chief Whip can be helpful.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we seem to be having our usual weekly debate on the timetable for the House of Lords reform Bill. The usual channels appear to be in full spate on this matter. I have not had any requests from my own side on this subject. I am a little puzzled why noble Lords opposite feel the need to raise this
1424
issue. Like all Chief Whips, I have been doing some sums. If noble Lords speaking from the Front Bench do so at a reasonable length, and even allowing for a Statement on Monday as regards the Berlin summit, we could still rise at a not unreasonable hour on each day if the Back-Bench speakers take on average no more than seven minutes each.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: My Lords, that was the average time spent debating the House of Lords White Paper, and here we have a six-clause Bill. As regards Hansard it is a convention of the House, and no more than that. It has been informed that the House is likely to sit later than 11 o'clock on Monday night. We have sat into the early hours of the morning this week. It was after two o'clock and the House was able to sit again at half-past two the next day. It is a convention, but on this occasion the House will be sitting later than 11 o'clock on the first day of the Second Reading.
The two-day debate was announced at the earliest possible opportunity on the afternoon of the First Reading of the Bill. On that occasion it was also announced that the House would sit at 11 a. m. on Tuesday of next week. Thus noble Lords have known for nearly two weeks of the arrangements. A large number of noble Lords have put down their names to speak on the basis that the debate will take place on Monday and Tuesday and have planned their diaries accordingly. Many noble Lords have indicated a preference for one day over the other. Those who are compiling the Speakers' List are working to ensure that those preferences are met. Therefore, to change the arrangements now would be an inconvenience to many noble Lords who would find the day of their speech moved from Monday or Tuesday to Wednesday.
I find it a little ironic that noble Lords opposite are now asking for an additional day for this Bill in Holy Week. It seems like only yesterday that we were told by the Opposition Chief Whip and his noble friends that it was quite outrageous that a Bill of this kind should be taken at all during that week. Now they are arguing the exact opposite and that there should be more business in Holy Week rather than less.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lords is suggesting that he is willing to delay the Second Reading until after Easter, I shall be quite happy to support him.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord can do better than that! I am merely saying that we are being asked to find another day during Holy Week when we were told only last week that it was quite out of order to have this business during that week. Now, noble Lords opposite wish to increase the time spent on this Bill by 50 per cent. during Holy Week. To put the matter in the kindest light, I find these positions rather contradictory. In addition, an amendment has been tabled to the Motion for a Second Reading. I presume that noble Lords have planned their diaries to be here on Tuesday for what is likely to be a very important vote.

1425
I know that we have sat late this week. That was due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances. I agree that we sat unreasonably late on Monday, but the House has risen at a progressively earlier hour each day this week and the Sittings have not been unduly burdensome. I emphasise that I have given this matter a good deal of thought and calculation. I repeat that if the House as a whole is moderate in the length of the speeches, I suggest that it will not be necessary to sit unreasonably late on Tuesday night.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Elis-Thomas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Repeal of law about fund-holding practices]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("sections").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this large group of amendments make minor drafting and consequential amendments to the Bill. However, it is perhaps worth my spending a few moments explaining a number of them.
The changes and additions to the "Repeals" schedule (Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 92 and 93) reflect repeals made by the provisions debated and agreed at Report stage on unified budgets, the penalty charge and the repeal of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act.
The PPRS applies to England, Wales and Scotland. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 therefore extend the provisions in Clause 34, subsections (5) and (6) to Scotland.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 remove a provision in the Bill that would allow the commission to appoint its own auditors. The provisions as drafted allow for a two-tier auditing process for the commission's accounts—the first by auditors appointed by the commission and the second by the National Audit Office. These amendments remove the provision for the commission to appoint its own auditors so that the commission's accounts will be solely audited by the
1426
National Audit Office. This will bring the accounting and auditing arrangements for the commission into line with those for other Department of Health NDPBs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Primary Care Trusts]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("1977") to ("there") in line 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) No regulations are to be made under subsection (5) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before launching on any lengthy debate—I do not plan to do that on this amendment which has been before the House in various guises at both Committee and Report stages—and because the Procedure Committee effectively disbarred us from making comment on the passing of the Bill at the end of Third Reading, I wish to say from these Benches how much we appreciate the flexibility that the Minister has shown throughout the passage of the Bill. There were a number of instances, which I do not propose to adumbrate, where that has clearly been the case—primary care trusts, the statutory and voluntary pricing scheme to pharmaceuticals and, above all, the Clause 47 provisions regulating the professions. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for making this Bill considerably better than when it started on its course through this House.
I know the Minister and her team have tried extremely hard to fulfil all the commitments that the Minister made during the passage of the Bill through this House and it is therefore with a tinge of disappointment that I find she was unable to come back to us on Third Reading with a proposal for an equality of opportunity provision, both for primary care trusts and for the commission for health improvement. As noble Lords will know, and the Minister is only too well aware, this has strong backing—perhaps not in this precise formulation—from a wide range of sources. Noble Lords have spoken in support throughout the passage of the Bill. Also, I have before me a letter commending the provisions of this amendment to the Minister, again not in precise terms but that is the spirit in which it was written, particularly in the context of the aftermath of the Lawrence Inquiry and the fact that the Home Secretary has accepted the provisions of that inquiry.
This amendment is a further probing amendment designed to elicit from the Minister a progress report. Whether to give a specific or a general duty is not entirely clear, and that information would be extremely helpful. But it would also be useful to hear from the Minister what progress the department is making in formulating a suitable duty on primary care trusts and

1427
the commission for health improvement to ensure that there is a quality of access particularly to healthcare across the range of health services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 3 or No. 4? I rather suspect he is addressing Amendment No. 4.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I apologise to the House and am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I do not know whether it is possible to treat this as a speech on Amendment No. 4. If your Lordships give me assent to that I shall not need to rewind the tape and we can simply re-marshal the amendments to take Amendment No. 3 after Amendment No. 4. I do not know whether the procedure of the House makes that possible. If it does, I ask your Lordships' indulgence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the noble Lord to clarify one matter. He said that this was a probing amendment when he was speaking to Amendment No. 4. Is Amendment No. 3 also intended to be a probing amendment or an operative one?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 and its counterpart in Clause 15 are both designed to be probing amendments.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, intervening in the form of a Speaker of your Lordships' House, which we do not have for these purposes, perhaps I should indicate that, although the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is attempting to be helpful to your Lordships, I must call the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. The way in which he can continue his helpful stance, however—if I might provide a further moment of guidance—is that when Amendment No. 4 is called, he might not need to "rewind the tape".
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Chairman for that helpful intervention which has got me out of a complete fix. I move therefore to Amendment No. 3, which is also designed as a probing amendment.
At both Committee and Report stages we had a discussion about consultation arrangements which would be appropriate on moving from PCGs to PCTs. The Minister said that she would carefully consider the consultation arrangements and regulations will be made setting those out. One of the problems we have had throughout Committee and Report stages is the "list" question. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was zealous in ensuring that we did not "truck" with any lists. But the problem with that is that we cannot extensively set out on the face of the Bill those with whom it is appropriate to consult. In those circumstances, regulations are appropriate.
The Minister gave us assurances on Report, and it would be helpful to hear from her now, that she would inform us of the progress being made in terms of publishing draft regulations which would allow us, as the Bill passes through the other place, to consider
1428
whether they are appropriate. It is of course possible for the regulations to be approved only by affirmative resolution. I do not necessarily consider that to be appropriate. This is a way of eliciting a reply from the Minister in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I should point out to the House that I am speaking very firmly to Amendment No. 3. I shall have more to say about Amendment No. 4 a little later, assuming that it is moved. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to my "anathema" of lists. But of course the corollary of that is that Parliament should know whether the Government have consulted appropriate people. Indeed, the Bill talks about "appropriate people" in various places.
However, that can be done only if there is an opportunity to question the Government. It is very difficult to do so by the negative resolution procedure. So I have a great affinity with the noble Lord in his request for having the regulations under affirmative instrument as opposed to negative instrument, the reason being that it makes life very much easier for Back-Benchers. If the affirmative resolution is used and has to be debated, it is debated; whereas, if it is by negative resolution procedure, you have to notice it and then table a Prayer within 40 sitting days, which adds to the burden on Back-Benchers. Governments always love this, but it is not necessarily right for Parliament as a whole. I support the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as some of your Lordships may remember, I am one of those who is always anxious that we should manage to have Acts of Parliament drafted without constant reference to amplification by regulations. Here we have regulations about consultation requirements. With deep respect to the Government, especially the noble Baroness who has always done her work so splendidly for us, I wonder why we need regulations at all in order to amplify the consultation requirements. Those requirements will vary among the number of people to be consulted.
As time goes on, the nature of the consultation on somewhat technical matters will vary. It surprises me that the matter should have to be stultified at one moment by being put into regulations. If there are to be regulations, I suppose that the Houses of Parliament should be told about them and given a chance to discuss them and approve them, or otherwise. However, my doubt here is whether, in these unusual circumstances, regulations are really necessary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I may be misunderstanding this, but I do not know why the noble Lord has stated in his amendment that no regulations are to be made,
"unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Surely it is the regulations that will be laid before Parliament, not the draft. I do not know why the word "draft" has been used in the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in responding to this amendment I think that we have had two different sets

1429
of criticisms, so to speak. As I understood him, the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was that after the outline for consultation had been made clear, the arrangements for consultation would basically be a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. The import of the amendment is that there should actually be a level of parliamentary scrutiny higher than use of the negative resolution procedure. Indeed, that was the point endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. My own view is that it is important that there should be some element of parliamentary scrutiny of the laying of regulations about consultation requirements prior to the establishment of a PCT.
Existing provisions in the Bill provide for any regulations made by the Secretary of State to be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedure. As we know, this amendment would mean that consultation regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedures whereby a draft has to be laid before both Houses and approved by resolution. I believe that the formulation is a draft rather than the regulations in those circumstances.
In looking at the level of parliamentary scrutiny, or considering whether any such scrutiny is appropriate for consultation regulations, we sought to follow established practice. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee considered that the broad approach adopted by the department in relation to the powers in the part of the Bill dealing with primary care trusts was appropriate. The committee did not suggest in its report that the affirmative resolution procedure was a more suitable approach for these regulations. It did not raise the level of scrutiny of regulations under Section 16A(5) as an issue for the House to consider. In the context of the NHS, regulations relating to NHS trusts were and are laid before Parliament using negative resolution procedures.
Affirmative resolution procedures are considered to be necessary only in exceptional circumstances. The affirmative procedure is normally appropriate for powers affecting provision of Acts of Parliament. Such an example is Clause 52 of the Bill which deals with the regulation of health care and associated professions. It is normally appropriate for powers to impose or increase taxation or other financial burdens or to raise statutory limits on the amounts which may be borrowed by or lent or granted to public bodies. Alternatively, there are powers involving other considerations of special or exceptional importance. An example would be the powers to create new varieties of criminal offence of a serious nature.
The Government do not accept that regulations setting out the requirements for consultation are matters which fall within this category and are of such exceptional importance as to merit affirmative procedures. However, we do feel that it is appropriate to follow the precedent adopted for NHS trusts and to have some scrutiny by the negative procedure, although I obviously understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the balance, therefore, goes towards the Executive rather than towards Back-Benchers. I do not believe that we are out of line with practice in this respect.
1430
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the consultation has taken place. We intend to consult widely with key stakeholders, including national professional and patient representative bodies on the contents of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked questions in relation to the timetable for publishing regulations setting out the requirements on consultation. We are concerned to take note of the views and comments both of this House and additionally of those in another place. Therefore, I do not believe that we can sensibly formulate a draft of these regulations at this early stage. However, I can assure the House that we do intend to bring forward draft regulations as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Indeed, it is the most extended response that she has given on this particular subject to date. However, I am somewhat disappointed that consultation will not take place while the Bill is still going through Parliament. In a sense, that seems to me to be a little like buying a pig in a poke because consultation as regards moving from PCGs to PCTs is an important part of the whole process. Nevertheless, the Minister has indicated the extent of the consultation which will take place over the regulations and that clearly will be very wide. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that a Primary Care Trust's functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that every individual has a right to treatment according to individual need free of discrimination as to access to or the quality of service. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I mistakenly had a crack at this a short while ago. I should like essentially to move the amendment formally, as I have already made my speech on it. However, in the spirit of flexibility which the Minister has displayed in other parts of the Bill, and also in the interests of drafting speed, I should like to reiterate that I very much hope that that will be mirrored in subsequent stages of the Bill. I hope that the department will bring forward some robust amendments to the Bill which will ensure equal opportunities for those who have primary care treatment at PCT level, and that it will lay down those duties for the commission for health improvement. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord will have the right to reply to a debate on this amendment so that he can decide whether to withdraw the amendment or to ask the opinion of the House. When he replies I wonder whether he could amplify the concept that he has in mind as to the expression,
"free of discrimination as to access".

1431
Does that mean free of discrimination as to access to a particular hospital, or form of treatment, or what?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I threatened to speak to this amendment, and so I shall. In his primary crack at this amendment, as I think he would describe it, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to feeling a tinge of disappointment that nothing further had come from the Government on this extremely important matter which has run through all our debates on this Bill; namely, that,
"every individual has a right to treatment according to individual need free of discrimination as to access to or the quality of service".
To answer my noble friend Lord Renton—of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be able to answer for himself—that means the individual has a right to treatment and to access to an appropriate hospital.
That causes me to don my hat as a PMM—as I described it on Report—that is, a parliamentary moaning minnie, in that I am surprised indeed that this amendment has not been grouped with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The words that I have just read out—I shall not repeat them—refer not only to local treatment but to treatment elsewhere. We all know that there are occasions when it is necessary to have out of area treatment. I shall not discuss that because no doubt we shall debate it a little later. However, I regard this amendment as taking precedence over those of the noble Baroness. I am more than a little surprised—in fact, I am slightly miffed—that the Minister has not done what I understood her to promise to do at Report stage; namely, to put similar words in the Bill by means of an amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope I am not quite as far off the mark as I was when I intervened on the previous amendment. I apologise to the House for wasting a moment of our time. The wording of this amendment worries me because I do not see how every individual can have the right to treatment in the way that is described. For example, one hospital may have a far more up-to-date scanner than another hospital. Therefore the kind of scans that can be carried out in a particular hospital are more limited, perhaps because it has an older scanner. I speak of the situation in my own area but I am sure that scanners vary across the country.
In some hospitals one has to pay for assisted pregnancy whereas in others that is free. In some areas and in some hospitals that provision is not available. That may impinge on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but I am not sure that one can ask for the right that is described in the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister intends to put something in the Bill, and if so she will probably be able to meet this problem. It is not just a matter of rationing, but different hospitals have different abilities to carry out particular treatments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the intention underlying this amendment is totally praiseworthy but I share the anxieties that have just been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, because it seems
1432
to me that as the amendment is framed at the moment it would give carte blanche to any individual in any situation to be able to demand any form of treatment, however difficult and however expensive. In a National Health Service where—whatever one's good will towards the care of the individual—resources are ultimately finite, it would be dangerous to put so clear a recommendation, or in fact so clear a statute, on the face of the Bill. I am wholly in favour of the principle that individuals should have access to healthcare irrespective of age, sex, or other forms of discrimination on political, ethnic or other grounds. That is an important principle, but as it is framed I believe this amendment would be impossible to implement in a health service which has finite resources.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I point out that my two amendments use the term "where appropriate".
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the brief debate we have had on these issues is an illustration of some of the difficulties in drafting appropriate legislation in this area. First, I shall deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he suggested that I had not fulfilled my promise to the House. I refer the noble Lord to the record of our debates at Report stage where I stated,
"At this stage it would be premature of me to give an absolute commitment to bring forward such an amendment because I do not yet have before me advice on whether we can properly legislate as the noble Lord would wish. However, I give the commitment that during the course of the Bill we shall return to the subject and report progress". —[Official Report, 15/3/99; col. 496.]
That is the commitment I intend to fulfil this afternoon. Therefore, I do not believe that I misled the House in suggesting that we would be able to bring forward amendments at this stage.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would not dream of suggesting that the noble Baroness had misled the House. I merely gave my interpretation of what she said, which I must admit was from memory because I have been away for the past three days.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. We discussed similar points both in Committee and at Report stage when I made clear the importance the Government attach to achieving fairer access to high quality healthcare. I welcome the opportunity now to restate the Government's commitment that access to the National Health Service should be on the basis of need and need alone, with no place for discrimination on grounds of gender, age, disability or ethnicity. Although I accept the points that have been made in debate, we are not at that point yet in that we have varying levels of provision and access to services in various parts of the health service. A major part of the Government's proposals and work programme concerns reducing inequalities in access to services. However, that is an ongoing process. It is not something that can be delivered overnight in terms of an absolute diktat.

1433
I also stated at Report that this was one of the areas on which we had not yet managed to reach a conclusion on the best way forward in legislation, but that it was important that we came back with appropriate solutions for the NHS as a whole and not simply for primary care trusts and the commission, which are the two areas to which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, apply. I believe that was the spirit of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale; namely, that the provision should cover out of area treatments, which will not necessarily be offered by primary care trusts, but are most likely to be offered in specialist hospitals. This is still the case. I reassure the House that we are still considering the points that have been made. However, I believe it would be wrong to lay an amendment before the House before we have made a searching examination of the issues facing the NHS both as an employer and as a provider of services. The amendment is very wide and there are varying aspects to equal opportunity issues and to planning for change where necessary. That is particularly so in the light of the Macpherson report which has posed sharp challenges to the whole range of public services. We need to explore those in a thorough way. Any legislation should flow from rather than precede such consideration. I am sure that in that context the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will welcome the fact that your Lordships' House will have an opportunity to debate the Macpherson report immediately after the Easter Recess. At that point the issues of equality of access to public services will, I am sure, be debated at some length.
I hope that the noble Lord and others who have spoken will accept my assurance that, in saying that I cannot yet offer a substantive reply, I do not intend in any way to underplay the seriousness of the issues. I would suggest that not having an instant answer reflects the importance we attach to having a coherent and comprehensive approach to issues which deserve serious and careful attention. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the spirit of the amendments. I can assure him that we embrace the spirit of the amendments. I am certain that we will return to these matters during the passage of the Bill, although, in all likelihood, in another place. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and particularly for her clear demonstration of support for the spirit of the amendment. Other noble Lords have commented on the drafting of the amendment. Having made three attempts at the drafting during the passage of the Bill, I know only too well how difficult it is to draft an appropriate amendment which reflects not only the difficulty of practical implementation but the desire to make a commitment. As noble Lords will know, the CRE has asked bodies and figureheads in various areas of public life to make a public commitment to their leadership challenge. I believe the NHS should make that commitment even though it may be difficult to do so. I recognise that it must form part of a wider examination and consideration of the whole area of public services. For that reason,
1434
when I introduced the amendment, I very much welcomed the fact that the Home Secretary had accepted the 70 or so recommendations of the Macpherson report. However, I look forward to action in the short term, not the long term.
I hope that the difficulty of the issue will not be treated as an excuse. I am sure that the Minister did not reflect that. I hope that this issue will not be treated as so difficult that it cannot be legislated for. I am sure that back in 1968 with the Race Relations Act and then with the Sex Discrimination Act, these were considered very difficult issues to draft. I am sure the drafting will be difficult but I very much hope that a formula will be found that will lay this kind of duty in the health service. In all of our debates, throughout the Committee stage and on Report, the whole question of discrimination— not only in terms of ethnicity but particularly in terms of age—came through very strongly as a matter of concern for your Lordships. I look forward optimistically to a time in the not too distant future when the Government will feel able to legislate on this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES
(". —(1) For sections 43A and 43B of the 1977 Act (regulations as to Part II remuneration) there is substituted—
"Remuneration for Part II services.
43A. —(1) The remuneration to be paid to persons who provide general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services under this Part of this Act shall be determined by determining authorities (and they may also determine the remuneration to be paid to persons providing those services in respect of the instruction of any person in matters relating to those services).
(2) For the purposes of this section and section 43B below determining authorities are—

(a) the Secretary of State, and

(b) so far as authorised by him to exercise the functions of determining authorities, any Health Authority or other person appointed by him in an instrument (referred to in this section and section 43B below as an instrument of appointment).

(3) An instrument of appointment—

(a) may contain requirements with which a determining authority appointed by that instrument must comply in making determinations, and

(b) may be contained in regulations.

(4) Subject to this section and section 43B below, regulations may make provision about determining remuneration under subsection (1) above and may in particular impose requirements with which determining authorities must comply in making, or in connection with, determinations (including requirements as to consultation and publication).
(5) Regulations may provide—

(a) that determinations may be made by reference to any of the following—

(i) rates or conditions of remuneration of any persons or any descriptions of persons which are fixed or determined, or to be fixed or determined, otherwise than by way of a determination under subsection (1) above,

(ii) scales, indices or other data of any description specified in the regulations,

(b) that any determination which in accordance with regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) above falls to be made by reference to a scale or an index or to any other data may be made not only by reference to that scale or index or those data in the form current at the time of the determination but also by reference to the scale, index or data in any subsequent form attributable to amendment or revision taking effect after that time or to any other cause.

(6) Regulations may—

(a) provide that determining authorities may make determinations which have effect in relation to remuneration in respect of a period beginning on or after a date specified in the determination, which may be the date of the determination or an earlier or later date, but may be an earlier date only if, taking the determination as a whole, it is not detrimental to the persons to whose remuneration it relates,

(b) provide that any determination which does not specify such a date shall have effect in relation to remuneration in respect of a period beginning—

(i) if it is required to be published, on the date of publication,

(ii) if it is not so required, on the date on which it is made.

(7) A reference in this section or section 43B below to a determination is to a determination of remuneration under subsection (1) of this section.
Part II remuneration: supplementary.
43B. —(1) Before a determination is made by the Secretary of State which relates to all persons who provide services of, or of a category falling within, one of the descriptions of services mentioned in section 43A(1) above, he shall consult at least one of the following bodies—

(a) a body one of whose functions is to provide advice in connection with the matters to be determined,

(b) a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate.

(2) Determinations may make different provision for different cases including different provision for any particular case, class of case or area.
(3) Determinations may—

(a) be made in more than one stage,

(b) be made by more than one determining authority,

(c) be varied or revoked by subsequent determinations.

(4) A determination may be revised—

(a) to correct an error, or

1436

(b) where it appears to the determining authority that it was made in ignorance of or under a mistake as to a relevant fact.

(5) Determinations may, in particular, provide that the whole or any part of the remuneration—

(a) is payable only if the determining authority is satisfied as to certain conditions, or

(b) is to be applied for certain purposes or is otherwise subject to certain conditions.

(6) Subject to sections 29(4) and 35(2) above, remuneration under section 43A above may consist of payments by way of—

(a) salary,

(b) fees,

(c) allowances,

(d) reimbursement (in full or in part) of expenses incurred or expected to be incurred in connection with the provision of the services or instruction,

and may be determined from time to time.
(7) At the time a determination is made or varied, certain matters which require determining may be reserved to be decided at a later time.
(8) The matters which may be reserved include in particular—

(a) the amount of remuneration to be paid in particular cases,

(b) whether any remuneration is to be paid in particular cases.

(9) Any determination shall be made after taking into account all the matters which are considered to be relevant by the determining authority and such matters may include in particular—

(a) the amount or estimated amount of expenses (taking into account any discounts) incurred in the past or likely to be incurred in the future (whether or not by persons to whose remuneration the determination will relate) in connection with the provision of services of the description in section 43A(1) above to which the determination will relate or of any category falling within that description,

(b) the amount or estimated amount of any remuneration paid or likely to be paid to persons providing such services,

(c) the amount or estimated amount of any other payments or repayments or other benefits received or likely to be received by any such persons,

(d) the extent to which it is desirable to encourage the provision, either generally or in particular places, of the description or category of services to which the determination will relate,

(e) the desirability of promoting services which are—

(i) economic and efficient, and

(ii) of an appropriate standard.

(10) If the determination is of remuneration for a category of services falling within one of the descriptions of services mentioned in section 43A(1) above, the reference in subsection (9)(a) above to

1437
a category of services is a reference to the same category of services or to any other category of services falling within the same description".
(2) Sections 43A and 43B of the 1977 Act, as substituted by this section, have effect in relation to—

(a) the making of determinations on or after the commencement of this section, and

(b) the variation, revocation or revision on or after the commencement of this section of determinations whenever made,

and in this subsection "determinations" means determinations under Part II of the 1977 Act of the remuneration to be paid to persons who provide services mentioned in section 43A(1).
(3) Section 7(4) of the Health and Social Security Act 1984 and section 15(3) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 (determinations of remuneration for services under Part II of 1977 Act deemed to be valid) have effect in relation to England and Wales as if—

(a) after "inserted by this section" in section 7(4)(b) of the 1984 Act, and

(b) after "section 7 of the Health and Social Security Act 1984" in section 15(3) of the 1988 Act,

there were inserted "and before the coming into force of section (Remuneration for Part II services) of the Health Act 1999".
(4) The reference in section 43B(6) of the 1977 Act, as substituted by this section, to section 29(4) of that Act is to be read on and after the commencement of section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 as a reference to that section. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 37, which makes similar provision for Scotland and replaces the current Sections 28A and 28B of the 1978 Act.
The purpose of these amendments, which would replace the present Sections 43A and 43B of the 1977 Act, is to make new provision for determining the remuneration of the family health service practitioners; that is, those providing general medical services, general dental services, pharmaceutical services and general ophthalmic services. The intention is, in effect, to legitimise the current practice in relation to these determinations and, in particular, to ensure that the existing basis by which health authorities are appointed as determining authorities is put on a firmer footing. This is largely a technical issue which, I am told, accounts for the length and the complexity of the amendments.
The Explanatory Notes to the Health Bill make clear in paragraph 106 the Government's intention to give primary care trusts the function of determining cash-limited payments to GPs. We see the development of primary care as an important part of a primary care trust's role. The ability to determine cash-limited payments to GPs to support general medical services is central to this. It will allow primary care trusts to make decisions about the deployment of resources to develop general practice premises and computing and to help practices with the costs of employing staff. These are key levers in improving primary care. Part of this function currently rests with health authorities.
We want to enable primary care trusts to assume the function of determining remuneration in respect of cash-limited payments to GPs through the delegation of the function in accordance with the general provisions about delegation contained in Clause 9.
Sections 43A and 43B of the 1977 Act provide a mechanism for appointment of determining authorities by the Secretary of State. In looking at how we might use this provision, it has become clear that the existing legal basis by which health authorities themselves are appointed as determining authorities is unsatisfactory. Determinations of remunerations are presently, in effect, governed by Sections 43A and 43B of the 1977 Act, but these provisions are not yet in force and, consequently, no regulations can be made under them. Meanwhile determinations are validated by Section 7(4) of the Health and Social Security Act 1984. Although this has been the position since 1984, over time this arrangement has become increasingly unsatisfactory. To ensure that the function of health authorities as determining authorities in respect of cash-limited payments to GPs and the subsequent delegation of that function by health authorities to primary care trusts is securely based, this legal deficiency now needs to be put right.
Additionally, Sections 43A and 43B also concern the remuneration of other family health service practitioners. We need therefore to take the opportunity to tidy up the legal basis for determinations of remuneration for all the family health services professions.
Much of the existing structure and present provisions will be retained. In particular, they provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out requirements concerning consultation and publishing determinations. It is not intended either to extend or to reduce the current practice in terms of who is consulted or when, nor in terms of which determinations are published.
In essence, these changes are a tidying up exercise that will reflect and validate current practices. For example, the Secretary of State will continue to be required, through regulations made under these provisions, to consult the national representative bodies of each of the family health service professions before making changes to payments that affect that group. These changes are ones to the GPs' Statement of Fees and Allowances, commonly referred to as the "Red Book", or the equivalent for the other family health service practitioners. Primary care trusts' discretion in respect of cash-limited payments to GPs will be circumscribed in the same way as health authorities' discretion currently is; that is, it will be subject to the provisions set out in the GPs' Statement of Fees and Allowances. Where the Red Book dictates, for example, that health authorities must consult local medical committees, the same requirement will apply to primary care trusts.
The amendment also puts on a firm legal footing the basis for remunerating other FHS practitioners—dentists, community pharmacists and optometrists. However, primary care trusts will not be appointed as determining authorities for non-GMS Part II matters. The Bill explicitly and deliberately precludes primary care trusts having any functions in respect of these.
I acknowledge that these provisions are lengthy and technically complex, although no more so than those they replace. The reason for this is that the remuneration

1439
systems which they underpin are themselves complex. I hope that I have given adequate justification for the amendments we are proposing. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for her explanation of these amendments. I have one brief question to ask on Amendment No. 37. In the amendment, under subsection (2) of new Clause 28A, I see that the determining authorities are defined. The Secretary of State is one of the determining authorities. Since health is a devolved matter, can we take it that the role of the Secretary of State will be assumed by the First Minister for Scotland, and that therefore we may, in due course, see different fees and allowances north of the Border from those that are in operation south of the Border?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to ask about Amendment No. 37. Looking at subsection (5) of new Section 28A and subsection (2) of new Section 28B, I see that the Bill seems to be introducing the idea of variable remuneration being permissible to enable services to be procured in difficult localities. Is that a new principle? If it is, is it intended to secure such services in, let us say, urban areas of deprivation, or is it aimed more at remote rural areas and the three island groups? Or is the intention to unleash a complete free-for-all in remuneration within the 15 health board areas, which, I confess, I do not see as being very helpful?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe asked a question that is extremely important to people in Scotland. If "the Secretary of State" referred to in the Scottish amendment is the Secretary of State for Scotland, or a Minister of the Scottish Parliament—I imagine it means the latter—there is no reason at all why doctors and nurses, pharmacists, dentists and so on should not gradually receive salaries that diverge considerably from those south of the Border.
If the Minister will confirm that, it will help Members in another place when they come to study the Bill to know exactly what the implications are. Taking this legislation at Westminster will not enable the Scottish Parliament to examine this arrangement at all. It may or may not suit the Scottish Parliament.
Can the Minister confirm that the two amendments are virtually identical apart from the cross-references to the legislation that they amend? I cannot find any differences, but I may not have spotted them and it would be helpful to know.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for attempting to clarify what is obviously the Schleswig-Holstein question for the Department of Health. To mix metaphors further, I suspect that it is a kind of Bermuda triangle for politicians to get into in the first place. A number of issues arise from the clause. Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I re-tread some of the ground that she covered in her introduction.
We assume that the department has now obtained independent legal advice and in a sense this provision cures the issues that it was designed to cure and we shall not be faced with a re-run of this matter at a future date
1440
in relation to another health Bill. Further to that, will the powers in the new clause be used only to allow PCTs to deal with the cash-limited payments made to GPs for their staff, premises and computers? Will the Minister give a reassurance that when a PCT takes over any of the powers of a health authority relating to the remuneration of GPs, the PCT will be under the same duty as a health authority is currently to abide by the rules in the Red Book? For example, when the Red Book requires a health authority to consult the LMC, will a PCT also be required to consult that body? Will the Minister give examples of how a PCT might use its powers as a determining authority. Subsection (5)(a) of new Section 43B states that:
"Determinations may, in particular, provide that the whole or any part of the remuneration … is payable only if the determining authority is satisfied as to certain conditions".
What will those conditions be? Will they be decided by the Secretary of State, or locally?
Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that PCTs will not be allowed to use their status as determining authorities to allow local variations from a national contract for GP remuneration?
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, this is a long new clause. I have seen it for the first time this afternoon. Will the Minister say when this amendment was published and whether she has had a chance to receive representations from the professional bodies referred to in new Section 43A. It is the first time that I have heard about it and I do not know, for instance, what the British Dental Association feels about it.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, the amendment is complex. It is my understanding, which perhaps I may confirm at a later point to the noble Lord, that there have been discussions with the professional bodies on this area and that they understand the reason for bringing forward these amendments. It was very much an issue of the previous arrangements being on the basis of legislation built on legislation, on powers that have never formally been brought into force, and therefore not providing a secure legal framework. There was an anxiety not to put in place an additional layer of reliance on provisions that were not themselves fundamentally secure. Therefore the opportunity has been taken to tidy up the general basis for the determination of remuneration. I am clear that that will not come as a surprise to the professional bodies concerned.
On the issue of the Scottish provisions, I understand that the amendments for Scotland, England and Wales are fundamentally the same. I also understand that this will be a devolved matter and therefore it will be possible for different decisions to be taken north and south of the Border—although, to respond to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the provision is certainly not intended to allow for a free-for-all, but to allow local flexibility where it is required. That might be in a variety of different circumstances. Both the rural and the

1441
inner-city example could have relevance. The provision is based very much on flexibilities which are already in place and are used, rather than introducing a novel concept in this area.
On the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the purpose of the amendment so far as PCTs are concerned is to allow them to take on the function of determining cash-limited payments to GPs for those purposes. It also allows PCTs to set up and make payments in respect of general medical services local development schemes. That is a new flexibility that we have recently introduced to enable health authorities to establish what are in effect local incentive schemes to improve the standard and range of services provided within GMS.
The noble Lord asked for a reassurance about consultation. When the PCT takes on the function from the health authority of making cash-limited payments to GPs under the Red Book arrangements, it will also inherit any duty to abide by the Red Book which applies to the health authority. The point of delegating that function to PCTs is not to change Red Book arrangements but to give PCTS the ability to deploy resources into general medical services in support of those services.
The noble Lord asked for examples of how PCTs might use their powers as determining authorities. It would be broadly in one of two ways: first, to deploy resources into general practice under the existing national GP contract or Red Book arrangements to support the cost of employing practice staff or to support the cost of premises development or practice computers; or to set up with GMS local development schemes with the agreement of local GPs, in the same way as health authorities now can. This might involve, for example, funding of practices to provide chronic disease management programmes not covered by the Red Book or local incentives to improve coverage of immunisation programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones asked about certain conditions which would have to be fulfilled if determinations were to take place. For payments made under the Red Book, the Secretary of State will, as now, continue to set down any conditions for those payments and will define, again as now, any discretion that health authorities and PCTs may exercise.
Health authorities and PCTs will have the same degree of discretion and duties under the Red Book. For GMS local development schemes which are outside the Red Book arrangements, the Secretary of State has set the parameters for the operations of those schemes in regulations. The regulations will apply to health authorities and PCTs. Within that framework, PCTs, like health authorities, will be able to determine the conditions that will apply to local development schemes. I am happy to give the assurance that the status of PCTs as determining authorities will not allow local variations from the national contract. PCTs will be required to comply with the national contract in the same way as health authorities.
I hope that I have covered the points that were raised in the debate. I shall write to noble Lords if I have missed any points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 9 [Directions]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("16C") and insert ("16D").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 63, 64, 72 to 74, 79, 82 to 85 and 91. Although it is a large group of amendments, I shall try to be brief. They bring forward provisions in relation to two issues which we discussed at Committee and Report stages: the "may or must" point, if I may characterise it as that, about publicising PCTs' audited accounts, annual reports and other documents; and a requirement on PCTs to secure appropriate professional advice.
On the first point, at Report stage I undertook to bring forward appropriate amendments on Third Reading that would have the effect of placing on PCTs an express duty to publicise the specified accounts and reports in accordance with requirements set out in regulations.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 meet that commitment. They require the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations requiring PCTs to publicise the relevant document. The regulations will set out what steps to publicise must be taken by the PCT. The Secretary of State, however, retains his discretion to determine in the regulations exactly what those steps should be. For example, the regulations may specify when the accounts and reports must be published and whether the list of documents that must be publicised should be extended to those other than accounts, annual reports and auditors' reports on matters of public interest. That arrangement will have the added benefit of retaining flexibility, to cater for future changes in circumstances.
On the second point, I said on Report that I intended to bring forward a government amendment so that PCTs, as well as health authorities, have a duty to make arrangements to secure appropriate professional advice. This is in response to a specific proposal during Committee from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for which I am grateful. It also reflects a view which I think commands a good deal of support in the House—and which the Government certainly share—namely, that PCTs should secure sound professional advice from a wide range of groups in carrying out their functions.
There will, of course, need to be strong professional input into the way that PCTs are governed. But we also want PCTs to have arrangements for involving health professionals which extend beyond the "members" of the PCT. PCTs also need to engage with the broad mass of local GPs and community health service professionals, who are not PCT members. In developing local commissioning strategies and service agreements they need to involve, for example, acute sector clinicians, those engaged in NHS education research, Professions Allied to Medicine and the family health service professions. The importance of all those groups has cropped up at various points in our debates.
The amendment we have brought forward effectively mirrors the existing duty which Section 12 of the 1977 Act places on health authorities but also extends it to PCTs. When we looked at Section 12 we found that it referred

1443
specifically to some professions—namely, medical practitioners, nurses and midwives—but not to others. We think this distinction is unhelpful. It could be interpreted as implying that the contribution of other professions is somehow less important.
I turn to Professions Allied to Medicine, which I know has had particular concerns on this matter. A key point about our proposed provision is to ensure that groups like the PAMs are involved in shaping and delivering PCT plans. We want to remove the specific reference to doctors, nurses and midwives in the existing duty in order to reinforce the message that these are not the only groups that must be consulted. We are, in effect, putting PAMs on an equal footing with these groups in terms of PCTs' duty to secure professional advice. Perhaps I could also make clear that there must be flexibility in the precise balance of professional members at level 4 to reflect local circumstances, and in some cases it may be sensible and helpful to have PAMs on the PCT executive. I should add that PAMs could also of course be invited to take part in board discussions at level 3 on matters where they have a particularly important contribution to make.
To return to the amendment, we have opted for a duty to consult which is couched in a way which does not give special status to any professional group. But otherwise the new duty is essentially the same as that in Section 12 with the key difference that it applies to PCTs as well as health authorities. The amendment requires both these bodies to make arrangements to seek advice from healthcare professions in carrying out their functions. This is an important provision which further bolsters the role of professionals in PCTs.
The amendment inserts this new provision as Section 16C. Consequently the original Section 16C in Clause 9 has been re-numbered as Section 16D. The remaining amendments in this group are to reflect that re-numbering and to pick up on a number of references to the old Section 13 which is replaced by the new Section 16D. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again, on this side of the House, we are grateful to the Minister for an extremely helpful set of amendments and for the way in which she has spoken to them. I do not believe that at the outset of her remarks she mentioned Amendment No. 73, but it is one of the key amendments in the group. For the sake of clarity, perhaps I should ask her to confirm that she was speaking to it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I specified Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 which I took to include Amendment No. 73. I am glad to clarify the point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for what I agree is a helpful set of amendments. That refers particularly to resolving the "may or must" issue throughout all stages of the Bill. I thank her also for dealing with a problem which the Professions Allied to Medicine was keen to see cured. It is grateful to have its
1444
best, most optimistic hopes being realised in terms of the way that section has now been changed in the 1977 Act. That is extremely helpful.
The only remaining aspect on which the Minister could be even more helpful—and this is somewhat of a side wind in the context of level 4 PCTs—is that the department definitely expects the PCT executives at level 4 to involve and, in some cases, consist of Professions Allied to Medicine. That would be a positive sign to those professions that their involvement would be actively supported. In the meantime, we very much welcome the set of amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for this comprehensive set of amendments, especially Amendment No. 73 which I am delighted to see is list-free.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The power conferred by subsection (1) shall be exercised so as to enable patients resident in an area covered by a body referred to in that subsection to be referred out of that area where appropriate for the purpose of receiving specialist hospital treatment and after-care. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was most encouraged at Report stage by the support which your Lordships gave for my amendment on out-of-area treatment. For that reason I move Amendments Nos. 7 and 18 today. The Minister said that the fragmentation of responsibility in the past made it difficult to ensure co-ordinated planning and commissioning of specialised services. The Minister also said that the Government were giving regional offices clear responsibilities for ensuring that proper arrangements were in place and would require all health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts to participate in that.
Many bodies are involved. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said during Report stage that in some instances specialist units were uncertain as to the future flow of patients and consequently their future funding arrangements. To have these amendments written into the Bill places emphasis on the importance of out-of-area treatments. Amendment No. 7 deals with the general powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to National Health Service bodies. The intention of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue directions to achieve out-of-area treatments where appropriate.
Amendment No. 18 provides that the duty of co-operation should extend to OATs, making sure that they are covered in the Bill. Specialised medical conditions do not always fit into the flow patterns that health authorities might have arranged. Sometimes there are very difficult and complicated cases. Flow patterns might have been arranged with a hospital, such as the one at Bristol, where doctors and parents had lost confidence in the clinical results. I am pleased to hear that with a new surgeon Bristol has now improved, but that is an example of how matters can change. There should be flexibility and choice for patients, carers and doctors.
It is cost-effective in the long run to provide the correct diagnosis and treatment quickly with a fully trained medical team who have knowledge and expertise and who can solve difficult problems. Sometimes sophisticated and expensive equipment is needed for difficult diagnoses. Often it is found only in select hospitals that deal with complicated conditions. To advance in medical research and development patients need to be treated in units that have an interest in and are motivated by their conditions and, ideally, have links with universities.
We live in a fast-changing world and must not fall behind. In last Saturday's Daily Express the case of Helen Smith, aged 24, was highlighted. She had her arms and legs amputated after contracting meningitis. So far officials at Addenbrooke Hospital in Cambridge will not pay for bionic hands and lightweight artificial legs to help her walk properly. On her arms she has a stump and a claw. I gave the Minister notice that I may bring up this case. This young woman has a university degree in molecular and cellular biology and wants to return to independent living and work. She needs the expertise of an orthopaedic limb-fitting centre. Why do severely disabled people have to fight so hard for what should happen smoothly and efficiently through the NHS so that they can get on with their lives and overcome human tragedies with help and support rather than bureaucratic injustice?
The British Medical Association says that there is lack of clarity and detail in the Bill about the way in which health services will work at district and regional levels and how services commissioned by primary care trusts will fit into this process. The Bill does not make clear how the formal mechanisms for joint working will be achieved and how the existing procedures for commissioning, which are now not working adequately, can be improved. What mechanisms will be in place to achieve an overview of the planning at regional level of services commissioned by primary care trusts? What mechanisms will there be to involve hospital consultants in the decision-making process of PCTs?
Although the Bill makes provision for the functions of primary care trusts, there is no clear direction for joint working between all relevant local health and social service agencies. I believe that Amendment No. 18 will help to achieve this. Currently, some services are commissioned by a lead health authority on behalf of the other health authorities in the region. Some services are provided on a regional or supra-regional basis. What will be the effect of the Health Bill on those services? What reassurances can the Minister give that those services will be protected? This service includes many vital specialties.
The College of Health, which is a body dedicated to patient-centred care, is also concerned about these issues. On "Newsnight" on Tuesday night the need for out-of-area treatment was highlighted. It showed adolescent and young adult patients who needed vital heart treatment at Brompton Hospital. Some patients said that if they had not received the treatment with the help of GUCH (Grown-Up Children's Heart Charity)
1446
they would have died. Dr. June Sommerville, a world-renowned heart specialist, said that because some young people had not been transferred they had died.
I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their communications. Both Ministers have great knowledge of the National Health Service, but this is a new Bill. I believe that out-of-area transfers should be on the face of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a matter of life and death for many people. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, to which I have added my name. The Minister was kind enough to write to me earlier this week following our debates at Report stage. I am grateful for her explanation in that letter of how out-of-area treatments are to be commissioned and funded. However, I share the perception of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that there is still a good deal of uncertainty within the health service as to how these commissioning arrangements will work and, in particular, what mechanisms will operate at district and regional levels to enable a proper strategic view of specialisms, such as cardiac and renal services, to be taken and to ensure that the advice of the specialists themselves is taken into account. What joint working arrangements will there be between all those who have a professional interest in the planning of services?
I should like to ask the Minister about the range of specialisms that health authorities and PCTs will be expected to commission under long-term service agreements. How many specialisms typically will these agreements cover? What will happen when there is a need for a certain specialist service for which there is no agreement in place? The worry that has been expressed to me is that none of this bodes very well for patients because the decisions of regional specialist commissioning groups will be binding. Yet there will be no patient or carer involvement in those decisions, as there will be for public health and health authority managers.
Nor are there any structures in place for the views of patients and carers to be heard and acted on at regional level. Even more importantly there is no provision for an appeals mechanism against refusals to fund out of area treatments. CHCs have no rights of representation at regional level. There is no provision for patient and carer feedback into the commissioning process and the subsequent monitoring and evaluation of provision. Nor does there appear to be any mechanism for patients to find out what specialised commissioning arrangements apply to their areas.
I turn to a different aspect of the issue. I wonder why it is that when waiting lists are so long, as they are at present, limits are now being imposed on the referral of patients from overstretched hospitals to those which may have spare capacity. There is a need for greater flexibility, not less, in the way the system operates. The Government need to explain more fully how the proposed arrangements will not work in practice to the detriment of patients.

1447
I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that these are important questions. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I support the amendments. I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks—other noble Lords have also expressed their thanks—for the way in which the Minister has met so many of the concerns expressed throughout the Bill's passage. I know that I speak on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. The pharmaceutical industry and the professional regulatory authorities also feel that virtually all their concerns have been met.
I support the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I do not propose to redeploy the arguments I expressed at Second Reading and Committee and Report stages about the crucial importance of out of area referrals not only for those patients suffering from rare conditions but also those who suffer from common conditions. There is clear evidence that in the treatment, for instance, of diabetes a referral to a highly specialised centre brings greatly improved outcomes in relation to patient care. One could redeploy the arguments relating to the specialised treatment of cancer, to the highly specialised specialties such as cardiac surgery, cardiology, neurology and many more.
One of the great strengths of the old NHS—if I may speak about it in that way—was that regional planning made it possible to define those hospitals in which regional services would be provided. Primary care was provided by the general practitioners. Secondary care was provided in virtually every district hospital. But the more difficult problems were referred to regional or sub-regional centres which were carefully planned. One of the unexpected and unforeseen effects of the internal market introduced by the former government was that extra-contractual referrals diminished sharply. That meant that many patients deserving of highly specialised care were not referred to those specialised centres. Not only did that have a detrimental effect on the care of many individuals, it had a devastating effect on clinical academic medicine, which often depends on such referrals for its very existence.
For that reason alone, and for many of the others expressed by the noble Baroness, I strongly support the amendments. From what the Minister said when debating the last group of amendments, I understand that hospital consultants among others will be consulted about the activities of primary care trusts. That will greatly reassure the BMA. When the noble Baroness answered some of our questions on the topic in Committee and on Report she was able to give many reassurances. But the future of specialised patient care in the NHS and the future of clinical academic medicine depend upon having effective answers to the problems posed in the amendments.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I support the amendment and endorse the reservations expressed from other Benches.
1448
As the Minister said at Report stage, health authorities and their partners will still need to set specialised commissioning issues alongside their local priorities. We accept that the new spirit of co-operation which will pervade the National Health Service in future means that the new arrangements can or may be more coherent and purposeful. But the fact remains that health authorities and primary care trusts will still be constrained by their budgets and will be under constant pressure to buy the cheaper local services rather than to go elsewhere for more expensive services. Therefore there is the tendency to ration by postcode.
My attention was brought last weekend to a patient who urgently needed a heart bypass operation. His cardiologist reckoned that he had only a week to live if he did not have one. However, it was January and his health authority had exhausted the quota of bypass operations that it had bought from a specialist hospital outside the area, and there was no way round that. That was despite the fact that the cardiologist estimated that he had only one week to live without the operation. The specialist hospital concerned had excess capacity; namely, both its operating theatres and its specialist staff were not being used at that time.
That picks up the problem raised at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, reiterated it. He spoke about unused specialist facilities and specialist staff being laid off. Yet I confess that I see little in the proposals at present to alleviate the problem. We shall still be confronted by constrained budgets and the purchaser provider provisions which are at the centre of the internal market. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said at Report stage, these are the litmus test of whether the internal market continues.
It is vital for patients in this country to have access to the most appropriate and best possible care, even if it is not available within their area. We should be glad to have assurances from the Minister that I have interpreted the matter wrongly and that those facilities will be available.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I prefer not to rely on some nebulous spirit of co-operation, but to have a provision written firmly on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that there ever was a golden age in the NHS when it was easy to send people out of area. As a constituency MP, I recall having the greatest difficulty under previous reforms when trying to help someone who needed that out of area support. I therefore take a rather jaundiced view as to whether the concept will work if it does not get a good shove on the face of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will give us some reassuring words about what is planned. But I should still like to see the provision on the face of the Bill. In the absence of any proposal from the Minister, I warmly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. I revert to Report stage, when some of us mentioned specialised services that were already available. At first I doubted whether the amendment was necessary because I wrongly assumed that those services

1449
would be avilable throughout the country. However, in a powerful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, put me right. He mentioned that the situation varies a great deal. We know that the Government have the good intention of wanting to make the services readily available everywhere—involving travelling, of course; that cannot be avoided.
I remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to it. He stated:
"I am convinced that if we sensibly concentrated services in certain areas to which patients could easily travel, there would be a great benefit to the patients, a benefit in terras of training and research, and a saving of money". —[Official Report, 15/3/99; col. 560.]
He then said that he strongly supported the amendments.
It is arguable that under the Bill there is power to provide these services, but there does not seem to be an obligation to do so. We know the Government want that to be done but surely it would be better to make it clear in the Bill that there is an obligation on the part of the Secretary of State and the various bodies which will be helping him in providing health care in the future. We should make it clear that there is an obligation to extend specialist services so that they are available all over the country. For that reason no harm could be done by accepting the amendments; indeed there would be a very great advantage.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand the position the proposed new arrangements for regional specialised commissioning centre upon an indicative list of specialised services. Health authorities will, as I understand it, only be expected to make arrangements for a limited number of specialisms each year. This is bound to continue the unfairness that has already been referred to at Report stage as treatment by postcode. For example, patients needing access— and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Stroke Association—to specialist stroke units will be able to have that if they are in the right area, otherwise not. Patients with rare diseases or complicated illnesses will find it much more difficult to have access to centres of expertise or specialist consultants.
Like my noble friend Lord Howe, I can find no provision for appeal against refusal to fund out-of-area treatments and community health councils have no rights of representation at regional level. All this leads me to conclude, like my noble friend Lady Fookes, that we need to refer to what my noble friend Lord Renton calls "this obligation" on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a most important and interesting debate. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for once again allowing us to discuss these important issues. I am very well aware of the concerns that many members of your Lordships' House have about the proper availability of specialist services within the National Health Service. It is a fact, as the noble
1450
Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, that there has never been a golden age. There has always been a tension between the proper provision of specialist services and the appropriate provision of local services. My own view is that the internal market added to the problems. No one should underestimate the challenge that the NHS faces in ensuring that we reach the right solutions in terms of a balance between specialist services and the services that one would expect to be provided in one's local area.
I believe that the action which the Government are taking in this area will enable us to meet many of the concerns that noble Lords have. Notwithstanding the ever present tension that I have already described, I believe that the arrangements that applied under the internal market were responsible for many of the problems that have been discussed.
It was certainly the case that fragmentation of responsibility within the internal market made it more difficult for specialised units to work together with all those who referred to their services, so as to agree how the service should develop, and how it could best be dovetailed with local services to ensure that there was a proper continuum of care that patients require. There was no mechanism for agreeing priorities for investment, so as to offer specialised centres a proper context in which to plan, to devise research programmes, and so forth. There was too much dependence on the system of "extra contractual referrals"—ECRs as they came to be known—which was designed for one-off cases, not to support the development of complex services. And for the patient and their clinician, the ECR system meant a bureaucratic obstacle, in the form of requirement to obtain "prior approval" from the health authority before referral to the specialist centre went ahead. So patients, clinicians and specialist units all had real cause for concern about the impact of these arrangements. I understand the anxiety of noble Lords to ensure that the arrangements we are putting in place will be better. I want to reassure the House on this point. There are two important strands to the action we are taking: first, that there are new, coherent arrangements to plan and commission specialised services; and secondly, new, less bureaucratic arrangements are being put in place to cover the small minority of cases where it is not possible to plan ahead.
The arrangements for specialised services commissioning recognise that these services form much too important an element of the NHS to allow their development to be left to chance, or to the goodwill of individual clinicians, units, or individual commissioning bodies or indeed to the urgings of patient groups. That is why we have charged NHS executive regional offices with ensuring there are proper, coherent arrangements in place to plan, commission and (through long-term service agreements) fund specialised services. This is essential both to ensure patients have fair and appropriate access to specialised services when they need them, and to enable the units concerned to plan ahead with confidence and, if I may say so, to provide the

1451
flexibility which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, requested in what she aptly described as a "fast changing world".
As a first step, regional offices have been working with local NHS bodies to identify those collective arrangements to commission specialised services that already exist, and ensure that all health authorities and primary care groups are covered by these. There will then be a rolling programme of reviews to tackle national priorities and the priorities for attention identified in each region, and ensure that robust arrangements are in place. The result will be agreements between a group of health authorities and their primary care groups and a specialist centre, covering the service to be provided, the flow of funds, the quality standards to be expected, the intended outcomes of treatment, and other important aspects of the service. All GPs in the area covered will be free to refer patients to such a centre in line with the agreement concerned. I believe this is the best course wherever a pattern of need and referrals can be identified. But the Government also recognise that there will be a minority of cases which do not fit these arrangements, and for which provision must also be made; for example when a serious illness or injury occurs away from home, or where a patient has a rare condition and the health authority or primary care group's service agreements do not cover the specialist centre best equipped to help.
This is where the arrangements for out-of-area treatments (OATs) come in. The principle of out-of-area treatments is to make proper and non-bureaucratic provision for these unpredictable but pressing cases. Where a specialist centre can identify a pattern of receiving "one-off referrals from outside their area in circumstances such as these, the arrangement is that the funding allocation to its "main commissioner" (usually the health authority in which it is located) will be increased to reflect this pattern of referrals. The main commissioner will then add this funding to its own service agreement with the trust. This will become an agreement against which "all comers" can be treated, admitted according to clinical priority by the specialist unit.
I believe that together, the arrangements for commissioning specialised services, and for out-of-area treatments, offer a secure framework within which specialist centres will be able to make their proper contribution to the NHS. It happens that this is an area where we can proceed without primary legislation. That is the reason that it does not appear on the face of the Bill, not because we attach any less importance to specialist services than to those matters where legislation is required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the case of Helen Smith. I am most grateful to her for giving me advance notice of that. The clinicians in that case have offered what they consider to be the best possible artificial limbs for her condition, which they believe will be most comfortable and at the same time provide her with the greatest flexibility. Experts at Addenbrooke's Hospital which is a regional
1452
disablement centre, have suggested the coverings in the bionic-electric hands which would best suit her, but she has declined them. They have also offered the possibility of referral to another NHS specialist centre, the Royal National Orthopaedic Centre at Stanmore.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also referred to a story in yesterday's "Newsnight" programme about the Brompton Hospital. Like other specialist services, those services should benefit from the systematic approach for the review and commissioning of specialist services to which I have referred. I cannot give a definitive answer today in relation to the specific issue she raised, but I can say that one of the national priorities we have identified for action during 1999–2000 on specialist service commissioning is a specialist cardiac service. I hope that that will ensure that some of the issues raised will be met.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the definition of specialist services. There is no fixed definition and as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested, there needs to be flexibility, given the fast changing circumstances with which the NHS is often faced. In a circular issued by the Department of Health, a list of potential specialist services was set out, but it highlighted the difficulty in attempting to produce something definitive. I should be happy to send the list to the noble Earl because it offers a starting point that is being worked on by every regional office.
We are asking the regions and the NHS to concentrate, first, on some selected national specialties—for example, cancer and paediatric intensive care units—and during 1999–2000, medium-secure psychiatric services, cleft lip and palate services and issues of particular priority within each region, as each region faces different circumstances and different priorities. There will then be a rolling programme for examining other services.
That is practical because these matters require careful attention. It is sensible to take them through a rolling programme. The funding of specialist services not yet covered by such an approach will be covered by service agreements.
An important question was raised about the relationship between primary care groups and trusts and clinicians. We are stressing to those concerned that long-term service agreements must be based upon dialogue between clinicians in primary and secondary care. That same approach will inform the commission of specialist services, with input from those specialist commissions, which will be critical to effective discussions.
We recognise that it is important to get these mechanisms right. Regional offices will soon be reviewing the existing collective agreements and identifying the sharing of best practice. Issues of how best to assure the proper arrangements for input from clinicians, particularly in specialist services, will be covered in that review.
In relation to the important question of user and carer input, we are stressing to the service that this must be a feature of the new arrangements. Moving

1453
to a three-to five-year time scale in relation to service agreements will allow much more opportunity for the in-depth involvement of users and carers.
I noted with a great deal of interest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about diabetes. That is identified as a future national service framework topic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about resources. I can confirm that we must work within available resources, but I believe that moving to a stronger role for primary care groups and trusts in commissioning means that the balance must be struck between specialist and local services. It will be struck sensitively and appropriately and in an atmosphere in which the clinicians closest to the patients are very much involved in making those decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the variations in service availability throughout the NHS. I believe that the impact of the specialised commissioning arrangements to which I have referred—the development of service frameworks— will help to ensure a broad pattern of provision throughout the country. Of course, when one is dealing with specialist services at a regional level, one must reflect on the different priorities which will be set in different regions.
I wish to assure noble Lords that we are taking proper and careful account of these very important debates. We plan to issue guidance soon to the NHS setting out further details on the out-of-area treatment arrangements. We will ensure that it stresses the importance of pro-active planning around the development of new services, reserving the use of out-of-area treatment for those instances where a pre-arranged service agreement is impracticable. In commissioning guidance later this Spring—and I hope that this answers the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the preparedness and awareness of the NHS—and in the light of debates in your Lordships' House, we shall pay careful attention to the proper balance between the different forms of commissioning, local service agreements, arrangements for specialised services and for out-of-area treatments so that together they best provide for the full range of patient needs.
I believe that those arrangements, combined with a duty of partnership, the crucial importance of the health improvement programmes which we developed within each area, the monitoring role of regional offices, and the close involvement of clinicians at all levels will ensure that we deal with these important matters in the appropriate way.
Finally, I assure the House that the new provisions in the Bill—the Secretary of State's powers of direction—will extend to specialised services. I hope that the House will feel reassured by my response and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply, but something he said at the end of his speech worries me a great deal; namely
1454
that different regions might do different things. I also believe that the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the right of appeal are very important.
I thank all noble Lords who have supported me because I believe that they want the provision to appear on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, knows in her heart that if she were sitting on the other side of the House she would be campaigning with me. I remember very well that she and I campaigned about MRSA and pressure sores, but I understand her position.
I believe that we should have a go and see what the House thinks. Therefore, I wish to divide the House.
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Kintore, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Attlee, E.

Leigh, L.

Berners, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McConnell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carrington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mayhew of Twysden. L.

Chesham, L.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monson, L.

Coleridge, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Naseby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Davidson, V.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegall, M.

Palmer, L.

Eames, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Romney, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Sandwich, E.

Holderness, L.

Selborne, E.

Home, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Stockton, E.

1455

Strafford, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Strange, B.

Trenchard, V.

Sudeley, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Walpole, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Tenby, V.

Weatherill, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wharton, B.

Torrington, V.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Amos, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

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

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lincoln, Bp.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Longford, E.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Emerton, B.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hacking, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 12:
Page 12, line 28, after ("28A") insert ("41A").
Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (3) of section 17 of the 1977 Act applies in relation to the powers to give directions conferred by sections 4, 6 and 8 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (proposals for, and making, variation and termination of, pilot schemes) as it applies in relation to the powers conferred by any of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection. ").
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("16C") and insert ("16D").
Page 13, line 32, leave out ("16C") and insert ("16D").
Page 13, line 36, leave out ("16C") and insert ("16D").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duty of quality]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 30, at end insert ("including, without prejudice to the generality of this section, general clinical care as well as medical treatment, and the promotion of health, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report the Minister said:
"in the spirit of reading through the entrails after our previous debate, as noble Lords have done, I shall be happy, in the light of the specific points that have been raised in the debate, to check once again that nothing which has been pinpointed as essential in the contributions that noble Lords have made tonight is beyond the scope of the present definition ". —[Official Report, 15/3/99; col. 581].
We debated the definition of "healthcare" in what was then Clause 13 both on Report and in Committee. I make no apology for returning to this to ask the Minister whether she finds that definition in good or bad health after her examination of the "entrails", which I thought was a particularly apt expression to come from a Minister responsible for health.
Many issues are involved in this matter, which we have debated at some length. However, it still seems to us on these Benches that that definition is defective. I cannot see how the delivery of babies is an illness, yet the Bill purports, in terms of quality, to regulate that. Also, it is still not clear that public health promotion is covered by the definition in terms of the duty of quality. This is crucial. If noble Lords consider the Minister's assurance in Committee that local authorities cannot charge for healthcare, they will recognise that the definition of "healthcare" is absolutely pivotal when it comes to the distinction as to whether or not a means-tested charge applies or whether the service is free at the point of delivery, as in the NHS. Those distinctions will become more and more important. That is why we must get the definition of "healthcare" right. Has the Minister had time to reflect on that? It will be a very important definition in the years to come. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have indeed reflected further, read the "entrails" and tested the issue, as I undertook to do at various points in our earlier debates. I have checked whether or not the present definition misses anything essential. I can advise the noble Lord and the House that I remain convinced that the duty covers all that it needs to.
One example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a service which the duty must cover—he repeated it today—was that of the treatment of pregnant women and their care immediately after childbirth. I agree it would be quite wrong if such a significant area of NHS provision were to be excluded from the duty, but in fact this example demonstrates quite well the intentional breadth of the drafting as it stands. The noble Lord is quite right to say that pregnancy is not an illness; it is a perfectly natural and, by and large, healthy state. But the NHS has an important preventive role in normal childbirth: it is on hand to help make sure that nothing goes wrong, and that avoidable harm befalls neither mother nor baby before, during or immediately after labour. This is quite clearly within the scope of the Bill's definition.

1457
The noble Lord referred to public health provision. Smoking cessation services and screening services would equally be covered by the definition and therefore by the duty of quality. Similarly, I remain of the view that the duty adequately covers nursing care—I referred on Report to the explicit reference to nursing in the part of the 1977 Act on which this definition draws. I think that what I said on Report about health promotion activity also holds true. As far as NHS trust and PCT provision is concerned, activities which promote health will also prevent illness, and vice versa.
In case your Lordships are still unconvinced, and perhaps fear that some services somehow will be "missed" by clinical governance as a consequence of the way the duty is worded, I should emphasise that clinical governance in NHS trusts and PCTs will be implemented on an organisation-wide basis. It will apply as much to trust-wide activities such as complaints, ensuring that staff are up to date with best practice, and detecting and tackling poor performance as it will to specific service areas. As a result, it is very difficult to see how any areas of clinically-related activity could in practice escape its impact.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my opposition to his amendment is not because of "pride of authorship", to quote what he said earlier. I share his concern that the duty should cover as full a range of provision as is practicable, but I also take the view that we should expand on the present form of words only if there are important gaps to fill. I have given this matter careful consideration and I believe that the duty as drafted is wide enough to cover the areas which the noble Lord has highlighted. In the light of that, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and am grateful to her for re-examining both the definition and the "entrails". The Minister's more comprehensive reply this time round and the previous absolute assurance that local authorities will not be able to charge for healthcare will be of considerable reassurance once the Bill has passed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 33, leave out from ("Improvement") to end of line.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Functions of the Commission]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved]
Clause 19 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 20, line 30, leave out from ("of') to end of line 31 and insert ("a serious arrestable offence, ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 17. In previous debates, considerable concern was raised about this provision, which is Clause 19(5)(e). I have listened to mis concern, and am grateful for the comments on how we might amend the provision. As I indicated earlier, we have been reflecting on the most appropriate precedent to use to allow the commission to disclose confidential information only in connection with the investigation of a serious criminal offence. I hope these amendments will satisfy your Lordships' concerns.
The amendments have been drafted to allow disclosure of confidential information only in connection with a serious arrestable offence. Such offences would include murder, manslaughter and rape. For England and Wales, a "serious arrestable" offence is defined in accordance with Section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act applies only to England and Wales, so a reference to it will not be sufficient to cover the investigation of serious arrestable offences in other parts of the UK. Therefore, we have also used the definition of "serious arrestable offence" in Article 87 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, to cover offences in Northern Ireland. I am informed that in Scotland there is no direct equivalent to the term "serious arrestable offence", but that the nearest equivalent term for an offence triable in Scotland would be an "offence triable on indictment". These definitions, we feel, capture those crimes which are of a sufficiently serious or grave nature to warrant the commission being allowed to disclose confidential information to the police for the purposes of an investigation.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that we are therefore meeting the concerns raised about the commission's lawful authority to disclose confidential information.
While on the general subject, perhaps I may take this opportunity to report back on the other matters; relating to confidentiality to which I undertook to pay further attention. In addition to the issue which I hope is resolved by this amendment, I undertook to look again at two further areas. They are, first, the safeguards on disclosure of information about the deceased and, secondly, safeguards regarding information which identifies an individual or enables that individual to be identified.
In these areas we have undertaken further discussion with the professions. It is important that we get this right From previous debates noble Lords will know that the question of handling information about the deceased is difficult Nevertheless, we wish to find a way forward which will properly safeguard the confidentiality of information relating to the deceased.
Noble Lords are aware that the extent to which the legal duty of confidentiality extends beyond death is unclear, and that, generally speaking, no one has a legal authority to give consent on behalf of a deceased individual for access to or disclosure of confidential information.
In the light of these significant legal uncertainties and complexities, we intend to issue guidance to the commission. We will look to further our helpful discussions with the professions on how such guidance might be drawn up; for example, how it might reflect the ethical duty of confidentiality that all health professionals have to their patients, living or dead, and how it might provide clarity on the circumstances under which information about the deceased might be disclosed where this is justified only on reasonable grounds. Any such guidance would also need to make clear the contractual duty of confidentiality that the commission's staff will have with regard to access to and disclosure of confidential information about individuals. We are considering whether there is an appropriate way of including a provision in the Bill relating to such guidance.
As regards the second point, we share the concern expressed by several Members of your Lordships' House that in some circumstances the identity of an individual may be ascertained from anonymised information where this is combined with other information.
We propose to bring forward amendments to the Bill at a later date which we hope will address these concerns. These will aim to tighten up the provisions in the Bill to protect the confidentiality of information about individuals. I hope that today I have been able to provide some clarity on our intentions in some areas relating to confidentiality and to bring forward specific amendments which deal with the seriousness of the offence for which the commission will have the authority to disclose confidential information. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment which conforms very closely to the suggestion I made at Report stage as regards the definition of a serious arrestable offence. I am quite sure that the medical profession will be very reassured that it now aligns the duties in the Bill very closely with its commonly accepted professional standards and duties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 20, line 45, at end insert—
('"'serious arrestable offence"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be construed in accordance with section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,

(b) in relation to Scotland, means an offence which is triable on indictment,

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be construed in accordance with Article 87 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Co-operation between NHS bodies]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 22, line 4, at end insert—
("(2) The duty in subsection (1) applies in particular to co-operation in enabling patients resident in an area covered by a body referred to in that subsection to be referred out of that area where appropriate for the purpose of receiving specialist hospital treatment and after-care. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment covers the same principle as that in Amendment No. 7, which has been agreed to. The amendment has been spoken to and I hope that it will be agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Controls: supplementary]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 22:
Page 30, line 37, leave out (" 29(2)(a), (7) and") and insert (" 29(6) to").
Page 31, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert— ("(4A)").
Page 31, line 15, after ("Act") insert ("and section 49 of, and Schedule 10 to, the 1978 Act").
Page 31, line 22, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the 1978 Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 36 [Disqualification etc. of Part II practitioners]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 37, line 40, leave out from ("to") to ("when") in line 41 and insert ("disqualify, or conditionally disqualify, him").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 24 to 34, Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 and Amendment No. 86 regarding the NHS tribunal in England and Wales and Amendments Nos. 38 to 61, 80, 81 and 90 which affect the provisions for the NHS tribunal in Scotland.
It may be easier if I speak first to the amendments for Part I of the Bill for England and Wales. These amendments attempt to clarify the provisions in Clause 36 of the Bill governing the NHS tribunal in England and Wales. There are also minor consequential amendments to Schedule 4 and Schedule 5.
The NHS tribunal is the ultimate disciplinary body for family health service practitioners. Clause 36 provides new powers for the tribunal to disqualify practitioners who commit fraud against the NHS. Noble Lords will know from previous debates that the tribunal currently only investigates cases where it is alleged that the continued inclusion of a practitioner on a health authority's list for that service would be prejudicial to the efficiency of that service. It is a small minority of practitioners who commit fraud against the NHS, but it is a minority which needs to be tackled.
The majority of the amendments introduce minor textual changes such as the introduction of the terms "local disqualification" and "national disqualification" which attempt to make the clause clearer for the reader. In particular I draw the attention of the House to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which, in the main, make drafting changes to clarify the action that the tribunal may take on review of a fraud case. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 36 introduces several new sections into the 1977 Act. In order to aid understanding, Amendment No. 34 also introduces two new provisions into one of these new sections, the new Section 47, so that fewer provisions will need to be read in conjunction with the others. These are, first, that the tribunal shall not impose any disqualification on review where it would be unjust to do so and, secondly, to clarify when a determination on review would have effect.
As regards Amendments Nos. 38 to 61, 80, 81 and 90 affecting the NHS tribunal in Scotland, the Scottish tribunal is essentially similar to the tribunal for England and Wales. It draws its powers from the 1978 Act to which Clause 50 and these amendments seek to make changes. Noble Lords will recall that I introduced a number of amendments at Report stage which added some important new provisions to those already in the Bill. At that time I informed your Lordships' House that my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston was looking to bring forward similar amendments to those I had brought forward at that stage.
I shall not go over all the same ground that I covered rather extensively on Report. However, I shall briefly mention that they cover a range of areas including allowing the NHS tribunal in Scotland to disqualify bodies corporate which commit fraud from providing ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services in the family health services. There is an amendment to the definition of fraudulent conduct to provide a clearer

1461
definition against which the NHS tribunal would test the conduct of practitioners. It will ensure that decisions of the tribunals in England and Wales and Northern Ireland are applied similarly to Scotland. These amendments for the Scottish tribunal also incorporate equivalent amendments to those I am speaking to for England and Wales today.
As regards England and Wales, these amendments do not change the fundamental purpose or impact of the existing tribunal provisions in the Bill, but they are needed for clarity and to ensure that the NHS tribunal can work as intended. These provisions are part of our comprehensive strategy for countering fraud in the National Health Service. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is difficult to follow what has happened to the Bill as a result of these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who wrote to me saying that he has asked the Scottish Office officials to compile an updated consolidated version of provisions in the Bill resulting from these amendments. That is a great help.
I hope the Government have taken on board the fact that things have been difficult for us and to require a consolidated version in order to understand the Bill is obviously not good enough. I hope that both the Government and the future Ministers of the Scottish Parliament will read the tea leaves here and try and prepare legislation which is easier for Members of both Houses to understand. I am grateful for this and I am sure that Members in another place will be grateful also because they will have the benefit of it before they look at the changes. They will be able to see whether the tribunals in Scotland seem to them to be adequately provided for.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I suspect I should know this, but will the Minister clarify for me whether the NHS tribunal is a UK-wide body or whether there is a separate NHS tribunal in Scotland? I believe he said that there was, but that was not my understanding.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is my understanding that they are separate tribunals but I shall be happy to send further details of the composition and make-up to the noble Earl if he wishes.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I took careful note of the comments on these matters made by noble Lords during Report stage, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I have ensured that those comments were brought to the attention of the appropriate people.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 34:
Page 37, line 43, leave out ("exercise that power") and insert ("disqualify, or conditionally disqualify, him").
Page 37, line 46, leave out ("exercise that power") and insert ("disqualify, or conditionally disqualify, him").
Page 38, line 12, after ("shall") insert ("make a local disqualification, that is").
Page 38, line 14, after ("may") insert ("also make a national disqualification, that is").
Page 38, line 17, leave out from ('Tribunal") to ("they") in line 18 and insert ("make a national disqualification").
Page 38, line 31, leave out ("power to disqualify") and insert ("functions of making Disqualifications").
Page 38, line 32, leave out ("includes power to make") and insert ("include making").
Page 38, line 37, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
Page 39, line 7, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
Page 39, leave out lines 25 to 35 and insert—
("and, on a review of a fraud case, may make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification which they consider appropriate. ").
Page 40, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert—
("and, on a review of a fraud case, may make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification which they consider appropriate.
( ) If, on a review under this section of a fraud case—

(a) there is a national disqualification which the Tribunal do not remove or make conditional,

(b) there is a national disqualification which is conditional and which the Tribunal make unconditional, or

(c) the Tribunal make a national disqualification,

they may also make a declaration of unfitness.
( ) The Tribunal shall not under this section—

(a) in the case of a conditional disqualification, make it unconditional or vary the conditions.

(b) make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification, or

(c) make a declaration of unfitness,

if they are of the opinion that it would be unjust to do so.
( ) A determination of the Tribunal under this section shall have effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought against it, at the end of the period for bringing an appeal,

(b) if an appeal is brought against it, when the appeal process is exhausted. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 24 to 34 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Repeal of law about fund-holding practices]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 41, line 26, leave out from ("1978") to ("sections") in line 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Expenditure of Health Boards and other bodies]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 43, line 28, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(e)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES: SCOTLAND
(". —(1) For sections 28A and 28B of the 1978 Act (regulations as to remuneration) there is substituted—
"Remuneration for Part II services.
28A. —(1) The remuneration to be paid to persons who provide general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services under this Part of this Act shall be determined by determining authorities (and they may also determine the remuneration to be paid to persons providing those services in respect of the instruction of any person in matters relating to those services).
(2) For the purposes of this section and section 28B, determining authorities are—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) so far as authorised by him to exercise the functions of determining authorities, any Health Board or other person appointed by him in an instrument (referred to in this section and section 28B as an instrument of appointment).

(3) An instrument of appointment—

(a) may contain requirements with which a determining authority appointed by that instrument must comply in making determinations; and

(b) may be contained in regulations.

(4) Subject to this section and section 28B, regulations may make provision about determining remuneration under subsection (1) and may in particular impose requirements with which determining authorities must comply in making, or in connection with, determinations (including requirements as to consultation and publication).
(5) Regulations may provide—

(a) that determinations may be made by reference to any of the following—

(i) rates or conditions of remuneration of any persons or any descriptions of persons which are fixed or determined, or to be fixed or determined, otherwise than by way of a determination under subsection (1);

(ii) scales, indices or other data of any description specified in the regulations;

(b) that any determination which in accordance with regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) falls to be made by reference to a scale or an index or to any other data may be made not only by reference to that scale or index or those data in the form current at the time of the determination but also by reference to the scale, index or data in any subsequent form attributable to amendment or revision taking effect after that time or to any other cause.

(6) Regulations may—

(a) provide that determining authorities may make determinations which have effect in relation to remuneration in respect of a period beginning on or after a date specified in the determination, which may be the date of the determination or an earlier or later date, but may be an earlier date only if, taking the determination as a whole, it is not detrimental to the persons to whose remuneration it relates;

(b) provide that any such determination which does not specify such a date shall have effect in relation to remuneration in respect of a period beginning—

(i) if it is required to be published, on the date of publication;

(ii) if it is not so required, on the date on which it is made.

(7) A reference in this section or section 28B to a determination is a reference to a determination of remuneration under subsection (1) of this section.
Part II remuneration: supplementary.
28B. —(1) Before a determination is made by the Secretary of State which relates to all persons who provide services of, or of a category falling within, one of the descriptions of services mentioned in section 28A(1), he shall consult at least one of the following bodies—

(a) a body one of whose functions is to provide advice in connection with the matters to be determined; or

1464

(b) a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate.

(2) Determinations may make different provision for different cases including different provision for any particular case, class of case or area.
(3) Determinations may—

(a) be made in more than one stage;

(b) be made by more than one determining authority;

(c) be varied or revoked by subsequent determinations.

(4) A determination may be revised—

(a) to correct an error, or

(b) where it appears to the determining authority that it was made in ignorance of or under a mistake as to a relevant fact.

(5) Determinations may, in particular, provide that the whole or any part of the remuneration—

(a) is payable only if the determining authority is satisfied as to certain conditions; or

(b) is to be applied for certain purposes or is otherwise subject to certain conditions.

(6) Subject to sections 19(3) and 25(3), remuneration under section 28A may consist of payments by way of—

(a) salary;

(b) fees;

(c) allowances;

(d) reimbursement (in full or in part) of expenses incurred or expected to be incurred in connection with the provision of the services or instruction,

and may be determined from time to time.
(7) At the time a determination is made or varied, certain matters which require determining may be reserved to be decided at a later date.
(8) The matters which may be reserved include in particular—

(a) the amount of remuneration to be paid in particular cases;

(b) whether any remuneration is to be paid in particular cases.

(9) Any determination shall be made after taking into account all the matters which are considered to be relevant by the determining authority and such matters may include in particular—

(a) the amount or estimated amount of expenses (taking into account any discounts) incurred in the past or likely to be incurred in the future (whether or not by persons to whose remuneration the determination will relate) in connection with the provision of services of the description in section 28A(1) to which the determination will relate or of any category falling within that description;

(b) the amount or estimated amount of any remuneration paid or likely to be paid to persons providing such services;

(c) the amount or estimated amount of any other payments or repayments or other benefits received or likely to be received by any such persons;

1465

(d) the extent to which it is desirable to encourage the provision, either generally or in particular places, of the description or category of services to which the determination will relate;

(e) the desirability of promoting services which are—

(i) economic and efficient; and

(ii) of an appropriate standard.

(10) If the determination is of remuneration for a category of services falling within one of the descriptions of services mentioned in section 28A(1), the reference in subsection (9)(a) to a category of services is a reference to the same category of services or to any other category of services falling within the same description."
(2) Sections 28A and 28B of the 1978 Act as substituted by this section have effect in relation to—

(a) the making of determinations on or after the commencement of this section; and

(b) the variation, revocation or revision on or after the commencement of this section of determinations whenever made,

and in this subsection "determinations" means determinations under Part II of the 1978 Act of the remuneration to be paid to persons who provide services mentioned in section 28A(1).
(3) Section 7(4) of the Health and Social Security Act 1984 and section 15(3) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 (determinations of remuneration for services under Part II of the 1978 Act deemed to be valid) have effect in relation to Scotland as if—

(a) after "inserted by this section" in section 7(4)(b) of the 1984 Act; and

(b) after "section 7 of the Health and Social Security Act 1984" in section 15(3) of the 1988 Act,

there were inserted "and before the coming into force of section (Remuneration for Part II services: Scotland) of the Health Act 1999".
(4) The reference in section 28B(6) of the 1978 Act (as substituted by this section) to section 19(3) of that Act is to be read on and after the commencement of section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 as a reference to that section. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Disqualification of Part II practitioners]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 61:
Page 49, line 1, leave out from ("receive") to end of line 9 and insert ("from a Health Board representations that—

(a) a person who is included in any list meets either of the conditions for disqualification, or

(b) a person who has applied to be included in any list meets the second condition for disqualification, ").

Page 49, line 11, leave out ("representations within subsection (2)(a)") and insert ("such representations").
Page 49, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 21 and insert—
("(b) where the representations are that the second condition for disqualification is met and regulations prescribe the time within which such representations are to be made, within that time.
(4A) Subsectioas (4B) to (5C) apply for the purposes of this group of sections.
(4B) The first condition for disqualification is that the continued inclusion of the person concerned in the list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the services which those included in the list undertake to provide.
(4C) The second condition for disqualification is that the person concerned—
1466

(a) has (whether on his own or together with another) by an act or omission caused, or risked causing, detriment to any health scheme by securing or trying to secure for himself or another any financial or other benefit; and

(b) knew that he or (as the case may be) the other was not entitled to the benefit.

(5)").
Page 49, line 32, at end insert —
("(5A) "Health scheme" means—

(a) any of the health services under section 1(1) or any corresponding enactment extending to England and Wales or Northern Ireland; and

(b) any prescribed scheme;

and regulations may prescribe any scheme for the purposes of this subsection which appears to the Secretary of State to be a health or medical scheme paid for out of public funds.
(5B) Detriment to a health scheme includes detriment to any patient of, or person working in, that scheme or any person liable to pay charges for services provided under that scheme.
(5C) Cases in which representations are made that the first condition for disqualification is met are referred to below as efficiency cases; and cases in which representations are made that the second condition for disqualification is met are referred to below as fraud cases. ").
Page 49, line 35, after ("sections") insert ("and Schedule 8").
Page 49, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 50 and insert—
("The NHS Tribunal: supplementary.
29A. —(1) Where an ophthalmic optician is a body corporate, the body corporate is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if any director meets that condition (whether or not he first met that condition when he was a director).
(2) Where a body corporate Games on a retail pharmacy business, the body corporate is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if any one of the body of persons controlling the body corporate meets that condition (whether or not he first met that condition when he was one of them).
(3) A person who is included in any list ("the practitioner") is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if—

(a) another person, because of an act or omission of his occurring in the course of providing any services mentioned in section 29(5) on the practitioner's behalf, meets that condition; and

(b) the practitioner failed to take all such steps as were reasonable to prevent acts or omissions within section 29(4C)(a) occurring in the course of the provision of those services on his behalf.

(4) The Tribunal is not requited to inquire into a fraud case if they have previously inquired into representations in respect of the person concerned and the same acts or omissions.
(5) In a fraud case, regulations may make provision (including provision modifying the effect of this Part) for the purpose of securing that the person subject to the inquiry is not added to any list until proceedings in that case are finally concluded.
(6) For the purposes of this group of sections, in a fraud or efficiency case proceedings are finally concluded—

(a) if the Tribunal determine not to disqualify or conditionally disqualify him when they make that determination;

(b) if they determine to disqualify or conditionally disqualify him and no appeal is brought against the determination, at the end of the period for bringing an appeal;

1467

(c) if they determine to disqualify or conditionally disqualify him and an appeal is brought against the determination, when the appeal process is exhausted.

(7) An inquiry under section 29 is not affected by the person subject to the inquiry withdrawing from, withdrawing any application to be included in or being removed from the list to which the case relates.
Powers of NHS Tribunal.
29B. —(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Tribunal are of the opinion—

(a) on inquiring into an efficiency case, that the person meets the first condition for disqualification;

(b) on inquiring into a fraud case, that the person meets the second condition for disqualification.

(2) The Tribunal—

(a) shall make a local disqualification, that is disqualify him for inclusion in the list to which the case relates; and

(b) may also make a national disqualification, that is disqualify him for inclusion in all lists within the same paragraph of section 29(5) as that list. ").

Page 50, line 29, leave out from ('Tribunal") to ("they") in line 30 and insert ("make a national disqualification").
Page 50, line 32, leave out ("in question") and insert ("to which the lists in question relate").
Page 50, line 37, leave out from ("section") to end of line 44 and insert ("shall have effect when the case is finally concluded. ").
Page 50, line 45, leave out from ("disqualified") to end of line and insert ("for").
Page 51, line 1, leave out from ("The") to ("that") in line 2 and insert ("functions of making disqualifications under section 29B include making a conditional disqualification, ").
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("they") and insert ("the Tribunal").
Page 51, line 7, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
Page 51, line 11, leave out from ("any") to end of line 12 and insert ("acts or omissions within section 29(4C)(a), ").
Page 51, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) Conditions so imposed shall have effect when proceedings in the case are finally concluded.
(2B) Section 29B(5) applies to a conditional disqualification as it applies to a disqualification. ").
Page 51, line 14, leave out ("in writing").
Page 51, line 17, leave out ("or").
Page 51, line 20, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
Page 51, line 21, leave out from ("References") to ("do") in line 22 and insert ("in any enactment to a disqualification by the Tribunal").
Page 51, line 27, leave out ("(whether or not conditional)") and insert (", conditional disqualification").
Page 51, line 28, after ("disqualified") insert ("or conditionally disqualified").
Page 51, leave out lines 37 to 45 and insert—
("and, on a review of a fraud case, may make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification which they consider appropriate").
Page 51, leave out lines 46 and 47 and insert—
("(3) If any Health Board request a review of a conditional disqualification on the ground that—

(a) there has been a change in the circumstances by reference to which the conditions were imposed;

(b) the person concerned has failed to comply with the conditions; or

1468

(c) in a fraud case, the person concerned has since the Tribunal imposed the conditions (or made the disqualification conditional) again satisfied the second condition for disqualification,

the Tribunal shall review the conditional disqualification.
(3A) In the case of a person who is providing services in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (3) to a Health Board includes any corresponding authority under the provisions in force in England and Wales or Northern Ireland corresponding to this Part. ").
Page 52, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert—
("and, on a review of a fraud case, may make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification which they consider appropriate.
( ) If, on a review under this section of a fraud case—

(a) there is a national disqualification which the Tribunal do not remove or make conditional;

(b) there is a national disqualification which is conditional and which the Tribunal make unconditional; or

(c) the Tribunal make a national disqualification,

they may also make a declaration of unfitness.
( )The Tribunal shall not under this section—

(a)in the case of a conditional disqualification, make it unconditional or vary the conditions; or

(b) make any further disqualification or conditional disqualification;

(c) make a declaration of unfitness,

if they are of the opinion that it would be unjust to do so.
( ) A determination by the Tribunal under this section shall have effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought against it, at the end of the period for bringing an appeal;

(b) if an appeal is brought against it, when the appeal process is exhausted. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 38 to 61 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 55 [Interpretation]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 56, line 23, at end insert—
(""the 1978 Act" means the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Primary Care Trusts]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 61, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 33 and insert ("Provision must be made by regulations requiring Primary Care Trusts").
Page 61, line 39, at end insert—
("by taking such steps as may be specified in the regulations. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 67, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 67, line 3, leave out (", together with copies of the auditors' report, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Regulation of health care and associated professions]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 69, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
("(b) invite representations to be made to him about the draft by persons appearing to him appropriate to represent the profession to be regulated, persons appearing to him appropriate to represent those provided with services by the profession and any other persons appearing to him appropriate to consult about the draft. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another issue with which we dealt at both Committee and Report stages. I am pleased to be able to bring forward an amendment which I hope meets the wishes of the House.
We discussed at previous stages the need, in bringing forward an order on professional self-regulation, for proper consultation before the order-making power is used. As I explained, it has always been our intention that consultation on any proposals to use the order-making power should be wide. The views of a number of interests will need to be taken into account, including the professions, the NHS, patients, service users and the wider public. This amendment reflects that intention by broadening the Secretary of State's duty to consult about the draft. At this late stage in our deliberations I would not wish to create a precedent by involving the imposition of a list of those to be consulted on the face of the Bill. We have discussed at length the dangers of that. But we want to make quite clear that the Secretary of State's consultation must not just be with the profession affected by the proposed order.
We have all agreed that the primary purpose of professional self-regulation is the protection of the public and it is right that the responsibility towards consultation with the public, patients and carers should be on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State will want to consult representatives of the interests of patients and other service users, as well as other interested parties such as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
Although this amendment varies in drafting terms from those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who I know had to go abroad and is therefore not able to be in your Lordships' House today, I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment meets the objectives she had in mind when arguing on previous amendments before the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. This is an important amendment that I welcome. It provides an opportunity to emphasise again today how essential it is for Ministers to ensure that the profession to be regulated is fully and meaningfully consulted. The amendment also enables those of us who have debated Schedule 3 with her to thank my noble friend, both for her stamina and her abiding readiness to listen.
1470
The Committee and Report stages of the Bill led to positive developments that include commitments from the Government on the protection of title, on continuing the role of the Privy Council in relation to the professions, and on additional safeguards covering future use of order-making powers. There was some progress also in relation to protecting professional self-regulation.
I hope very much that in the spirit of this amendment the Government will go on listening to the professions, especially where demonstrably their principal concern is for high professional standards and protecting the public interest. As the Minister knows, I speak as President of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists and I spelt out their concerns. But the more I speak to representatives of other professions, the clearer it becomes that our concerns are very widely shared.
My noble friend told your Lordships' House that she was sure that her objectives would soon be shown to be the same as those of the society. She also made it clear that she would welcome further dialogue with us and the society looks forward very much to a further meeting with her. Meanwhile, I hope her amendment will be quickly approved.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords I, too, add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for the great care that the Minister has shown in meeting our concerns about professional self-regulation and building in so many safeguards for both the public and the professions. I know that the Royal College of Nursing and the UKCC are now happy with the Bill and this schedule as it stands printed. I am delighted to support this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to add my thanks to the Minister for her flexibility in the course of the passage of the Bill in this particular respect, and to make one short point on behalf of some of the professions allied to medicine.
The Minister made it clear throughout the course of the Bill what the process of consultation going forward now is in terms of the new council. Many of those professions have been reassured by the safeguards now in place. But then: is still some concern about the elements that will be brought within a uni-professional majority and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, expressed some of those concerns on behalf of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. Others, such as the physiotherapists, have similar concerns, and are concerned about whether it is possible—they believe it is not—to split the fitness to practise aspects between different types of case. That seemed to be the implication of some of the responses by the Minister at Report stage.
Clearly these consultations will be carried forward, but I urge the Minister, in the course of those consultations, to be aware that a number of the professions wish to see education, training and fitness to practise all brought within that uni-professional majority.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the generosity of their response. I believe that we have actually improved the Bill as regards Schedule 3 and that we have managed to meet the legitimate concerns of the professions that there

1471
should be sufficient safeguards in the future. I was personally pleased that we were also able with that amendment to put clearly on the face of the Bill the interests of the users of health services. I believe that the right balance has been struck in that respect.
I have suggested to the House that it would be inappropriate to talk about the detailed content of proposals upon which we will be consulting at a future date in terms of this Bill. The Bill allows us to have those debates and I fully take on board those points made by my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I understand the concerns regarding the need to have very detailed consultation to ensure that we get it right in terms of improving professional self-regulation for all the professions, but obviously the professions allied to medicine have particular concerns in this respect. I look forward to conducting those debates with the hope and expectation that we will be able to effect change thanks to the provisions of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 71:
Page 70, line 11, leave out ("references") and insert ("the reference").
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("include") and insert ("includes").
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("references") and insert ("the reference").
Page 70, line 13, leave out ("include") and insert ("includes").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of enactments]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 84:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert—
(". In section 12 (supplementary provisions for sections 8 and 11), subsection (1) is omitted. ").
Page 71, line 15, at end insert—
(". After section 16B (exercise of functions by Primary Care Trusts) there is inserted—
"Advice for Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.
16C. —(1) Every Health Authority shall make arrangements with a view to securing that they receive advice appropriate for enabling them effectively to exercise the functions exercisable by them from persons with professional expertise relating to the physical or mental health of individuals.
(2) This section applies to Primary Care Trusts as it applies to Health Authorities. "").
Page 72, line 6, at end insert—
(". In section 28C(4) (personal medical or dental services), for "13" there is substituted "16D". ").
Page 73, line 39, leave out from ('Tribunal") to ("they") in line 40 and insert ("make a national disqualification, ").
Page 73, line 48, leave out from ("substituted") to ("and") in line 49 and insert (""national disqualification"").
Page 75, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4), after "to make such" there is inserted "transitional, saving". ").
Page 76, line 5, leave out ("in") and insert ("by").
Page 76, line 27, leave out ("16C(1)") and insert ("16D(1)").
Page 77, line 37, at end insert—
1472
(". In section 19A(3)(b) (medical lists), for the words from first "disqualified" to "29" there is substituted "disqualified for inclusion in the list by, or by virtue of a direction of, the NHS Tribunal".
.Section 31 (disqualification provisions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) is renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "services" to "29(1)" there is substituted "any of the services mentioned in one of the paragraphs of section 29(5)";

(b) in paragraph (b), at the beginning, there is inserted "in relation to the services in question" and for the words from "a list" to the end there is substituted "any list and (if also the subject of such a declaration under those provisions corresponding to a declaration of unfitness) be treated as if a declaration of unfitness had been made in respect of him";

(c) after that subsection there is inserted—

"(2) Where under the conditional disqualification provisions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland—

(a) any conditions are imposed in relation to the provision by any person of any of the services mentioned in section 29(5); or

(b) any conditions so imposed are varied,

the Secretary of State may, by a notice in writing given to each Health Board and to the person in question, impose those conditions in relation to the provision by that person of those services under this Part.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) may make such modifications of the conditions as the Secretary of State considers necessary for them to have the like effect in relation to Scotland as they have in relation to England and Wales or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, but only if the Secretary of State has previously given the person concerned written notice of the proposed modifications and an opportunity (in accordance with such requirements, if any, as may be prescribed) to make representations about them.
(4) Conditions imposed by a notice under subsection (2) shall cease to have effect if the Secretary of State withdraws the notice by giving written notice to the person concerned.
(5) In this section, "the conditional disqualification provisions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland" means any provisions in force in England and Wales or Northern Ireland corresponding to sections 29C and (so far as relating to conditional disqualifications) 30. "
. Section 32 (regulations as to sections 29 to 31) is renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—

(a) in paragraph (c) after "disqualification" in both places where it occurs there is inserted "or condition";

(b) after that subsection there is inserted—

"(2) Regulations under subsection (l)(a) above may in particular provide that, where (apart from the regulations) it would be the duty of the Tribunal to inquire into both an efficiency case and a fraud case in respect of the same person, they may inquire into one case before inquiring into the other and, after proceedings in the first case are finally disposed of, may if they think it appropriate adjourn the other case indefinitely. "
. In section 32A (applications for interim suspension)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) A Health Board may, if they have requested a review of a conditional disqualification on the ground mentioned in section 30(3)(b) or (c), at any time before the review is concluded apply to the Tribunal for a direction to be made under subsection (2) in relation to the person to whom the review relates. ";
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "it" to "patients" there is substituted "either of the conditions for doing so is satisfied" and after "in question" there is inserted "or the case to which the review in question";
(c) after that subsection there is inserted—
"(2A) The conditions for giving such a direction are—

(a) that it is necessary to do so in order to protect persons who are, or may be, provided with services under this Part to which the case in question, or the case to which the review in question, relates;

(b) in, or in the case of a review relating to, a fraud case, that unless they do so there is a significant risk that—

(i) an act or omission within section 29(4C)(a) will occur; or

(ii) the investigation of the case or the review will be prejudiced";

(d) in subsection (3)(c), for the words from "under" to "engaged in" there is substituted "of unfitness in relation to";
(e) in subsection (4), after "case" there is inserted "or review";
(f) subsection (5) is omitted;
(g) in subsection (6)(a), "prepared under this Part of this Act" is omitted.
In section 32B (continuation of suspension pending appeal)—
(a) for subsection (1) and the preceding sidenote there is substituted—
"Suspension pending appeal.
32B. —(1) Where, on disposing of a case under section 29B, the Tribunal make a national disqualification, they may, if they consider that either of the conditions mentioned in section 32A(2A) is satisfied, direct that section 32A(3) shall apply or, if a direction has been given under section 32A(2), shall continue to apply to him as respects services of the kind to which the disqualification relates. ";

(b) in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), for "direction under section 29(2)(b)" there is substituted "national disqualification" and, in paragraph (b), for "that direction" there is substituted "the disqualification";

(c) in subsection (3), for the words from "direction" to "section 29(3)(c)" there is substituted "disqualification which is not coupled with a declaration of unfitness";

(d) subsection (4) is omitted.

. In section 32D (suspension provisions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland), for "29(1)" there is substituted "29(5)". ").
Page 78, line 43, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 8 (the Tribunal), in paragraph 8—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for "section 29" there is substituted "sections 29 to 29C";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), after "disqualification" there is inserted "conditional disqualification or declaration of unfitness";

(c) in sub-paragraph (2)(d), for the words from "the application" to the end there is substituted "section 32A(3) may be made to apply or continue to apply". ").

Page 80, line 25, leave out (""16C"") and insert (""16D"").
Page 83, line 7, after ("Act)") insert—
("(a) in subsection (1), for "13" there is substituted "16D" and").
Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2)(b), for "13" there is substituted "16D". ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 93:
Page 83, line 22, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 12(1). ")
Page 83, line 27, column 3, at end insert—

"In section 49A, subsection (5) and, in subsection (6)(a), "prepared under this Part of this Act". Section 49B(4). ")

Page 83, line 35, column 3, after ("section 97, ") insert ("subsection (2), ").
Page 83, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 122(2), "as a simple contract debt". ")

Page 84, line 5, column 3, leave out ("(2)(j)") and insert ("(2)(d) and (j)").
Page 84, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 32A, subsection (5) and, in subsection (6)(a), "prepared under this Part of this Act".

In section 32B, subsection (4). ").

Page 85, line 11, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("3(a), ").
Page 85, line 15, at end insert—

(" 1997 c. 24.

The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997.

The whole Act. ")

Page 85, line 19, at end insert—
("The repeal of section 97(2) of the 1977 Act has effect for the financial year 1999–2000 and subsequent financial years. ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 94:
Line 4, after ("functions;") insert ("make provision in relation to monitoring and improving the quality of health care in independent hospitals;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the one agreed by your Lordships on Report which gives the Secretary of State a power to extend by order the duty of quality in Clause 13 and part or all of the remit of the commission for health improvement on to independent hospitals. It is technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for the amendment which clearly is consequential. However, on consideration of it, I hope that the Government will not attempt to reverse the amendment made in another place. This is a very important aspect of the Bill for many of us. We believe that the standard of quality should apply right across healthcare in this country and not just in the NHS.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl rightly said that this was a technical amendment which is consequential upon the amendment that we made on Report. We debated the issue of substance at that point and I do not intend to reopen that debate now. Erskine May makes it absolutely clear that debate on an amendment of the Title should be limited to the question of whether the alteration is necessary to bring the Title into conformity with the Bill. I am happy to accept the amendment on that basis.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Earl Howe: My Lords, despite the general admonition from your Lordships' Procedure Committee, I hope that I may be permitted a very brief moment in which to draw together a few concluding thoughts. This has been a fascinating and rewarding Bill to debate. That has been due in part to the contributions of noble Lords from all sides of the House which have enabled us to achieve what I hoped on Second Reading we would achieve; namely, to correct the Bill's more glaring shortcomings. However, there was one indispensable ingredient in that process without which those corrective measures would have been well nigh unobtainable; that is, the contribution of the Minister.
In one of our recent exchanges the noble Baroness remarked that it "takes two to tango". It is her consistently receptive and constructive approach to our debates which I believe merits recognition and for which from these Benches I should like to thank her. If one disregards for a moment the amendments which have been agreed to against the Government's recommendation, I trust that the noble Baroness will agree that what we now have, especially in relation to pharmaceutical pricing and professional self-regulation, is a distinctly better Bill than the one initially set before us.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the spirit of the admonitions of the Procedure Committee, I should just like to associate myself with the noble Earl's comments.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to respond with a few words of thanks to both the noble Lord and the noble Earl, although I shall maintain the basis of having our debates as list-free zones and shall not, therefore, mention everyone who ought to be thanked in terms of our proceedings. However, I should say that the officials who have supported me so well have also been most helpful as regards the assistance that they have offered to all sides of the House. I believe that that has enabled some of the improvements that we have managed to make to the Bill, and I agree with the noble Earl in that respect. I believe that we have managed to achieve that because of the spirit in which these debates have been conducted, although, after some of our late nights, I am not sure whether I have had my dancing shoes on.
We have had very constructive debates. Even on those issues where amendments have been passed against the advice of the Government, it really has been an issue of the manner of implementation of shared objectives rather than any deep divide as to what those objectives were. I believe that the Bill will help us to improve the NHS and the service that it gives to patients in this country. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates and who have helped to make the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House very productive.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Kosovo
6.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert) rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation in Kosovo.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thought that the best way in which I could be helpful to noble Lords this afternoon was to give as detailed as possible a review of the military position as is available to us in the Ministry of Defence at this time. I am well aware of the many discussions that have taken place about how we got to the position in which we regrettably all find ourselves. I do not think it profitable for me as a defence Minister to tread that ground again, although I shall be happy to try to respond to any points made by your Lordships in that respect.
As noble Lords may have observed, I normally find it less than congenial to read from a text, but on this occasion I shall crave your Lordships' indulgence in that a good deal of what I am going to say will be written out in a brief which is in front of me. However, I assure the House that it comes with very considerable authority because the overwhelming proportion of it relates to remarks that were made earlier today by the Chief of the Defence Staff at a press conference which he and my boss the Secretary of State for Defence held this morning. I have only edited the text very slightly to make it sound sensible in your Lordships' House.
As your Lordships will be well aware, in NATO we have a formidable array of military capability at our disposal to achieve the objectives that we have set ourselves. I mentioned these more than once yesterday when answering questions on the Statement that had been delivered in another place. Noble Lords will probably be aware that 13 NATO allies are directly involved in the provision of military assets and that other allies are making contributions in other ways. With all the force at my command I should like to emphasise that this is not an Anglo/American affair; indeed, the whole of NATO is engaged.
The action that we have found ourselves forced to take has the solid political backing of all the Allies. We have more than 300 NATO aircraft ready for operations, of which more than 200 are attack aircraft, and among this number are eight Royal Air Force GR-7 Harriers. NATO can also count on British and American Naval assets equipped with cruise missiles, including our submarine "HMS Splendid", the first of Her Majesty's submarines to be equipped with cruise missiles, and the first one, incidentally, to have fired them.
Last night these forces began military operations against a number of targets in Yugoslavia, as your Lordships will be aware. The offensive action, which involved sea and air-launched cruise missiles, as well as manned aircraft from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain, was supported by a number of other Allied air forces flying essential fighter cover, air refuelling and defence suppression missions. No fewer than 13 NATO air forces were involved. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships

1477
that whatever rumours you may have heard, all NATO aircraft returned safely after their missions had been completed.
The first targets, which were mainly facilities associated with the Yugoslav air defence system, were hit just after seven p.m. Zulu. Assets used included air-launched cruise missiles, fired by United States B-52 aircraft, which had taken off from Royal Air Force Fairford in Gloucestershire earlier in the day, and Tomahawk land attack missiles fired by US Navy ships and, for the first time, by "HMS Splendid". Follow-on attacks were conducted by manned tactical aircraft, including Royal Air Force Harrier GR-7s, based in southern Italy using Paveway 2 laser guided bombs. Other targets included facilities associated with military units which were directly involved in the violence within Kosovo.
"HMS Splendid" fired its Tomahawk missiles against a key military radar facility located near Pristina airfield in Kosovo. This facility, comprising two highly capable air defence radars and an associated control building, was capable of providing extensive data to Yugoslav air defence forces, to their fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missile units and their anti-aircraft artillery. The control centre was also capable of correlating data from a number of subordinate radars and distributing this throughout the national air defence network for use by other units and to help build up the national air picture. Clearly, such a capability posed a serious threat to NATO manned aircraft and it was vital, therefore, that it was put out of action.
Just over an hour after the first cruise missiles impacted on their targets, six Royal Air Force Harriers were tasked to attack an ammunition storage facility just a few miles to the east of the Tomahawk target. Four of the aircraft were armed with two Paveway 2, 10001b laser guided bombs—the type used extensively and with considerable success during Operation Desert Fox— while the other two Harriers acted as escort. The bombers were tasked against explosive and ammunition storage buildings within a Yugoslav military ammunition storage facility which was known to support the Ministry of the Interior Police, who have been at the forefront of repressive actions against the Kosovar Albanian population. As I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, this type of facility contributes significantly to the repressive capability of the Serbian security forces.
It is still too soon to speak with any confidence of the results of the attacks by the British aircraft. I can tell the House, however, that "HMS Splendid" successfully launched its Tomahawk land attack missiles. We do not yet have any detailed imagery of the targets, and it will probably take some time for NATO to conduct a full battle damage assessment exercise. The Harriers formed the third wave of a very concentrated attack on that target. Because of explosions, fire and smoke caused by the first two waves, our Harriers had difficulty seeing and maintaining lock on their targets. Bombs from our first aircraft lost lock once they were in flight and fell short of the target on open ground. As a result, the following three Harriers aborted their attack and returned to base with their weapons. This restraint and
1478
discipline underlines our determination to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this speaks well of the training and espirit de corps of our air crews.
I understand that the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is satisfied overall with the results achieved so far although he recognises there is still much to be done. We are, of course, very relieved that all NATO aircraft have returned safely. In addition to the ground attack operations that I have just described there were some air encounters between NATO and Yugoslav aircraft last night. Some reports that are still unconfirmed suggest that up to four Yugoslav military aircraft were shot down. As I say, the reports are still not confirmed, but they indicate that three were modern MiG 29s and one was a MiG 21. Last night's action was, of course, only the opening salvo, the first step towards NATO achieving its military objectives. Our forces are likely to be in action again, alongside our allies, and we are ready to continue these efforts for some time to come.
I wish to say a few words about force protection. We have, as your Lordships know, some 4, 500 British troops in Macedonia. Some were sent there originally to be ready to extract our peace monitors in an emergency. The majority, however, were sent there to be ready to take part in a NATO led implementation force should the Rambouillet peace accords be signed by both sides. All of these forces, and those of other allies, are now under the operational control of General Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander of NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps. Under SACEUR, General Jackson has put in place contingency plans to respond to any attack upon NATO forces in Macedonia. He has confirmed this morning that his planning is complete. Similar contingency arrangements have been made for NATO forces elsewhere in the region. Any attack on our forces would meet with a swift and severe response. There should be no misunderstanding about that in Belgrade nor in the minds of any junior Serb commanders.
Before I came to your Lordships' House this afternoon I asked for a detailed update on activities by Serb forces on the ground today. I regret to have to tell your Lordships that so far I have no definitive information available to give to your Lordships. There are various unconfirmed reports that Serb activity has slackened. However, there are other reports that their attacks are still continuing on certain villages. I shall no doubt report again to your Lordships' House as to the progress of military activities in Kosovo and over Serbia in the next few days, but I hope that I shall not have to come to your Lordships' House too often. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we must all hope that it will not be necessary for defence Ministers to stand at this Dispatch Box, or that in another place, too frequently, and that peace is rapidly restored to this unhappy part of the world. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in Kosovo. —(Lord Gilbert.)
6.20 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive speech, a view which I am sure is shared throughout your Lordships' House. I hope that the Minister will accept that, while my noble friend Lord Burnham will respond to matters relating to defence policy, my objective this evening is to focus on the critical political, foreign policy and diplomatic issues under consideration.
Yesterday, on one of the gravest and most sombre days faced by NATO in its history, the hour came for the alliance to carry out its much-threatened air strikes against Serbia. Provided they are part of a coherent strategy with clearly defined and achievable goals from these Benches we have always offered our full support for NATO air strikes against Serbia should all channels of diplomacy be exhausted, should talks prove fruitless and should force prove to be the only language of negotiation that President Milosevic is prepared to understand. It has long been our position that once diplomacy has been backed by the threat of the use of force, that threat must be a credible one. We fully appreciate the onerous and difficult decision which the Government made in authorising military action last night. In the light of the repeated threats and ultimata of the past months, we firmly believe that, having put NATO's credibility on the line, there was no alternative.
However, today is not the time for criticism of past dithering, disunity and indecision. I wish to place on record once again our support for the Government on the action they have taken. We may have had disagreements on the road which the Government have taken up until now; we may have questions about the Government's future strategy; but no government takes lightly the decision to risk me lives of our young servicemen and servicewomen. The Opposition associate themselves with the words of the Minister, as does the whole House, in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism of the British and allied forces which took part in the co-ordinated NATO air strike yesterday; namely, the crews of HMS "Splendid", the four RAF Harrier jets and the two aircraft which flew supporting missions. There is no doubt in your Lordships' House that they will continue to serve Britain with equal distinction during this operation. Our thoughts are also with the families of those servicemen and servicewomen and the combination of pride and anxiety that they will surely feel throughout this operation.
The action carried out by NATO last night was unprecedented. Never before in NATO's history have attacks such as these been carried out against a sovereign country. This was the biggest aerial bombardment in Europe since the Second World War. As a result, there are doubts and concerns in this House and in another place which, given the magnitude of the occasion, deserve to be listened to with respect. From these Benches I have often said in your Lordships' House that I believe that the alternative to this action—namely, to ignore the human cost of the crisis in Kosovo; a crisis which has worsened month by month, week by week, and now day by day—would not be
1480
justified. We have a moral imperative to respond to suffering, repression, massacre and misery on the very back doorstep of Europe.
Since fighting broke out in Kosovo last year more than 2, 000 people have been killed and hundreds of thousands have left their homes, fleeing the forces of ethnic violence, aggression and atrocity. Our television screens have shown the desperation of those trying to leave Kosovo—by bus and on foot—families fleeing for their lives while their homes, their villages and their lives are in flames. Relief agencies, which have carried out their work tirelessly under impossible conditions, estimate that at least 25, 000 ethnic Albanians have fled since Saturday alone. The United Nations Food Agency says that it needs emergency supplies for more than 10, 000 refugees in Macedonia. That is why NATO acted, and, consistent with the requirements of a just war, that action must ensure that the suffering which is an inevitable consequence of the use of force is less than the suffering which such military action prevents.
I do not doubt that the Government have clear, unequivocal answers to the questions I intend to raise. I should be grateful if this evening the Minister could clarify some of the issues which have been raised in recent days, both in this House and in the media—although I wish to emphasise to the Minister at this stage that I am not expecting, nor would it be appropriate, for me or this House to receive detailed answers to all the questions I pose.
Given that the Secretary of State for Defence has said that air strikes will continue until President Milosevic ceases his savage repression in Kosovo, can the Minister give an assurance that NATO has clear criteria by which it would judge the success of its action, without identifying those criteria? Will the Minister also give an assurance that when this action is over the House will receive a report on those criteria and the extent to which they have been met?
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that NATO will,
"continue to hit hard until its military objectives are achieved". —[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. 484.]
Can the Minister state clearly for the record what are the objectives—both political and military—of the NATO action? Are they to degrade President Milosevic's military capability so that he is no longer able to continue his brutal policy of waging war against his own people in Kosovo? Are they to compel compliance with the will of the international community and to secure a peace settlement, given that President Milosevic was threatened with such air strikes in the event of his refusal to sign the Rambouillet peace agreement? It has been clear to observers that in recent days the principal objective has moved from the latter—that is, compelling compliance with the will of the international community—to the former; namely, degrading President Milosevic's military capability.
In the event that NATO action is forced to continue until Serbia is no longer able to repress the Kosovo Albanians, what strategy do NATO and the Government have to persuade President Milosevic to return to the negotiating table?

1481
To what extent do the Government believe that air strikes alone will be able to achieve sufficient damage to Serbia's military capability? To take the most recent parallel to this crisis, does the Minister accept that, while damaging Iraq's military capability, air strikes in Iraq have failed to degrade it in its entirety? Does the Minister further accept that, given the formidable Yugoslav air defence system, this objective in Serbia presents considerably more of a challenge than in the case of Iraq?
The whole House has listened carefully to General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded the UN protection force in Bosnia, who cautioned that it may also take the deployment of ground troops to stop President Milosevic's assault. Do the Government accept that if President Milosevic is confident that no ground troops will be deployed that will significantly affect his position and could, at worst, strengthen the view that he may attempt to sit out the horrors of the air strikes? On that critical point, can the Minister clarify the role of the troops currently stationed in Macedonia? Does he agree that it would be a very different proposition from that which was originally intended for those forces to fight their way into Kosovo to impose a peace that has not been made and to enforce a ceasefire which has not been agreed? There is a world of difference between keeping the peace in a permissive environment and making the peace in a non-permissive environment. In the light of Sir Michael Rose's assessment, can the Minister confirm that ground troops will not enter Kosovo until there is a political settlement?
Given that the Secretary of State for Defence has said that any attack on the NATO peacekeeping forces would result in an "immediate and considerable response", is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient protection in place to deter Serbian reprisals against the NATO peacekeeping force in Macedonia.
The mood in Pristina last night was reported as one of panic, fear, tension and menace. I believe the House will benefit from reports of today's events on the ground in Kosovo and the actions of the Serb forces there. Today the Yugoslav news agency, Tanjug, stated that Belgrade has declared a "state of war" against NATO. In the light of this defiant act, can the Minister confirm that NATO has a coherent strategy for action in the event of continued non-compliance by Serbia following NATO air strikes? There is a suggestion that the Serbs may use the military tactic of "hugging" the enemy by positioning tanks in Albanian villages. Without giving any details, will the Minister confirm that NATO has a strategy to address this eventuality?
It is right for Parliament to make an assessment of the widely reported fears of the Kosovars that, far from securing both an end to the Serbs' brutal repression and an agreement to a peaceful settlement, a vindictive Serbia will seek to exact revenge from the Albanian population and worsen the plight of those still in Kosovo.
In the light of President Milosevic's address to the Serbian people yesterday, in which he said the freedom of Serbia was at stake and pledged to defend the country in the event of attack, what assessment have the
1482
Government made of fears that, by appealing to ultra-nationalist tendencies long prevalent in Serbia, the present NATO campaign may serve to strengthen President Milosevic rather than to weaken him; and that, far from defusing the powder keg in Kosovo, it will serve not only to inflame it but also to ignite a conflagration across the Balkans, in Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia? I am sure that the Government have strong views capable of contradicting that theory. I look forward to hearing them.
It cannot be denied that there is dispute within the international community and the UN in particular over the legal authority for NATO's action. I am sure the Minister will agree that it would be of great assistance to the House if the Government could explain with the utmost clarity why they believe that NATO's action is lawful. Will the Minister therefore assist the House by setting out the legal basis for NATO's action?
Is it the Government's view that the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, Resolutions 1198, 1199 and 1205, provide sufficient legal basis for the NATO action? Or is it the case that there: exists in international law the general right to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, in line with Article VII of the UN Charter? Or does the Minister believe that this action creates an entirely new precedent in international law?
While there is rightly an obligation incumbent on us to intervene to prevent humanitarian disasters, that is something which to date has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.
In the Security Council, China has joined Russia in condemning what both call "an illegal military action", and both countries have expressed concern that as a result of the air strikes the region will be plunged into greater turmoil. I assume that an assessment has been made both of short-term and the longer-term consequences of these deep divisions on our relations with China and Russia.
Given the evidence of Russia's anger at the bombing—for example, the cancellation of Prime Minister Primakov's visit to the United States, the recall of Russia's chief military representative at NATO and the ending of all co-operation with the alliance—can the Minister say on what basis the Leader of the House told this House just two days ago that,
"we should not be too alarmed by the Russian reaction … At this stage, we should be optimistic about their collaboration, If not their welcome, in relation to what may need to happen next". —[Official Report, 23/3/99; col. 1177.]
According to this morning's reports, Russia's most recent welcome of what has in fact happened next is a "series of extreme measures" prepared in response to NATO's military action, but which have yet to be implemented. Does the Minister now accept the importance of Russia's role in the peace process? Indeed, many noble Lords would like to have seen its greater involvement in the peacekeeping force on the ground. I look forward to learning the effects that such action could have, both in terms of positive Russian assistance to the Serbs, and in terms of damaging NATO-Russian relations.

1483
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House also referred to the important role played by the Russians in the Rambouillet negotiations. Will the Minister say whether there were any indications during those negotiations that the Serbs would look more favourably on an OSCE-led, rather than a NATO-led, implementation force to alleviate the appalling humanitarian disaster?
In conclusion, the provisions of the Rambouillet agreement were an important step on the road to securing a just and lasting settlement in Kosovo. We applaud the Kosovo Albanians for their willingness to compromise and to accept the agreement on the table in the interests of securing peace for their people.
The hope is shared throughout this House that President Milosevic will see sense, will end the suffering and the slaughter of his people by his people, and will return to the negotiating table. In the circumstances prevailing after Rambouillet, the Government had no choice but to agree to the use of force in an attempt to achieve that outcome. From these Benches, Her Majesty's Opposition support the Government in that decision and we fervently hope that it succeeds.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, there has probably been no graver moment in the past 20 years in terms of the possible repercussions of the actions now taken. I very much appreciate the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that no government would put at risk its own servicemen and women unless they believed the cause to be a substantial and important one. But what is presently happening in Serbia may have repercussions that we cannot imagine—on NATO, on Europe, on our relations with Russia and China, on the United Nations, and far beyond. It is therefore necessary for us to hear the counsel of the wisest among us. In that context, I know that many noble Lords will feel as I do that we shall gravely miss the wisdom of Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield and the controversial but often exciting and imaginative contributions of Lord Beloff. We all look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Lord has had more to do with many aspects of the frightening development associated with the break-up of the former republic of Yugoslavia than any of the rest of us.
For me, and I am sure for many other noble Lords, the moral issues involved in this particular set of decisions are acutely painful and difficult. We on these Benches have made clear that we support the Government in what they have done. But we do so with considerable concern about what may be the wider repercussions, and we have expressed our concern about the lack of a clear political goal.
We could not have stood aside. The systematic massacre of civilians—telephone taps indicate that some orders for massacres, including that at Racak, can be directly traced back to the administration in Belgrade— the systematic destruction of villages, the fleeing of thousands upon thousands of refugees, and the gradual
1484
destruction of the whole of the countryside of Kosovo are events that we saw previously in Bosnia. Many of us were profoundly ashamed that we did not intervene until so late in the day in that part of the former Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we could have stood aside again and watched this situation unfold before our eyes.
That, of course, is the case for what the Government have done. All of us recognise, too, that there is a paradox in the Government's action in that delays—I acquit Her Majesty's Government of responsibility for those delays—have already allowed the government of Belgrade to destroy a substantial part of the morale and strength of the Kosovar Albanians. Very great humanitarian tragedies are taking place in that province. They are happening even before the bombing has been concluded.
There is of course an argument—this question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—about the legal basis for what is happening. We can point to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1199 and 1203. We can point to the Geneva Convention, which is clearly being broken by the government in Belgrade. But many of us feel troubled by the fact that the action does not have United Nations support and agreement behind it. It is very important, indeed incumbent on the Government, as soon as possible to try to achieve the support of the United Nations for the actions we take. Most of us strongly believe that the United Nations continues to be indispensable to the gradual creation of a world of international and moral law.
That said, I nonetheless believe that what we are seeing unfold before our eyes is a gradual attempt to establish a minimal level of human rights, of moral behaviour and of recognition that civilians need to be protected, which is gradually extending beyond the areas of the United States, the European Union and various other states that are members of the Council of Europe. The tragedy of the former republic of Yugoslavia is that it has always been outside the civilised circle. It is vital to bring that country back into the mainstream of European life as soon as we possibly can.
However, I believe that one of the dangers of our present debates—and I do not need to point to the arguments being conducted in the media—is that Kosovo is being treated as an isolated situation. I take noble Lords' minds back to 1991, to the occasion when the same kind of events unfolded in Croatia, when the city of Dubrovnik was shelled by the Yugoslav navy, with no intervention until it was virtually destroyed. A month later the city of Vukovar was burnt to the ground and no one intervened. Then the Belgrade government argued that the cease-fire had been breached and had its allies walk out of the negotiations.
That was Croatia. Not so long afterwards the same pattern was seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina: arousing nationalist sentiment, arguing that there had to be some military action and then the presentation of President Milosevic as the mediator, the outside force that would create a peaceful settlement. Kosovo looks like a re-run of exactly the same story. Again and

1485
again, Mr Milosevic is at the centre of the scene, the person offering himself for international solutions to the problems which he himself has created.
Today, we hear the extraordinarily courageous commitment of the prime minister of Montenegro, a part of the former republic of Yugoslavia, denouncing Milosevic's provocation of the intervention. It is an act of extraordinary courage which tells us that we must not talk about Yugoslavia and Serbia as if we were talking about a united country bent upon the destruction of Kosovo. Indeed, we are talking about a country deeply divided, a brave and courageous country, many of whose fellow citizens are putting their own lives at risk by arguing against and opposing the actions of Mr Milosevic. I believe that were we not to stand up in Kosovo, we would see the same story unfold in Montenegro, where the prime minister has already been denounced as a separatist by Mr Seselj, the leader of the smaller party in the Yugoslav coalition, in Vojvodina, where the leader Mr Nenad Canak, has been similarly denounced, and even in Sandzak, where we hear pleas by the Moslem population that they are constantly being hounded and harassed by the forces of the government of Belgrade.
It is crucial to put that on the line because I believe we are dealing with a far more complex situation than our media suggest when they present simply the goodies and the baddies and do not give us the depth that we need to understand the situation in all its subtleties.
I therefore wish to ask the Minister three questions. The first is: what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to bring home to those parts of the former republic of Yugoslavia that are themselves deeply uneasy with Mr Milosevic's rule that we in the United Kingdom and the whole contact group recognise and appreciate the position in which they find themselves? We wish them nothing but good. I believe that we have neglected the propaganda side of the whole exercise and should be trying to reach at least some of the people and politicians of the former republic of Yugoslavia.
Secondly, I ask what steps Her Majesty's Government and the contact group intend to take with regard to the terrifying vulnerability of what are now estimated, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned and more recently the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed, to be some 250, 000 refugees. Sixty thousand in the past week alone, according to the most recent figure, are now desperately vulnerable because they are not being permitted to enter Macedonia and they would take their lives in their hands if they tried to enter Albania. They are sitting there, simply waiting for the possibility of the Serb army revenging itself upon them.
What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that those refugees are protected, so far as we are able to protect them, possibly by opening the borders and providing some support for them until such time as they may return? Otherwise, they will have to flee out of their country and dissipate themselves across the whole continent of Europe.
I apologise to the noble Lord for my last question, because I have reiterated it on many occasions in this House. We cannot hope to bring about a peaceful
1486
settlement in Kosovo unless we are prepared to be at least even-handed. That means we must take, or be willing to take, some action—should there be a peaceful settlement—to deal with the situation at the Albanian border which has become the source of a huge trade in drugs, arms and people. That, I believe, is an offer we need to make in order to persuade the Yugoslav Government of our own good intentions.
Finally, I have not a question but a point. There is one last chance of bringing about a reasonably rapid resolution of this difficult situation. That immediate chance, in my view, rests with Mr Primakov, the prime minister of Russia. Russia has been extremely cautious in what it has said, despite the perhaps more emotional outbursts of President Yeltsin. Mr Primakov has shown an extraordinary degree of sense and moderation. He is a historic ally of Yugoslavia. It is time to recognise his request that the contact group meet again. In that event it should seriously consider inviting Mr Primakov to carry a mission to Belgrade to see whether he at least can bring Mr Milosevic round to common sense and to realise the extreme damage he will do to his own country if he pursues his present course.
6.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed statement about last night's military action. Like other noble Lords, I am conscious of the awesome responsibility of the Government at this time in initiating the most serious military action in Europe since the Second World War.
I do not think it is the role of a churchman to pronounce, from the safety of this country, about the Tightness or wrongness of a particular war, but I hope that your Lordships will not think it out of place if I draw on the long tradition of Christian thinking on the subject, in order to ask the Minister some questions. Those of us who had to watch the suffering of the Kosovar people over the past year have asked time and time again what can be done about it. We can have no doubt at all that we have a just cause here; namely, the protection of innocent people from further terror. Furthermore, it seems quite clear that everything that could have been done in the way of resolving this dispute by peaceful means was tried and tried again and eventually was found to have no further mileage.
In addition to those two questions, the long tradition of Christian thinking on the subject asks questions about legitimate authority. It is one of the hopeful developments since the Second World War that we now take it for granted, we assume, that any military action in the world today which is justified in some sense needs United Nations authorisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have already said, it is important to hear from the Minister under what resolution of the United Nations he believes this military action is legitimated.
There are, of course, further questions when we come to the next criterion of this long tradition of just war thinking. It is the difficult question of weighing evils and trying to make a judgment that more evil will not be unleashed by military action than would ensue if the

1487
situation remained as it is. The corollary of that, integrally bound up with it, is the criterion that there must be a reasonable chance of success.
What counts as success at the moment? I have no doubt at all that due to the courage, skill and training of our forces the military objectives will be achieved. But what is the relationship between those military objectives and that political goal which we all know is so desirable? There are very, very great worries which have already been so eloquently expressed that the risks of this military action are high. If noble Lords do not mind my being personal, as one who supported recent military action in the Gulf and the bombing of Iraq and argued for three years that military intervention in Bosnia was required before we intervened, I believe that the risks of the present military endeavour are higher than any of those other actions that we have undertaken. It is important to have a greater understanding of the relationship between that military objective which I am sure will be achieved and the political goal that is absolutely essential. We know that there has been a series of very sombre military analyses in the newspapers in recent days.
I return to the point with which I began: the awesome responsibility of the Government at this time and their courageous decision to protect the innocent people in Kosovo. It is the Government alone who know all the facts. They have had to weigh the risks very carefully, and it is their responsibility. The prayers of all people of good will are with our forces and with our political leaders that there will be a just and speedy outcome of this conflict.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this debate and for his review of the current position. We can be thankful that last night's operations have gone as well as they have. It is a great credit to all those involved—the commanders, planners, logisticians, groundcrew and, above all, aircrew—who have collectively demonstrated once again what a major air operation is about and how professionally it can be executed. It has been executed not only by the tight co-ordination of several hundred aircraft sorties, with 100 or more cruise missiles, but in a way that ensures that there is a low level of risk from enemy forces.
We should not underestimate this achievement. The Serb air defences are not to be dismissed lightly. They have a strong potential to inflict severe damage on NATO's attacking forces. That they did not do so last night is probably due to the enormously effective technologies now available to modern air forces to suppress enemy air defences. It has coined its own mnemonic: SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences). No offensive air operation against well-found air defences can expect to succeed without strong SEAD support. I am sure that in last night's operation we can thank the US-co-ordinated SEAD capability mightily for the survival of all the NATO aircraft that took part. What we do not yet know is whether the Serbs were trying their damnedest and signally failed to achieve any
1488
success or whether they were husbanding their forces for subsequent nights when the weight of attack, especially from cruise missiles, might not be as great.
It is fashionable, and in some ways dismissive of the value of airpower, to hear repeated so often the mantra that one cannot impose one's will on the enemy without the use of forces on the ground. Certainly, if the military objective is to occupy and defeat the enemy's forces and to take hold of his territory there can be no argument about the requirement for in-place effective ground force. However, as I have indicated, there is more to it than that. The military objective must be considered.
In Serbia and Kosovo the military objective is not (or so far has not been stated to be) to occupy territory or to defeat the enemy forces in the large; it is to degrade their capability to continue to inflict major suffering on civilians in Kosovo. Whether that will be achieved, or how long it will take to achieve it from the air alone, is the 64, 000-dollar question. But I do not believe that it is right to imply that the use of air power will somehow be ineffective almost as a sideshow; far from it. More and more it is proving to be an essential tool in the Government's hands and one which so far has allowed them to proceed with little or no loss of life. Let us thank Lady Luck for that.
But the use of air power must be related to the military and strategic objective. That was why I asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when noble Lords were questioning the Statement on Kosovo on Tuesday whether Her Majesty's Government could give the House some assurance of their confidence that the operation on which we are now embarked would achieve the stated objective. Although the noble Baroness was not able to say more than that it was the intention of HMG that the,
"objectives should be attempted to be achieved in the way we have described in the Statement as being theoretically possible", — [Official Report, 23/3/99; col. 1181]
I am sure that the House will accept that it would be immoral to commit our forces and those of our NATO allies to an operation in which lives are in grave danger unless there is a strong expectation of success. We can only wait to see whether that careful judgment is borne out by events. I for one feel that it is incumbent on all of us now to express confidence in that judgment so that those we ask to undertake operations and to put their lives at risk know that we are behind the judgment that has been made.
When the shooting dies down, then will be the time to reconsider the whole sequence of events that has led to this very serious and worrying event. I take comfort from the fact that there is such a strong unanimity of view throughout NATO countries. That is a strong bolster to our forces' morale and feelings—and those of their families—about the rightness and justice of what is taking place. I say that without in any way detracting from a feeling of sadness that the bulwark of NATO, which has been such a strong and dominant player in the defence of our freedoms as a defensive alliance, has on its 50th anniversary had to resort to what I fear legally may be termed aggression against a sovereign state, no matter how morally overriding is the suffering in Kosovo or, in the words of the right reverend Prelate,

1489
however just the cause. I hope that the Government can reassure us that there is no possibility of any of our servicemen being at risk from being brought before an international court on a charge of having been involved in a crime under international law.
While on the subject of legality, perhaps the Minister can clarify the following points. Has war been declared? Are we at war with Serbia? Are our servicemen and women, especially those who have been taking part in the operations over Serbia, deemed to be on active service? What is the position if, regrettably, one or more of our aircrew is shot down and taken prisoner? Will he be treated as a prisoner of war? Does the Geneva Convention apply? Is the Red Cross standing by to carry out its responsibilities in the event of any of our service personnel being captured? Anything that the Minister can tell us now, or later if that is necessary, about these matters would be helpful. Whatever be the position, can he reassure us that those who are taking part have been made aware of the situation as it might affect them?
Finally, I think that this latest operation and, indeed, a number of previous operations embarked on by Her Majesty's Government in recent months and years, have demonstrated the immense value and importance of having an effective and modern air arm in our mix of forces. The requirement to upgrade our air superiority capability with the Eurofighter, and to enhance the performance of existing aircraft will not diminish in the years ahead.
The Government's fullhearted commitment to those programmes is self-evidently important. But there is another key point. There must be sufficient well trained, motivated and committed personnel to service, support and operate this equipment. Without them there is no air power to use in our modern diplomacy and foreign policy. We are still losing too many well trained and valuable people. It is beholden on the Government to recognise that.
The treatment of our personnel, their pay, their conditions of service and their accommodation are, if possible, even more important today to the success of our national policies and our position in the world and in the Security Council than ever in the past 50 years. Let the Government reflect on that in the moments of quietness between these crises, and not neglect anything that needs to be done. We need to retain as well as to recruit the best to support our Government's policies.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for the statement, and in saying that we knew well that British forces would behave as they did last night, and will continue to do so.
After numerous threats, all unheeded, all ignored, over a period of time it would have been difficult for NATO to do nothing after the break up of the Rambouillet talks. It would have been a derided organisation. I accept that. But I have to say that I do not know where or how it will end, or what the Government will do if bombing does not achieve their aim. I have the gravest misgivings about the course on which we are set.
1490
I believe that the policy which has led to us being where we are now is both mistaken and ill-conceived. I say at once that President Milosevic is in the first instance to blame for what has happened. He decided to revoke the autonomy that the Kosovars had enjoyed under Tito. He also refused, even more foolishly, to negotiate with Mr. Rugova, who was then the leader of the Kosovar Albanians—a very moderate man, and a man who would have been quite prepared at that time to settle for a return to autonomy. Now of course he has been pushed into an infinitely more extreme position.
What worries me is that I do not think that we have learned the lessons of the two wars: the Serbo-Croat war, and the Bosnian war. Those two wars showed what a mistake it is to intervene, in particular militarily, to keep a peace which does not exist and in a situation where we do not wholeheartedly support one side or the other; that is, supporting with all the means at our disposal which means not just aircraft but troops on the ground, with a full attack on their positions. If we do as we did in Bosnia, the likelihood is that we shall increase the timescale of the immense suffering of the civilian population. Intervention can even make things worse.
The final solution which will happen in Bosnia will not be dissimilar from that which would have occurred anyway if we had not been concerned with it. In the meantime, tens of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of people have been ethnically cleansed. Unless we are prepared to settle things once and for all with all the force at our disposal, and to take sides about who is right or wrong, then we shall fail. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, although I do not think that the position is quite as clear cut as she makes out in the Balkan Wars. I do not think President Milosevic was the only person to blame. President Tudjman and President Izetbegovic have a great deal to do with what happened.
If we intervene, we must decide on whose side we are. But in this particular case both sides had a case. The Serbs believe, and rightly, that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and has been for generations. Moreover, it is the birthplace of Serb nationalism. It would be very foolish to underestimate the resolution which the Serbs will show to maintain their possession of Kosovo. Equally, the Kosovar Albanians have a case. Not only have they seen their autonomy removed, but they have lost a great many of their civic and human rights. Due to the intransigence of the Serbs, they have been pushed into an armed revolt.
In addition, we all know that an independent Kosovo is not acceptable to the international community. Consequently we are faced with the problem: who do we support? Quite rightly, we sought to broker an agreement between the two sides. All credit is due to those who tried to achieve an agreement. Quite rightly, we sent as much humanitarian aid as we could.
So far so good, my Lords. But where I believe it went wrong was to threaten Serbia with bombs and cruise missiles if they did not agree. The Serbs were threatened with that long before the Kosovar Albanians agreed to the proposals. No one ever suggested bombing the Kosovar Albanians. The objective, I suppose, is to bring

1491
Milosevic back to the negotiating table and to impose the kind of settlement that was agreed at Rambouillet. But the Serbs have wholeheartedly already rejected that, and it clearly does not satisfy the Albanians who want their independence.
We also know that if bombing does not succeed, no NATO country, least of all the Americans, will be prepared to put ground forces in to fight against the Serbs in an all-out war. President Milosevic knows that perfectly well. Do we then go on bombing and bombing? If not, what do we do after that? No one has told us; certainly the Government have not told us.
As other noble Lords have asked, are we really on good legal grounds for what we are doing? Are we not setting a rather dangerous precedent? It is also true to say that if we argue that we are doing it for humanitarian reasons, the removal of the monitor force has caused more immediate suffering to the Kosovar Albanians than anything else in the past few months.
I believe too that international opposition—not just from the Russians and the Chinese—will grow against what NATO has done and I fear that opinion in the NATO countries, if civilian casualties grow, will be increasingly hostile to what we have done. I am sorry to be so pessimistic but I think it right to say these things.
The die is cast. We are now on this course. I do not know where it will end, and I have a horrible feeling that the Government do not know either.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Eames: My Lords, it is indeed a daunting experience to find one's name on a list of speakers following someone of the stature of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on a subject such as this. None of us in the House this evening can possibly underestimate the gravity of the situation as has been vividly illustrated by previous speakers, a situation which not only confronts NATO and the people of the Balkans but—dare I suggest?—contains the ingredients for the most grave consequences for the whole of Europe. If we listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, Baroness Williams and others, we would have no doubt about that point.
What has been said already this evening in this House clearly indicates the gravity of this moment. The arguments for and against the military action undertaken by NATO will continue for a long time and, as the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, has reminded us, there is a sense in this country, and I think among most of our allies that what we have attempted to do, rightly or wrongly, has been motivated by that sense of the just war. Tragically, the real judgment on what has happened will be made by history and that judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just reminded us, will have the benefit of hindsight to which you and I are not privy at this moment.
Justification for what NATO has done in the last 48 hours or so is couched in the name of international humanitarian intervention. That is a very interesting phrase. My chief concern this evening in your Lordships' House is to suggest that there is another
1492
factor in this situation which requires international humanitarian intervention. It is factor which we can all so easily forget, given the tensions of this grave moment for our country.
Above all else, above all the military considerations and behind the smoke-screen of the bombs and missiles that we have been seeing on our television screens, this is a human tragedy. A recent estimate, as we have been reminded, speaks of one quarter of a million civilians who have been displaced, and 65, 000 within the last month. Even as we debate at this moment in this House that figure is rising: people burned from their homes, people shot, TV pictures of little children crying on tractors and trailers, and elderly people dying in the attempt to escape.
What we are seeing is the greatest mass movement of refugees in the Balkans since the last war. Do I need to remind your Lordships' House of the historical significance of conflicts which, over the years and generations, have in fact begun in the Balkans? Anyone who knows that region and knows it intimately will agree with me that the picture of the misery of ordinary people caught up is nothing less than a cauldron of fear.
We all pray for an end to this tragedy and I have to say that I share some of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he spoke so movingly just now and attempted to answer the question: where is it leading? I believe that we would be failing not only the people of this nation but our colleagues in NATO if we did not recognise first of all the desperate need for a solution to this tragedy. Whether it comes from the results of the last 48 hours or not remains to be seen. At this moment—and I choose my words carefully—far away from the conference table and far away from the corridors of NATO, the United Nations in New York, European power bases, and even far away from your Lordships' House, there is a mass movement of human misery taking place. That misery will remain long after any solution emerges. The longer the conflict lasts, the greater will be the need to solve that problem. The longer a solution is delayed, the greater those figures will magnify.
We cannot and we must not forget the human side of this issue. I have seen at first hand in my life what refugees and displaced persons have to contend with. I will not bore your Lordships' House with a description of it save to say that it has to be experienced to be understood. It is for that reason that I speak in this debate from a deep personal conviction that we must not lose sight of the human element.
I appeal to the House and in particular to Her Majesty's Government, while paying tribute to the Minister for his very clear statement which has benefited us all this evening, that allied now to any decisions over the military aspect, instead of waiting for an end to what we can only refer to as "the war", every effort is made now to address the massive refugee problem. I recognise the difficulties involved and those who deal with problems of this nature will immediately say that it is bland to raise it at this moment. It is not bland. It is a moral, clear duty.

1493
I urge Her Majesty's Government to take the lead among the European nations and among the partners of NATO in supporting, indeed (dare I suggest) initiating, humanitarian relief on a massive scale. I do not believe it is overstating the situation at this moment to say that whatever the moral questions raised by the current bombing, unless we address and are seen to address the moral issues of the human misery of the refugees and of the war, we will stand condemned not just by the world but by history. I humbly submit this evening that it is not just on military action that we will be judged by future generations.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what a lot of good and important speeches we are having. I want to begin by inviting the House to go back to 1648 which was the end of the Thirty Years War in Germany. I believe that it was the worst war Europe has ever known, in terms of the proportion of the population at risk which was killed in the war and as a direct result of it.
In that year, by the Treaty of Westphalia, the Germans invented the principle of cuius regio eius religio: that is to say that each of the little principalities of which Germany was then made up should choose its own religion, Protestant or Catholic, and that at their own speed, unharassed and in peace, people should be allowed to move house if they wished to the nearest region which had the religion that they believed in. It is in point of fact the greatest invention towards civilisation that the German people ever made.
In the Yugoslav war (we are in a war: they have declared war on us, incidentally; the Federation of Yugoslavia has declared war on NATO collectively though we have not declared war on them) we have to recognise that among other things there is an element of religion. The internecine Yugoslav War is a religious war. It has had three movements: first, the Serbo-Croat War between Catholic and Orthodox; secondly, the Bosnian War between Orthodox and Moslem; and now, the war we are talking about, between Orthodox and Moslem again.
At the end of the day, we are all thrashing around looking for a political aim. At the end of the day, I offer as a political aim the establishment of the principle cuius regio eius religio in Yugoslavia. It will take some exposition to get it home to people and to governments around the world, but it might be worth a shot. The Balkans have been politically held apart from that possibility, which has been exploited to the general peace and good will by all the other countries of Europe, first because of the Turkish dominion, then because of the Austrian dominion and most recently because of the communist dominion. Each of these has prevented the natural development and movement of peoples. It has prevented change. They are in a condition anterior to that of religious and political liberty which the rest of us enjoy. Naturally, steam blows out around the edges.
If we look around the world and see how things lie, all NATO countries, even Denmark, are included in this force. That is a remarkable achievement of military diplomacy. Outside, we see Russia, the absence of which is deeply troubling and can teach us a lot. It is a European country if ever there were one. We also see
1494
China, which in general terms has expressed a position against force and against interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. It accuses us of circumventing the United Nations. That is the Chinese position, as one would expect. It is easy for the Chinese to say that because they are a long way away, but it is still the position of international law.
I wish to turn to a few detailed questions. They may be a little too detailed on the diplomatic side. If my noble friend Lord Gilbert feels that he has enough to put up with on the military side, they can remain on the record until later. What did Mrs. Allbright promise to the Kosovars when she got them to sign when the Serbs would not? We know that she promised something. She spoke separately with the Kosovars in Rambouillet and never spoke with the Serbs at all. I understand that they were proximity negotiations where little was done around the table; the teams were in separate rooms. Did she promise the amalgamation of the Kosovo Liberation Army into the political and military life of Kosovo after the end of the war, with direct military funding from the US and with a State Department official working full time to organise all that? At any rate, so said the armed forces minister of Albania yesterday. The Kosovo Liberation Army has also received a State Department invitation to visit political and military circles in the United States—and that in the middle of the war.
Moreover—I am filling in some gaps because not everyone knows—it is alleged by the Bavarian interior minister that £40, 000-worth of illegal drugs money was raised at one meeting in Bavaria, a meeting of Kosovar exiles and others, and sent to the Kosovo Liberation Army. It was said that the total amount of illegal drugs money that has gone to them is between £300, 000 and £400, 000.
Returning to negotiations, President Milutinovic of Serbia has said that the only option open to his country was to accept foreign troops or be bombed. Is that right? He was told that he could have 28, 000 soldiers governing Kosovo, and if he would not have them he would be bombed. So what difference did that utterance from the United States make to the Serbian reaction to the Rambouillet proposals?
They saw the proposals from Rambouillet, taken along with that choice, as violating their sovereignty and constitution. Moreover, it was not the Contact Group which made it, because by the time it was made the Russians were not there.
I wish to conclude by quoting the words of Secretary General Solana of NATO in the Spring 1999 issue of the NATO Review. He wrote:
"Our view is that Russia's constructive engagement with NATO is fundamental to the new security order … The year ahead promises even greater consultation and co-operation activity. The Kosovo crisis has proven the value of this new relationship".
How much trouble was it to the NATO governments to turn round that judgment and stand it on its head, to make war in spite of it and, for the first time in 10 years, to drive Russia into outright opposition to NATO and all it stands for?
I ask the question which all noble Lords who have spoken have asked. What is our objective? Politically, we should remember the great possibility to which all

1495
human freedom in Europe has been due, and in the Americas, too; the possibility for people to move to a place where a government they can stand is in occupation, without interference. On the military side, I do not know—what is our military aim? Is it bombing, bombing, bombing as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked? Obviously not, so what is it?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for initiating this necessary debate. I wish that I could say that I had a solution which no one else had thought of and that this is how we should be proceeding, but I am in the same position as most other noble Lords; that is, I am unhappy about what is happening, but not clear about the alternatives.
We are worried about casualties, as we should be. They will come in due course and we should be under no illusion about that. We wonder whether we can send many aircraft thousands of feet above a country and bomb it into submission. It is unlikely. We did not do so in Iraq, which has gone off the front page, but we continue to bomb Iraq every day. We have not seen much of a solution. Of course, Iraq is a different kettle of fish from Serbia, but one must consider the similarities.
The problem is that we see no alternative. Nobody would disagree that more talks would be good, but as yet talks have brought no progress.
As my noble friend Lady Williams said, we have to hark back and remember what happened in Bosnia—where we did nothing—and in Croatia. There comes a time when one has to take note of human misery and try, to the best of one's ability—perhaps not very good ability—to do something about it. I believe that we really could not just stand there and do nothing.
I return to the subject of the bombing alone because the thought of putting troops on the land, and the appalling casualties that would undoubtedly occur, is more than we can bear. Only last week I was in Washington. The talk of body bags, a rather emotive phrase, was paramount in the American newspapers. Who can blame people for that?
We have to press on as far as we can but we must also answer the question, "What on earth do we do when we have pressed on and nothing much has happened?" I do not agree with all newspaper reports; if one does, one is very naïve. However, it was uncomfortable to read an article in the Washington Post yesterday. Somebody asked President Clinton, "What happens if the bombing does not succeed?" The report goes on to say that the president looked rather puzzled and turned to one of his aides for an answer. The answer came back, "You go on bombing".
Obviously, that is not something with which we can live forever. We do not know the solution, but I believe that all of us would like to hear from the Minister what the long-term thoughts are. Of course, the bombing campaign has only just started. We have not yet given it a chance to succeed. Perhaps it will—we all hope that
1496
it will—and that it will bring Milosevic back to the negotiating table. I am sure that we have a long-term strategy. I believe we are all anxious to hear what it is.
We are in an unhappy position. The Serbs are a proud people. We cannot forget what Yugoslavia went through during the war when they fought long and hard against the Nazis and tied down many divisions of German troops which would have been used against us on the Western front. I do not believe, therefore, that we can expect a quick and dramatic surrender by the Serbs. I wish I was wrong.
That brings us back, full circle, to where we started, with the question, "What is the long-term solution?" There must be further talks. We must ensure that further talks with Milosevic—if we can bring him back to the table—must not just be with Mr. Holbrooke; there must be a raft of people who should talk to him. Obviously, we must bring the Russians in, whether Mr. Primakov or his chosen man. They are close to the Serbs and are likely to have much more influence on them than we are likely to have.
This is probably a difficult situation for Mr. Primakov. He makes remarks and his boss, President Yeltsin, makes unhelpful ones. We must try to bring them in. I hope that the Government are making approaches to the Russians in this regard. I do not expect answers at this time but I hope that such approaches are being made. I believe that they will be the people who can help us to resolve this most unfortunate situation.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this has been a serious and sober debate to which there have been many wise contributions, none wiser than that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He put the whole question into a very reasonable perspective. We must bear in mind that he did so from his wide, detailed and close experience of the whole problem of Yugoslavia. I hope that the Government will heed his wise words.
The Kosovo operation is a momentous departure in policy. Our Armed Forces are not defending the realm, nor any specific British interest, nor any sovereign state which has made a request for assistance. In the Gulf War, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were under attack from an outside body. They requested assistance and received it. The fact that we have not yet ended that war should be borne in mind. So, there has been no request for any military assistance from anywhere.
Furthermore, as we have already heard, the armed intervention in Yugoslavia does not have the backing of the United Nations. I believe it was entirely wrong that we should have embarked upon that operation without even apparently consulting the Secretary General of the United Nations. That was a snub which I believe is unforgivable. I think that he felt that very hard. As has been pointed out, the repercussions could be dire. They were adequately pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
This evening, I speak to dissociate myself from what happened last night and from what, unfortunately I believe is to come. I never thought I would see the day when a Labour Government—albeit a "New" Labour

1497
Government—took part in unleashing a massive bombardment on a small country of 10 million people who, as we have just heard, have endured centuries of oppression and who helped to defeat the Nazis in the last war.
It is particularly odious that the Luftwaffe took part in the bombing given that it last blitzkrieged Belgrade over 50 years ago. Far from undermining President Milosevic's position, I believe that that will strengthen it. It is most unfortunate that we allowed the German Luftwaffe to be involved. It is sad to see the mightiest armed force in history, representing over 600 million people, unleashing such a bombardment on a small country of 10 million people. We are told that it is to protect the Kosovar people. Quite frankly, I do not see how it will protect them. It may put them in more danger.
However, there are two sides to this issue. Kosovo has been recognised as part of Yugoslavia. The KLA, by Western parlance, is a terrorist organisation. Its members, too, have committed atrocities; but, that seems to have been forgotten. They have been attempting to undermine the status quo in Yugoslavia, which has existed over a long period of time. They have been trying to do so by armed struggle. The Serbs, quite naturally, have reacted accordingly—unfortunately, viciously on occasions. Everybody regrets that. Diplomacy, intentionally or otherwise, has encouraged the KLA to believe that NATO would eventually come in on its side. The bombing will be seen as confirmation of that. Again, I believe that that is most unfortunate. It really is difficult to see what the end game is. Is NATO prepared to pulverise Serbia to dust to get it to submit to what it sees as unjustifiable demands? How many casualties is NATO prepared to countenance?
What of the Kosovars? If the Serb army entrenches itself in built-up areas of Kosovo, what then? What are we to do to clear it out? We cannot do it by bombing; otherwise we hurt the very people we want to defend and to help. Suppose the Serbs continue to defy NATO; how long will it be before ground troops are sent in—and at what cost in terms of our servicemen's lives? There are rumours flying around that ground troops will be sent in sooner rather than later. I should like my noble friend to comment on that and to say whether those rumours have any substance. How long will the troops remain if they are sent in? Will it be for one year, five years, 10 years, or 20 years? Have we thought about this? How many casualties are we prepared to sustain and what is the cost of this operation to British taxpayers?
Again, one has to ask: why Serbia or Yugoslavia? There was no armed intervention in Chechnya, Tibet, Somalia, Rwanda or in other areas, including Turkey, which oppresses the Kurds, and which is, of course, a member of NATO. Why is Serbia or Yugoslavia being treated in this way?
Just exactly what is the objective of western policy? Is it simply to get more autonomy for Kosovo, to get independence for Kosovo and eventually incorporation into Albania, or is it part of a game plan to incorporate
1498
Yugoslavia as a whole into the western European bloc? We do not know. I should like to know. I should like to be told, but I fear that I shall not be told this evening.
It must be a great anxiety that Britain has been drawn into this deadly venture from which it seems; that there is no quick or easy exit, as the United States found in Vietnam and as the Soviets found in Afghanistan, after the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Finally, there is not the near-unanimity of consent of purpose in this country for this armed assault on a small nation which is entitled to defend its territorial integrity, just like any other nation. We should immediately get back to the negotiating table, but this time on the basis of a real discussion, on equal ground, and not based on the threat of massive air bombardment if one side does not give in and allow an army of occupation on its soil. That is what we need. Let us not forget Churchill's dictum,
"jaw-jaw is always better than … war-war".
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I was greatly heartened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, expressing his disgust—I think that that is the word—for the use of Luftwaffe pilots and crews in this so-called "Allied" attack on a sovereign state which stood by us during World War II and suffered greatly on our behalf.
I was also much heartened to hear the warning from my noble friend Lord Carrington, who speaks with unrivalled experience as a former Foreign Secretary, of the dangers of the course on which we are now embarked. I tried to make some notes as he spoke, but I cannot read my own writing at any time and my notes probably would not add much anyway. He was perfectly right in saying that a clear objective is lacking in this operation unless it is somehow to show that we are the bullies who can get away with murder.
I find myself at this moment almost as embarrassed and unhappy about the policy that the Government are pursuing, and to which our Opposition's leadership is consenting, as I was when British forces left the Suez Canal zone in the mid-1950s, the consequence of which has been our utter impotence to influence Middle Eastern affairs.
I was greatly more encouraged by the attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who showed considerable understanding of the internal politics of Yugoslavia and in particular of the significance of Montenegro in the whole picture.
We have heard the term "moral imperative" used. Indeed, I heard my noble friend Lord Moynihan use it from our Front Bench this afternoon. The term "moral imperative" is absolute rubbish here because the confusion of sentimentality with morality is probably one of the greatest errors of the age in which we live. Sentimentality is odd basis for deciding major international actions.
I have a special reason for participating in this debate. For many years, I was the Balkans correspondent of The Times and I used to visit South Serbia, as it was then

1499
called, quite frequently. I have been in and out of that country for 60 years. I am probably the only noble Lord who can understand Serbian, although I do not speak it very well. In fact, I speak it badly.
The background to this situation is seldom understood. Most of the so-called "Albanians" in Kosovo are not indigenous. They have infiltrated more or less as illegal immigrants over the past generation, having been encouraged to do so by the Tito regime in an attempt to spread Communism among the Serbs, whose individualism was totally resistant to it.
In that sense, perhaps I may ask your Lordships how we would feel if, over a generation, we found that Dutch, Belgians or French were gradually taking charge of events in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire, buying up farms and shops and gradually establishing themselves there. We would not welcome that—and the Serbs do not welcome it in their country either, but that is what they have seen in Kosovo over the past generation. We are not talking about indigenous Yugoslav citizens who are being bullied by their fellows but about illicit infiltrators who have finally forced their hosts to run out of patience.
I do not have any special love for the Albanians, but I do know that when the Albanian Crown Prince Leka was in London a few years ago, he was openly proclaiming the ambition to lead his country to a greater Albania, incorporating Kosovo.
We are told that the Kosovars have been offered autonomy, but that is not acceptable to the Serbs—and I shall tell your Lordships why. We have discovered in our own country that the Scottish Parliament has unleashed talk about Scottish separatism which was unheard of five years ago. In the eyes of the Serbs, "autonomy" spells eventual separation. That is one reason why the autonomy which their constitution awarded Kosovo some years ago was withdrawn. There was a fear that separatism was afoot.
I speak with the greatest reluctance. I say again that I have the same sense of nausea about the confusion of sentimentality with morality that we have heard tonight as I felt at the time of the British withdrawal from Suez in the mid-1950s, some 40 years ago. At that time I refused my party Whip and became an open Suez rebel. I am not proposing to become a Kosovo rebel now, but I am seeking as well as I can in my dotage to warn the Government, and our own Front Bench, to be cautious about all this. It is not as easy as it looks; we have heard from an expert on aerial warfare that it is by no means clear that bombs can do the job. We have been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we have embarked on an enterprise which has no obvious end. We do not know where it is going to lead. I am very sad indeed. If there was any way of toning down or altering the Motion before us tonight I would try to do so, but I have not had time to find out, whether, procedurally, that could be done.
"Taking note" is a timid, mild and half-hearted way of responding to an international crisis of great severity and difficulty affecting an area which is of historic importance to the Serbs. Perhaps I may say something
1500
which neither of the Bishops mentioned. When I spoke about the French, Dutch and Belgians occupying perhaps Kent, Sussex and Hampshire, I meant including Canterbury. I remind your Lordships that Pec in the Kosovo area of south Serbia is their Canterbury. To lose that is to lose their national shrine.
Noble Lords who do not know that part of the world as I do and who have had the exposure to it that I have had, cannot begin to understand the sentiment that has been aroused. It does not surprise me at all that the Serbs, who are not great negotiators in the familiar Mediterranean sense, would rather stand their ground. They would rather be killed than give way. They are unlikely to be moved by sentimentality, let alone talk about morality. They have their history, their values, their ancient monuments and traditions. They will fight and die for them, and I say God bless them.
7.52 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced this debate. I recognise the heavy responsibility that lies on him and the Government. I shall not detain the House for long. There is one element of this conflict to which I believe attention should be given.
We have seen and read about the intense brutality which has been a part of this conflict for the past 10 years. We have been appalled by the ferocity and unbelievable cruelty which has characterised it. It is true that prior to this decade different cultural, religious and ethnic communities had been living in peaceful proximity for many years. It is also true, in contrast, that previous episodes of inter-community fighting have been bitter and very violent.
I am raising this issue following a discussion I had with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House after the Statement on Kosovo made the day before yesterday. I hope I am not taking her name in vain, but she expressed an interest in what I said then and what I am saying now. I believe that she invited me to mention this when we next discussed the situation.
I believe that we should focus at least some of our attention on the psychological warfare elements to which my noble friend Lady Williams has already referred. There are two main phases to this. First, there was the spreading of hateful propaganda to incite a population to want to make war by making them regard other communities as inferior, a threat or probably both.
Secondly, in conjunction with a continuation of the first phase, there are measures to strengthen the resolve of the fighting troops. It will be some time before we have details of these measures in respect of the fighting in Kosovo, but we do know that in Bosnia, exhortation which, presumably accompanies every briefing to soldiers in a combat zone, was strengthened by supplying the Serbian soldiers with psychoactive drugs to increase their ferocity and determination. I suggest that the intense brutality and unbelievable cruelty to which I referred earlier was heightened by the use of these drugs.
The decision whether to involve ground troops in the conflict will be a political as well as a military one. I suggest that in preparing themselves for such a decision,

1501
or in preparing NATO ground troops for such an eventuality, the Government should review available literature.
I have no idea what psychoactive chemicals were used in Bosnia by the Serb military leaders, but it is common knowledge that some psychoactive drugs can give people who have taken them immense, almost superhuman, strength and an inability to feel pain. In that respect at least the Serbian soldiers were also the unwitting victims of a horrible experiment, as reports I have with me make clear. In addition to white pills, liquid drugs and injection equipment were found on dead and captured Serbian soldiers.
In returning to the first phase of this psychological warfare, the hate propaganda, we should remember how Radovan Karadzic, the successor to Jovan Raskovic, as leader of the nationalist Serbs in Bosnia—and, like Raskovic, a psychiatrist—used the mass media to generate fear and hatred among the Serbian people. Raskovic wrote a book to this end called This Mad Country which was a mixture of Mein Kampf and Freudian nonsense. It chillingly propagandised the supposed inferiority of the Moslem population. I hope that besides all the other considerations that the Government have in this matter, they will take account of these two psychological warfare aspects of the Balkan conflict.
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, one of the ironies of the war in Kosovo is that there had been some dramatic improvements in the conditions of the Albanian people there in the past few years. That was due in part to the presence of international humanitarian agencies. I shall quote only one example. Infant mortality was the highest in Europe five years ago. It has been halved thanks to an immunisation campaign. There have been many other successes in health and education. UNICEF and the other agencies involved fear that all these gains may now be thrown away.
There are about 16 non-governmental organisations active in Kosovo including some names which are well known to us, such as Oxfam, Save the Children, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent. Some have provided welfare such as supplementary foods and material aid and others like Oxfam are focusing on long-term priorities such as clean water and sanitation, often in very dangerous and difficult terrain. It is a formidable task. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, described the extent of the human need. I have seen a figure of 180, 000 internally displaced persons. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly says that the figure has increased to 250, 000 of whom two-thirds are children and most of the rest women.
The courage of aid workers needs little explanation because in a sense they are the counterparts of any humanitarian crisis. They have to be there because, however much we endorse the actions of NATO, it is simultaneously our policy to serve the victims on the ground, the ordinary people and the refugees.
1502
Some NGOs have already suffered direct hits themselves. For instance, the ICRC medical team struck a landmine last September and lost a doctor. Earlier last year three ethnic Albanian workers of the Mother Teresa Association died at the hands of the Serbian police.
My purpose in the debate is to ask some questions of the Minister. In a war which, as a matter of policy, does not involve ground forces—in other words, a war of punitive air strikes—are we not exposing our aid workers considerably more than would be the case in other emergencies and conflicts around the world? What consultations, if any, are taking place between NATO and the non-governmental organisations on the position of these personnel? Is there any contingency plan to protect NGOs, perhaps via the ground forces in Macedonia? We all saw on television last night the worried looks of the NGO staff in Pristina as they contemplated the prospect of joining the refugees they had gone to help.
I hope that the Government do not regard the situation of the NGOs as an optional extra in a modern war of this kind. Their contribution continues to be of vital importance during a crisis of this magnitude.
8 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking my noble friend for his introduction to today's debate. To make my position clear at the outset, I believe it is right for the Government to feel that they cannot stand aside. It is right also that NATO should demonstrate that it is serious about the principles and values on which it is based.
Today's debate is really a convolution of three debates which have been running now for many months. The first concerns the action and capabilities of British troops and how they are performing. That is very much the way in which my noble friend presented his speech when he was talking about last night's action. Perhaps he could say a few more words about the position of British troops, both in Bosnia and Macedonia, and how they may be protecting themselves.
The second debate that has been running over the past few months concerns the institutional relationships, to which a number of noble Lords referred, between NATO, the UN and the OSCE. The Washington Summit is to take place shortly where we will be looking at European defence. Institutions will be built on the experiences through which we are going at the moment. I hope that those experiences will lead us to the conclusion that we need to strengthen Europe's capabilities for acting on small-scale types of task—so called "Petersberg" tasks—to prevent us from getting into these extreme situations in the future. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the huge efforts made by NGOs over the past months and how it is ironic that they averted the crisis over the winter period only to arrive at where we are today.
The third convolution of the three debates is the moral argument; the rightness of this cause as opposed to other causes; the necessity to take sides and at the same time to try to maintain a balance. It would be useful if the Minister could say something about the Government's

1503
support for the President of Montenegro in some of the brave things he has been saying over the past day or two. I welcome also the fairly subtle change in wording as regards the Government's view on the status of Kosovo in the future. They are not repeating the same mantra that Kosovo will never receive independence. I welcome that change.
I wish to make just one point and to develop the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It concerns the importance of the Russian Prime Minister Primakov. It is easy to be negative about Russia; I have done it myself and have sat through many debates where the point was made that the only thing that unites Russian politicians is their opposition to the expansion of NATO. It is easy to talk about how its economy is in tatters and it is easy to say that it is weak and being ignored. At best Russia is seen as a dangerous ally.
But it is extremely important to be far more positive than that. I hope that we will soon be in contact with the Russian Government and when we are, we will need to be positive about what is happening in Russia. I would point out that we are seeing the very beginning of a recovery in the Russian economy. There was a terrible crash on 17th August, but I believe I am right in saying that in the first three months of this year the Russian stock exchange performed better than any other stock exchange in the world. So that indicates a very small start towards recovery there.
It is also right to point out that the Russian people are becoming more influential in the world than ever before as they join western companies and work in all parts of the world. While the Russian Government may be losing influence, in my view the Russian people are not. My third point is that Russia remains a hugely dominant regional force and must be used as such.
The one message that I really want to give the Front Bench tonight is that if and when our Prime Minister talks to Prime Minister Primakov, he must be positive about Russia's contribution; about its overwhelmingly important role in trying to move this desperately difficult situation forward. In doing that he must point to its successes over the past few years.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a short and sober debate. No doubt we shall have others. The Minister correctly said that at this stage we must limit ourselves primarily to the military operations and to their immediate implications, though it is also correct that we always have to ask what are the long-term objectives and where do we think we may be going? Can the Government assure us that there are sufficiently clear objectives?
There have been a number of calls in this debate for us to make our objectives entirely clear. I say with some sympathy for the Minister and Her Majesty's Government that at this stage, in these extremely complicated circumstances, it is not possible to have entirely clear objectives. There are a number of things we do not know. We know that Mr. Milosevic is in a shaky position in Serbia. He has been forced to dismiss
1504
his director of intelligence and deputy-commander of his army within the past 10 days. We know that there is considerable resistance within Yugoslavia to the call-up, and we are thus facing a conscript army unwillingly going to war.
A number of people questioned the possibility of fighting the Serbs in Yugoslavia, unless we have overwhelming military force. I remind your Lordships that we faced in the Falklands an unwillingly conscripted Argentinian force and the difference between unwillingly conscripted people fighting for something about which they are not entirely convinced, and those who are fighting for clear objectives and who are well trained, is not something that can be ignored in calculating the level of force needed on both sides.
Clearly air power has to be proportionately applied for proportionate purposes; air power in itself is not enough. I welcomed the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, emphasising that this is part of what is being done, but it cannot in itself do everything. From these Benches we have said throughout the Yugoslav crisis, since 1991, that forces on the ground have to be part of the package. There were those within my own party who said that we ought to have put forces into Bosnia at an earlier stage, when it was clear that Yugoslavia itself was breaking up, because a proportionate use of force then would have prevented worse now.
I remind Members of the House that there are already 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia now scattered throughout the European Union. We have seen an extra 250, 000 created within Macedonia and it is estimated that 100, 000 more lost their homes within the past month, before the bombing started. That seems to justify the action that Her Majesty's Government have just taken, which was the essence of the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, with which I entirely agree.
If air power is not enough, then clearly we have to think about the long-term implications. Again, people from my party have said throughout that this is likely to be the beginnings of a long-term commitment; that we are likely to have to put forces in on the ground at one stage, we hope by agreement, raising major questions about military overstretch, about whether or not the SDR's cutting down of reserves was sustainable, about how we may manage with our allies to sustain a military presence in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and perhaps also, as my noble friend Lady Williams said, in northern Albania over an extended period.
Perhaps I may remind those who have spoken in favour of hesitation in this debate that the alternatives are not particularly easy either. What we have seen is clearly the beginning of ethnic cleansing within Kosovo. There are those who suggest that what Mr. Milosevic has really been attempting to do is perhaps to divide Kosovo into north and south, as Bosnia was divided, so as to hang on to a northern Kosovo in which Serbs would become the dominant party and from which Kosovars would be driven, leaving them with the remnants of an already destroyed southern Kosovo.

1505
I have students from the region. I was talking to two Serbian students last week before they went back to Belgrade. I have to say that both of them are women. I was also talking to a Bulgarian student of mine. It was a deeply depressing experience with two Serbs and a Bulgarian sitting round a House of Lords' tea table discussing the future of the region. There is a great deal of opposition within Serbia to the current position of the government. As my noble friend Lord McNair said, we are aware that the Serbian Government have been attempting to use propaganda to inflame ethnic hatreds.
I reinforce what my noble friend Lady Williams said about the importance of maintaining as actively as we can our efforts to inform and influence opinion within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There has to be an alternative to Mr. Milosevic and, when there is an alternative to him, we will do our best to help. As I spend some of my time advising Serbians on what they should do until Mr. Milosevic goes, perhaps I may add that part of what the European Union needs to do is to help prepare those who will have to reconstruct Yugoslavia after a change of regime.
We have heard a certain amount about dreams of a greater Albania from the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who seems to support dreams of a greater Serbia and not of the various alternatives. Those of us who know a little about the history of south-eastern Europe can recall that there were dreams of a greater Bulgaria, dreams of a greater Romania, dreams of a greater Greece, of a greater Serbia and, indeed, of a greater Albania all to be built out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire that led to the three Balkan Wars of the first 10 years of this century, with their ethnic cleansing and massacres on all sides. The governments currently attempting to cope with what is happening in south-eastern Europe are conscious that that is only two generations away and that the potential for a return to that kind of ethnic cleansing is there, way beyond the boundaries of former Yugoslavia. That is why we have to take this responsibility on board.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I do not believe that there is an alternative in the long run other than to extend across this region of Europe the peace, prosperity and order which we have established inside the European Union over the past 50 years and which we are in the process of extending across the states which are currently applicants for the European Union. That is one of the many reasons why I support the EU. I regret the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, with, I have to say, their anti-German undertones. I find it odd to argue that it was right to go into Suez, but it is wrong to go in to suppress Serbian air defences now.
In looking at a long-term commitment, we have to recognise that there may well be casualties, both British and others. I was in Germany for three days last week. I heard Oschka Fischer talking about the situation. I did not meet great German imperialism; indeed, we all met deep unease among members of all parties at a conference that I was attending about the commitment of German troops. As part of building a more peaceful European region, it is now time, 50 years after the war, for the Germans to take their share of the common
1506
defence. After all, that is what Her Majesty's Government are calling for in the initiative which they have taken with my party's active support. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when I made the remarks about the Luftwaffe, what I said was in no way anti-German. I said that psychologically it was a bad move because it would strengthen the hand of Mr. Milosevic. Therefore, my remarks were not anti-German; nor, for that matter, were they anti-anyone else.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's explanation. Indeed, I accept his comment in that light. I believe that we must put this into a different context, while recognising that there are many historical echoes in what everyone does in the region. However, we must also recognise what the alternatives are if we do not act. The potential destabilisation of the European Union due to another 2 million or 3 million refugees is not something which we should contemplate with entire ease. So our political goal must be to extend peace and prosperity across the region and to recognise that that is a shared enterprise in which Britain must do its duty.
We have been concerned as a country with the Balkans ever since the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. An early leader of my party, William Gladstone, was himself much concerned with the emergence, first, of Greece and then of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire. On one occasion he said, "We are part of the community of Europe and we must do our duty as such". I believe that that is what we have to do.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am to some extent an amateur historian—a bad amateur historian. I shall not, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, go back to the Thirty Years' War. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the words of the short story writer Saki who, writing at the time of the Balkan War in about 1912, said:
"The Balkans create more history than they can consume locally".
In that respect, the events of July 1914 are very much in mind at this time. I remind your Lordships that the murder of the Austrian Crown Prince in Sarajevo on 28th June 1914 was followed by ultimata to the Serbians from Austria. They, in their turn, were followed by the expression of Russian support for Serbia, of German backing for Austria/Hungary and, in due course, the involvement of France and Britain in the whole panoply of horror of the Great War.
At this time we should not forget the disasters of 85 years ago. We go into the current conflict in the knowledge that there is a real danger that it may escalate now as it did then. President Yeltsin has already indicated his support for Serbia and opposition to the NATO action. In the light of the history of the relationship between Russia and Serbia, this is scarcely surprising: the bear does not change his spots. Nor should we forget the moral support that the British and the French gave at that time to "gallant little Serbia" and

1507
the appreciation of the strength and determination of its opposition to the might of the dual alliance. Again, during the Second World War we looked with admiration on the struggles of the Yugoslav peoples, even if all of them did not fight on the same side.
Today we must remember and appreciate that what NATO has entered upon will not be easy, possibly in the sense that the Gulf War against Iraq was easy. We are facing a warlike and determined people, who to a large extent have an absolute loyalty to their leader, Mr. Milosevic.
I apologise to the House for the absence of my noble friend Lord Moynihan who had an unbreakable engagement and has had to leave, having spoken at the beginning of the debate. As the debate was laid on at short notice I hope that the Minister will ignore the convention that he cannot be expected to reply to anyone who has left the House. I hope that these are special circumstances. In a way his absence is symbolic because the situation in Kosovo divides nicely into two sections: the diplomatic and the military. My noble friend spoke on the diplomatic side; I shall concentrate on the military side.
In another place the Government spokesmen were the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the discussion and the Secretary of State for Defence at the end. I am sure the House joins me in being immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for the detailed explanation of what happened last night and the way in which the air strike was conducted. I am only sorry that he does not have a Foreign Office hat that he can wear to give some explanation of what led up to these military events which he described so well.
I apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that last night I described him—as I thought—as being somewhat gung ho. He quite rightly objected to that. I am surprised today to find that the people who are gung ho seem to be the Liberal Front Bench. There is an air of sadness and sorrow among your Lordships. There is general support for the actions of the Government, but there is sadness and sorrow at the situation in which we find ourselves. In the circumstances I found it most interesting to listen to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale who, with his Serbian connections, gave very much the other side of the story, which is not something we hear often.
In the debate on the Statement last night the Minister—here I do take issue with him—intimated that the Serbians have a conscript army whose morale may not hold up under heavy bombardment, and that Mr. Milosevic is unaware of the depth of air power he faces. I am unable to accept either of those suggestions. As I have made clear, the Serbians have always been a determined people and Milosevic must surely know what he is facing. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned the anti-aircraft defences which the Serbians have.
Last night the noble Lord also pointed out that we were not talking in terms solely of a British force, not that I needed reminding of that. But even with our allies, experience has shown time and time again that air power
1508
is not enough and that we shall have to go in on the ground. It is fair to suggest that bearing in mind the nature of the country it is not unreasonable that the Serbs will be able to resist an army many times greater than anything NATO can put into the field. During the war the Germans had six divisions in Yugoslavia, including one SS, as well as a considerable number of Italians. If ground troops are now to be sent in, I do not think the numbers we can produce will have the success we determine, not even with the Germans, although they have experience of the country.
The British history of overcoming primitive peoples—if we may so describe the Serbians—on their own terrain is not good. The most obvious example is the lack of success of the British Army from India in the Afghan wars. Those operations were carried out in circumstances where the British forces did not have the limitations in numbers that we see today. The SDR was clear that only a limited number of operations could be carried out at one time. Even critics of the SDR did not expect the statement would come home to roost so soon. Are the Government confident that they can maintain and supply operations in Kosovo and Bosnia for the years that it may well take? Are there aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons to defend troops on the ground in Macedonia currently out of the range of aircraft flying from the supply fields in Italy? Do we have the numbers to sustain operations for a lengthy period of time without placing an intolerable strain on troops on the ground? The logistics of sustaining operations in all these fields at the same time would seem to be beyond the capabilities of all the NATO forces, let alone those of Britain as an isolated force. We certainly do not have, between us, the 150, 000 troops which would seem to be necessary.
None of this would be happening without US involvement. It is not only the air power but communications and intelligence which are so important. Without the United States, Europe does not have the means to act, and not all Europe has the will. It will take years and billions of pounds to build the capability, and that cannot start without a radical change of policy, which we cannot see as being imminent. I hope that the Government have thought all of this through. I have been reminded—this was mentioned, in other terms, by my noble friend Lord Carrington—of the three rules governing involvement in a civil war, as generated by the historian Michael Howard: first, don't do it; secondly, choose which side you are on; thirdly, see that that side wins. I am not certain that we have done all three.
This morning on the wireless I heard mentioned—it was mentioned too by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—that the action has many of the attributes of a Christian, just war. He may well be right; namely, that the Government have done their job by coming to a decision to interfere as they have. However, that is by no means as certain as some people make out.
We have made the decision, and we on these Benches give the Government our entire support. Nevertheless we may express concern with regard to the consequences of that decision. Whether Milosevic gives way or not, what do we do next? If he does not give

1509
way, how do we stop our attacks and where do we stop them? The Prime Minister has ruled out the use of ground troops, but for all the reasons which have been given this would not seem to be realistic. If the bombing does not work—and there is a strong possibility that it will not—what will we do? Escalate? Or merely walk away? And when we have walked away, what happens then? How can the whole matter be sorted out without putting our troops on the ground? Sadly, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a qualified commentator saying that the matter can be concluded without the use of land forces.
We need therefore to call on the Government for assurances that any troops in or near Kosovo will be adequately equipped and protected and also that, having embarked on military action—wisely or unwisely, as events will show—they are prepared to carry through with it as far as necessary. We also need reassurances that this is a reasoned and considered course of action in which the Government are supported by all their professional advisers, the chiefs of staff. I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, give those assurances, but I would be grateful for repetition of them, as I am sure would your Lordships.
On these assumptions the Government have the considered support of the Official Opposition in this unwelcome but apparently inevitable course of action. All sides of the House and of the country have the fullest confidence in the expertise, the courage and the determination of our Armed Forces. We must hope that they are not too hardly pressed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, this has been another sombre debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in it. I think it would be helpful if I were to start on at least one encouraging note. With regard to the position of refugees in Kosovo, I understand that the border with Macedonia has been reopened and that the refugees who seek to escape in that direction are now able to do so. That is one of the few cheerful things I have to say to the House tonight.
I have been struck by the number of times noble Lords have asked questions about the legal basis for our operation in Kosovo and in Serbia. I can do no better than to quote what I said to the House only yesterday evening:
"We are perfectly confident that we have a good legal basis for our action". —[Official Report, 24/3/99; col. 1396.]
The relevant Security Council resolutions are 1199 and 1203. We are confident—this is the view not only of Her Majesty's Government but is one that is shared by all the other 18 members of NATO—and we are justified because of the accepted principle that force may be used in extreme circumstances to avert a humanitarian catastrophe.
I was asked whether the Security Council had been kept informed and there was a suggestion that Mr. Kofi Annan had been snubbed. That is not the case. The Security Council has been kept fully informed throughout and, as your Lordships will know, there was overwhelming support in the Security Council debate on
1510
24th March, though Russia, China and Namibia did not agree with the propositions that the rest of the Security Council were supporting. Mr. Kofi Annan said that, diplomacy having failed, there are times when the use of force is legitimate in pursuit of peace.
Many noble Lords have raised the question of the involvement of Her Majesty's Government and our NATO allies with the Russian authorities. I can tell your Lordships that we have been in close contact with both Prime Minister Primakov and Foreign Minister Ivanov. We know that the Russians are as exasperated with President Milosevic as we are. We understand the Russian objection to the air strikes but my understanding is that the Russian authorities are totally appalled by Mr. Milosevic's actions in Kosovo. The Russian negotiator, Mr. Mayorsky, played an important part in negotiating the Rambouillet accords. We hope that Russia will play a positive role in persuading Milosevic to desist from the pattern of atrocities that his forces are currently undertaking.
I was asked a specific question by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about the position of our forces if they were taken prisoner and whether or not the provisions of the Geneva Convention would apply. The position is that it does not need a declaration of war, though Mr. Milosevic says he has declared war, whatever that may mean, on NATO, as distinct from any individual country. It is necessary only that hostilities exist for the Geneva Convention to apply and any members of the Armed Forces of either side can and should expect the full protection of the Geneva Convention in the circumstances that exist at the moment in Kosovo and Serbia. I am quite sure that the Red Cross will be present and doing what it can. It is fully entitled under the terms of the Geneva Convention to be present in Serbia and Kosovo at this time if it thinks it fit to be there.
I turn to another point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I happen to be a strong believer in the force of air power. It is of course for the noble and gallant Lord to speak for himself but I thought I heard several of your Lordships misquote the noble and gallant Lord. I understood him to say that there have been enormous advances in the quality of air power in recent years. That has certainly been my experience. It is of a totally different degree from the nature of air power when I was last at the Ministry of Defence. The growth in the technological capability of air power to suppress enemy air defences, the growth in the precision of the weapons that our aircraft carry and the range of those weapons is remarkable. That we can fire cruise missiles from a submarine at periscope depth in the Adriatic to hit with a degree of accuracy which is unbelievable, guided by a GPS system, without any of our sailors being put at risk is a demonstration of air power of a kind that was not available only a very few years ago.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to the need for us to intervene with land forces. It is not in any way a part of the objectives of this Government to occupy Kosovo, to occupy Serbia or to subjugate the Serbs. That point was made to me last night. The objectives are absolutely clear. They are to disrupt the present Serbian activities with respect to

1511
what the Serbs are doing in Kosovo and to curb for the future President Milosevic's capability to engage in such activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to whose expertise I of course bow, asked many questions: when will it end; how will it end? I cannot answer those questions. I am sure the noble Lord realises that. No one can answer those questions for the simple reason that we do not know how Mr. Milosevic will behave. I suspect that in two weeks' time Mr. Milosevic may behave in a very different way from the way he is behaving now or may behave in two days' time. Unfortunately, we must continue to engage in the air activities in which we are engaged in order to achieve our objectives.
The noble Lord made one point with which I feel I have to take issue. He said:
"The removal of the observers"—
I hope I am quoting him correctly—
"has caused more damage than anything else in recent months to the poor people of Kosovo".
But the observers have been gone for only 24 hours. I do not see how the noble Lord can come to that conclusion. It is unfortunate that we do not have observers on the ground at the moment—
Lord Carrington: My Lords, as a result of the observers going, the Serbian army moved in.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is reading the same newspapers and the same reports. The Serbian army has been there for some time. The Serbian security police have been there for some time. Their tanks have been destroying Serbian villages for weeks. That is why we are there. The noble Lord may say that the fact that there will be no observers there in future may diminish our ability to restrain the Serbs. That is a perfectly tenable point of view. But to say, as he did, that their removal has caused more damage than anything else in recent months is an argument that defeats me.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked me what Mrs. Albright promised the Kosovars. I have no idea what was said. My noble friend asked what was our objective. I stated it yesterday, I have stated it again today, and I shall repeat it time after time. Our military objective is to disrupt what is presently going on in Kosovo and to curb President Milosevic's capabilities to continue with that kind of activity in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, said that casualties will come. The noble Lord may be right. I very much hope that he is not. It is magnificent that we have had none so far. The noble Lord pointed out that the aerial activity has only just begun. The main objective of air attacks in the immediate future is to degrade the air defence capabilities of the Serbian government so that in future our forces may fly more safely over their territory.
It is a very precise and guided set of targets that I see every morning down in the bowels of the Ministry of Defence. I take issue with those who talk in the terms used by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who referred to "pulverising Serbia to dust". We are not pulverising
1512
Serbia to dust. The talk about bombing Serbia, as though we were trying to produce another Dresden in Belgrade or another Coventry in another town, is absolute fiction. We are addressing a very small number of precise military targets, in exactly the same way as we were doing in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein has been unable to provide any demonstration of mass casualties as a result of the Desert Fox campaign and subsequent activities. My noble friend spoke of our "unleashing a massive bombardment on a small country". He uses such evocative language that I must take issue with him. It is simply not the case. Had my noble friend been listening to my introductory remarks he would realise that we sent out four Harriers last night. Three of them returned with their bomb loads intact because they were not sure that they could hit their targets. That is not "pulverising Serbia".
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he can clear up one matter. We understand that among the targets attacked last night were the defences and the town of Novi Sad. I hear that the town of Novi Sad itself was damaged. Does the Minister know whether or not that is the case?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as I have already said, it is impossible for me to give a detailed bomb damage assessment so I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Earl's question. If I find that there is any information when I return to the Ministry of Defence I shall be happy to write to the noble Earl on that point.
We are dealing with a brutal dictator who, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, has engaged in unacceptable ferocity and cruelty. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we must play our part and accept our duty and responsibility for being part of Europe, even though it may appear to some noble Lords that there is no direct British connection.
I am grateful for many of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. However, the noble Lord said that we must go into Kosovo. We have no intention of fighting our way into Kosovo. I shall repeat that as many times as necessary. Neither we nor any of our NATO allies have the intention of fighting our way in on the ground. We are sending our troops in only by agreement when the circumstances arise.
The noble Lord asked whether we could defend our troops in Macedonia. Perhaps I did not have the noble Lord's full attention when I addressed the House earlier today. I said that General Jackson had told us that he had plans in place which he was satisfied would meet the case if necessary, were his troops to be attacked by ground troops under the control of the Serbian authorities in Kosovo. Of course there will be a strain on our troops on the ground. Of course there will be logistical problems. But I give the noble Lord the reassurance that the Chiefs of Staff, and particularly the Chief of the Defence Staff, believe that we have the situation under control.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may remind him that we sent troops

1513
into Northern Ireland to defend the Catholic population and within months they were shooting our troops in the back.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we are not sending troops into Kosovo.
As I said, our objectives are clear. Our objective is not to occupy, not to subjugate. We do not know what is going to happen. We do not know how Mr. Milosevic will behave. And we shall be judged by whether or not we succeed in disrupting his activities and curbing his abilities. We may fail. I do not believe that we shall. I have the greatest confidence in the skill and capabilities and the assets at the disposal of our forces and those of our allies who are engaged in these very dangerous activities. I do not propose to contemplate the possibility of failure. I am sure that everyone in this House joins me in saying God speed to those of our forces who are engaged in these extremely dangerous operations. I hope for their sake, and for the sake of the people of Kosovo and Serbia that they are successful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Gibraltar) Bill [H.L.]
8.47 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the third time in the past year that I have raised the question of the voting rights of Gibraltar citizens in the European Parliament. I make no apology for returning to this question now. Twice, your Lordships rejected amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill which called on the Government to facilitate the voting rights of Gibraltarians for the Strasbourg Parliament. But there has been a serious development since that happened, inasmuch as a case brought by a Gibraltar citizen before the European Court of Human Rights has been approved by that court, and by a resounding majority of 15 votes to two, one of the two minority voters being the British judge.
The people of Gibraltar are deeply concerned about the question of voting rights in the European Parliament. In June last year I presented a petition to your Lordships signed by no less than 90 per cent. of the voting population of Gibraltar. I urged the House to see to it that Gibraltarians were able to vote in the elections that will take place on 10th June this year.
The 17, 000 voters of that small territory have many duties and obligations which are brought upon them by the European institutions, including the European Parliament. Of course they want to have an input into who their representatives in Strasbourg and Brussels should be. They want someone who represents them, to whom they have access and to whom they can present individual matters.
Miss Denise Matthews, the applicant to the Strasbourg court, points out that according to Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on
1514
Human Rights, Gibraltarians have the right to a free vote over the choice of the legislature. The last time we discussed this in your Lordships' House, the Government argued that the European Parliament was not a legislature. However, the 15 judges in Strasbourg took a different view. I wish to quote what I believe is a rather devastating comment made by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on 24th June 1998, in his summing up speech:
"One speaker asked whether the present situation is in breach of the European Human Rights Convention. My advice is. quite clear and unambiguous: it is not". —[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 301.]
Seldom, I suggest, has a Minister been guided by such erroneous advice. I accept that the advice was clear and unambiguous and I absolve the Minister of blame for having accepted the advice that came from his department or probably from another department. But the advice was mistaken, according to a substantial majority of the judges in the Strasbourg court.
Therefore, I believe that this puts the Government in a position where they must act, they must not just express sympathy, good will or intentions. They must act and must take measures that will enable the question to be resolved. We have lost a lot of time. If action had been taken in June 1998, we would be further along the path. But let us take action now.
The Minister also said last June that he had clear and unambiguous advice on another point: that voting rights could not be given to the people of Gibraltar because of the 1976 Act on voting rights agreed by the governments. I hope that the Government will not be too influenced by that "clear and unambiguous advice" that comes, I have no doubt, from the Foreign Office legal department, on the question of the 1976 Act. I pray that the Government will not put a supposition by the Foreign Office legal department above a clear and resounding decision taken by the Court of Human Rights. Surely, the Government should do something concrete, not just something sympathetic or nice, to ensure that the question is sorted out.
The Bill that I put before your Lordships would allow Gibraltarians on the electoral roll of Gibraltar to vote in the elections in June this year, if it is passed in time and if the House of Assembly in Gibraltar approves it. It would put the 17, 000 voters on the London regional list. Here, I must declare an interest in that I am a candidate on the London regional list. However, I hope that my interest will not be seen as being excessive, as there are 17, 000 voters in Gibraltar and 5 million voters on the London regional list. So the Gibraltar element would only be one-third of 1 per cent. of that list, if the Bill is passed.
I should also declare an interest in that I have a few times in the past 20 years visited Gibraltar at the expense of the Gibraltar Government. This is a point to which I have returned on many occasions and if the Minister has it in mind to say that the question should have been addressed seriously by the Conservative Government over the years, I can only say that I agree with him entirely. It has been hanging around for about a quarter of a century. I therefore ask the Minister to

1515
think carefully about the point and the invidious position in which he finds himself as a result of the poor advice he received from the Civil Service.
I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to oppose this Second Reading; it is unlikely that he will. But it is possible, if I have correctly read the words of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, that he will say that there is no time for it to be properly dealt with in another place. It would be a tragedy, if it were left so that the present position prevailed. I believe that the Government are honour bound, because of their mistakes in the past, to take into account the human rights of the people of Gibraltar and to ensure that they have a vote on 10th June.
As to the attitude of Spain, there are indications that the Spanish Government would not object to it. The Spanish Ambassador in London spoke to that effect a few days ago. I do not believe that the Government of Spain—any government of Spain—bearing in mind the recent history of Spain and the vivid memories that Spain has of violations of human rights, would find it in their hearts to deny the franchise to the 17, 000 people of Gibraltar. Spain will not fly in the face of the European Court of Human Rights. The Spanish have more respect for it than certain other countries.
I therefore hope that the Minister will go beyond sympathy. He said in June last year that he was unable even to sugar the pill. I hope that this time he will not only sugar the pill but provide an effective medicine that will cure the disease that has arisen as a result of the decision. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — [Lord Bethell].
8.57 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House is obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Whether his Bill meets the requirements of legal niceties I am not qualified to say, but I believe that its principle is good. I maintain the view that Gibraltar should not be the only part of the EU which lacks representation. I said so in a debate in the House last year, so I need not detain the House long this evening.
There may be many in Spain who do not like the decision of the court to which the noble Lord referred, just as there are many in Spain who might be quite happy to see political exclusion continue or to see the nuisance, the churlish behaviour and delays at the frontier continue. There are those in Spain who would deny history. Yet it has some relevance.
Gibraltar became part of the state of Spain in 1462 and ceased to be part of Spain politically in 1713–251 years. It has been linked with Britain for a considerably longer period than that. But even if Spanish interests dismissed that historical fact, they can surely not expect to take Gibraltar into Spain against the overwhelming wishes of the people of Gibraltar. It may not be fashionable to suggest that the Spanish Government could more clearly recognise the contribution which Gibraltar made during the Second World War, when a large part of the population of Gibraltar were removed
1516
in order that it could properly concentrate on its role as a fortress for the eastern Mediterranean and a watchtower for the maritime approaches to Europe.
These matters are still of some significance. But, more than that, Spain should recognise that there is virtue and value in consistency. I have a number of friends involved in political activity in Spain. I have marvelled at the lack of consistency that sometimes they display. For example, Spain became part of the Council of Europe in the late 1970s. From that time no country or parliamentary delegation was more enthusiastic about encouraging, promoting and recognising democracy than my Spanish friends. I made this point last year and so will not labour it. No one did more to ensure that Liechtenstein, Andorra and San Marino were recognised as independent sovereign states, even though I can remember reminding the Spanish spokesman that they were roughly the size of Gibraltar. But they recognised it was right that even the smallest states in Europe should enjoy full democratic recognition and character. I believe that it is our responsibility in Britain to ensure that the democratic deficit that clearly exists is resolved at the earliest possible time.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is always very satisfactory to be proved right. Those of us who supported my noble friend Lord Bethell in his proposed amendment to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last year are certainly vindicated by the judgment in Matthews v. United Kingdom. I place on record my congratulations to Miss Matthews on her perseverance and single-mindedness in bringing the action as well as its successful outcome. It is also fortunate that this victory, focused on one small area as it is, took place before the death of General Sir William Jackson, former Governor of Gibraltar and doughty champion of Gibraltar's right to determine its own future and play its part in the European Union. He must have been very pleased by this result.
But my noble friend Lord Bethell is another whose perseverance must be admired. I am very pleased to be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill which has the merit of being both short and simple. My noble friend raised a number of important points as did the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. No doubt we shall hear useful contributions from other noble Lords. My questions concentrate on timing and the practical issue of the appropriate constituency base that must be considered with great speed. What is the Government's estimate of the time required to put the necessary arrangements in place? Should the new arrangements not be in place by June, what will the Government do to comply with the ruling of the court given that almost a year ago (June of last year) this issue was raised in your Lordships' House? Had action been taken then it might have been possible to make the necessary arrangements in time.
My final question relates to the constituency base. I do not see how Gibraltar can form a separate constituency in any sense given its size; nor do I believe it appropriate that the whole of the Gibraltar electorate should be attached to one mainland British Euro

1517
constituency. However, I am very taken by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Bethell that it should be attached to the constituency for which he is to be a candidate. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be more appropriate to find a way in which Gibraltarians can choose where their votes should be attached and that that should be in any part of the United Kingdom.
We have been over this ground on a number of occasions. Therefore, I shall not elaborate further. I pose one final and more general question. I ask the Minister whether in these days of political correctness his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary intends to make an apology to the people of Gibraltar for getting it wrong.
9.4 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I support this Bill to provide for electors in Gibraltar to vote in elections to the European Parliament. I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for his courage, skill and persistence in this matter. We are all in his debt, not least the electors of Gibraltar, and also Her Majesty's Government who are ultimately responsible for their security and therefore their democratic way of life, which they both relish and cherish. So do we.
This is a liberal measure concerned with democracy. It is a fundamental principle in a liberal democracy, especially in Britain, that every person over the age of 18 years is entitled to vote in local, parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. Since we joined the European Union, British citizens with British passports—the electors of Gibraltar—have been denied a very basic right: the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. They are and feel themselves to be, culturally, economically, socially, politically and legally—as do citizens of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain—a part of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has already quoted the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on 24th June. I shall not repeat that. But the last three words that he used—"It is not"—give food for thought and "words for eating". Since then the European Court of Human Rights, on 18th February of this year, has ruled by an overwhelming majority that Her Majesty's Government have been in breach of the law. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—a highly respected lawyer and Minister in this House—will agree that this is a very serious matter.
How should we get round, or over, the problem? First, we should support the Bill. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, (who is not in her place today) informed your Lordships on 25th February that to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights through domestic legislation would put us in breach of the 1976 Act. On whose advice does the noble Baroness base that statement? Was it based on the opinion of those lawyers whose advice has already been shown to be unsound? Perhaps the Minister will inform us.
If we do not have the power unilaterally to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar, then I, like other noble Lords and in particular the noble
1518
Baroness, Lady Hooper, seek answers to these questions. First, have the Government consulted their European Union partners? When did the process start; and what, if any, are the outcomes of the consultations? Secondly, will legislation be introduced through the European Union institutions in time for Gibraltar to vote in the June election?
As a Member of the constructive Opposition, perhaps I may offer a suggestion. Will the Government incorporate the electorate of Gibraltar into a United Kingdom Euro-parliamentary constituency? Could they do so as speedily as possible, because we do not want to be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights again if the Gibraltarians cannot vote in two-and-a-half months' time.
We, the taxpayer, have already had to foot the bill for the previous court case at Strasbourg. We do not want to do so again. This is a sorry story. The people of Gibraltar have demonstrated again and again their loyalty to the Crown and to democracy. One of them has had to take us to court. The court ruled in the plaintiffs favour. It ruled against Her Majesty's Government. Since 1973 injury has been inflicted upon Gibraltarians by successive British governments. We now have the opportunity to rectify that injustice by supporting the Bill before us. Let us do precisely that. We do not want to add insult to injury.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for introducing the Bill and give it my full support.
I appreciate that the Government have taken steps to discuss the situation with our European partners and I congratulate them on that. It is the right thing to do. However, as I understand it, there are at least two conflicting legal opinions. I am sure the Minister will agree that the way to sort out two conflicting legal opinions is usually in court and not just to say, "We know that the opinion we have is right" when that has proved to be wrong.
The Government have had the benefit of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights which was not available to the previous government. Any argument that we are simply going down the same track as the previous government is negated by the position of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the same old argument that we have heard so often in the past will not be trotted out again.
I believe that we should immediately legislate to incorporate the UK electorate in Gibraltar into a mainland British euroconstituency. I have no particular feeling about which constituency. If any other country wishes to challenge that legislation, let it do so in a British court which can be in the locus of the European Court of Human Rights. Time is of the essence. The European elections are due in June. I believe that that proposal would be the swiftest and most correct way to right the proven wrongs perpetrated on the citizens of Gibraltar.
I ask three simple questions of the Minister. Do the Government expect the failure to amend the Act in time for the June election to lead to another legal challenge

1519
in the European Court of Human Rights? Have discussions on amending the Act taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Spain; and what are the outcomes of those discussions? Has any advice been received by Her Majesty's Government that amending the Act would be in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht?
9.11 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, indicated a number of interests. Those of us who have heard the noble Lord over the years know that, as a dog with a bone, he takes up the causes he adopts with terrier-like tenacity. I do not think that anyone doubts the reasoning underlying his pursuit of this subject.
There is no doubt that the citizens of Gibraltar should have the right to vote in European elections. What is in doubt is whether they should have the right to vote via a British constituency as is suggested by the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but I would be eager to know from the Minister, or perhaps from Lord Bethell, whether the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is simply a recognition of the right to vote in European elections without providing the solution, or whether it is specifically pointing in the direction that this Bill does, because the weight that we give to that judgment is important.
I realise that, in speaking from this Front Bench, I am to a certain extent walking on egg shells. Noble Lords have heard the passion of my colleague and noble friend Lord Carlisle on this matter. I understand that colleagues in another place would be eager to support the Bill if it went there. We need clarification about whether the 1976 Act would necessitate unanimity. It is still a matter of some doubt, as a number of Peers have pointed out, as to whether or not it would need a court case in Britain to clarify the position; I do not know.
What I do know is that this is not an issue which can be divorced from the long-term future and interest of Gibraltar. That future must be on the basis of close and harmonious relations with Spain. For us at this point to spatchcock this legislation on to our domestic European Elections Bill I cannot believe would be seen by Spain as anything other than highly provocative. I do not think this Bill will resolve the right of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections. In some ways it is a cruel hoax on the people of Gibraltar to believe that it would.
There is a situation that has been identified here which successive governments have left on the back burner for too long. I do not object to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, using this device to keep the pressure on as regards this issue. In the meantime, as my noble friend Baroness Williams suggested, the European Committee of this House may take a closer look at Gibraltar and may even make it the subject of a special study. It is time for the Government to put this issue very much on the front burner in terms of discussions with our colleagues in Europe. It is an injustice. It is one that has festered far too long. We certainly do not oppose the Bill this evening. Nor do I suggest that it has all the solutions to the problem with which the absence of a vote for the people of Gibraltar leaves us.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the last time that this matter was discussed (which has already been referred to), the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, expressed fulsome sympathy with the people of Gibraltar although he said that legally his hands were tied. He said he would love to help—I am paraphrasing—but he could not. In the jargon popular at the moment he "shared their pain" over this matter, but could do nothing.
Tonight I have to confess to your Lordships that I cannot avoid having some sympathy for the Minister, because the position has changed totally. Now the Minister is being told by the Court of Human Rights that he must help. That was the decision by an overwhelming majority, as has already been said.
When I was first a Minister I used to find that civil servants sometimes came and said, "We are very sorry, Minister. We know you want to do this"—whatever it was—"but legally you can't. You will be taken to court. You must realise, Minister, that judges now take judicial review very seriously. There is no way you can do it. It is legally impossible. Our legal advice is unequivocal".
However, over time I observed two things, which no doubt the Minister, as an experienced lawyer, observed for himself long ago. The first is that in every court case up and down the land approximately half the lawyers are proved wrong every day. The second is that often legal advice changes over time, as we have seen recently. Someone else's lawyer puts forward a new point, a new argument or a different part of the law which argues the opposite way. Court cases which are begun with great confidence on the basis of the best available advice turn out to hinge on issues or points of law which emerge during the course of the argument. In other words, all legal advice is fallible.
The law of unintended consequences states that the unexpected effects of legislation are often the most important. The law of unexpected arguments in court cases is just as powerful.
However, another argument frequently addressed to Ministers, particularly those from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is, "You understand, Minister, that it is very important that we do not upset this foreign country because we need its help on some other matter". It is not always right, of course; every negotiation is different, even in the European Union, which is in a constant state of negotiation. However, in this particular case, I do not believe that Spain would ignore the decision of the Court of Human Rights. I believe that it would and should accept it and allow us to give the citizens of Gibraltar the right to vote as suggested in my noble friend's Bill.
Here I disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. His noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, took a different view, but, after all, they are Liberal Democrats so we can forgive them. I believe that on the wider issue of Gibraltar, Spain has consistently gone about the matter the wrong way. I believe that if Spain wished to take over Gibraltar once again it should have been wooing its people and being nice and kind to them in order to draw them into Spain.

1521
It should not have closed the border and so forth, which appears to be Spain's policy most of the time. In the end, it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide what they want and the actions of Spain have tended to make them decide more firmly to stay with the United Kingdom. That is a matter for the Spanish Government rather than for the Minister.
As my noble friend Lord Chesham pointed out most directly, the situation surrounding the Bill has changed. The law of unexpected arguments, from the point of view of the. lawyers advising the Minister, has worked through in this case from the Human Rights Act. The law of unintended consequences has also worked through from the Human Rights Act. I welcome that and the Bill.
However, the issue of timing has entered the debate. It is obvious that if, last June, the Minister had taken the line that he seems to be obliged to take today, Gibraltarians would certainly have had the vote in the European elections this June. Now we must wait to see whether that is so. In doing so, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that justice delayed is justice denied.
I therefore support the Bill's Second Reading. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bethell on his persistence in this matter against all governments over a long period of time.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his diligence in championing the cause of Gibraltar for many years, particularly in this context. I believe it is right that I set out the Government's position as clearly as I can.
As a number of noble Lords have indicated, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, pointed out, we discussed these issues at some length during the passage of what is now the European Parliamentary Elections Act. I can fairly say that I recognised the fact that the inability of the people of Gibraltar to vote was a matter of legitimate concern. I also said that the legal advice that the Government received was that this was not a situation that could be simply remedied through domestic legislation.
My understanding of the present judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is that that aspect of the legal advice is upheld. In other words, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the interpretation of the legal position by the United Kingdom Government was correct in that it accepted that we could not unilaterally extend the franchise. There are two distinct questions here, the first of which is whether or not the refusal of the right to vote was in breach of the European Convention. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is quite right in saying that the Court found against the United Kingdom on that. However, it did not find against the United Kingdom on the second important question of whether we could act unilaterally, which is the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
I do not think that it is right to attack those who give advice to Ministers. Sometimes advice is right. I believe that the quality of the legal advice one gets is of a high
1522
standard. It was, perhaps, generally surprising to most lawyers that the court reached the conclusion it did. Be that as it may, I entirely agree with your Lordships that we have to deal with the present position.
The noble Baroness asked me to secure an apology from the Foreign Secretary. I knew, as I uttered them, that I should not have used the words, ''clear and unambiguous" as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, reminded me. Of course, I regret the fact that the legal advice we were given turned out to be not upheld; in other words it was wrong.
I said at that time that it would not be profitable to try to amend the annexe to the 1976 Act. This is the key text which confined the franchise to the United Kingdom since there seemed little prospect at that time in those circumstances of securing the unanimous agreement of other member states. Quite plainly, the position has changed. It would be idle to say differently. There was the ruling in the case of Mathews v. UK. My noble friend Lady Symons said, virtually immediately in this House, that the Government accept that ruling and are looking to take immediate action to remedy the situation.
We have not been idle. On 4th March, we announced our intention to bring about an amendment of the 1976 text. On 16th March our permanent representative at the European Union, Sir Stephen Wall, tabled an amendment to the annexe to the 1976 Act. That amendment, if brought about, will widen the annexe to include Gibraltar and, in so doing, will allow the people of Gibraltar to vote in European Parliamentary elections.
The amendment is short and of the simplest. It adds to Annexe 2 the words, "and Gibraltar". Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out what Annexe 2 would read if the amendment was carried:
"The UK will apply the provisions of this Act only in respect of the United Kingdom".
The words to be added will be, "and Gibraltar". That is the amendment that was tabled on 16th March.
We will be lobbying hard to get all member states to accept this amendment. It is most likely to be considered as part of the wider negotiations on common principles for the election of MEPs which are currently underway.
Once the amended Act has been agreed and ratified by all the other member states, it will be possible to amend our own domestic legislation to extend the franchise to include Gibraltarians. I must emphasise that there is no point in the UK Parliament enacting domestic legislation until we have secured the agreement of all the other member states to the amendment to the 1976 Act. For that reason alone, the Government regard the Bill as premature.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has tried to overcome that problem by introducing into his Bill the provision that the Bill will not come into effect except by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State is not to make such an order unless
"requested by the appropriate representative authority of Gibraltar. "
I do not know what that phrase is intended to mean because it is not defined in the Bill. I think that it would need to be so defined.

1523
There is another question. If the people of Gibraltar are to participate in United Kingdom elections, we will need to be certain that their electoral procedures are compatible with ours. We will have to ensure that the same rules governing issues such as electoral registration, voting arrangements and absent votes apply to everyone eligible to vote in our European parliamentary elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is right that we would need further United Kingdom primary legislation—the noble Lord knows more about the domestic law of Gibraltar than I do—and that in all probability legislation in Gibraltar would also be needed. I agree. That is the present situation.
I was asked a number of specific questions which I shall attempt to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, asked me whether a failure to amend the Act would lead to another challenge. I simply do not know whether another challenge would be mounted. We shall be in a position to assert that we have taken concrete steps to put the matter right by tabling our amendment on 16th March.
We have not yet had responses from fellow member states. That is hardly surprising as the time that has elapsed between 16th March and today, 25th March, is so short. I do not know how they will react. However, it is extremely unlikely that the situation will be resolved in advance of the elections this June. We have not received any advice with regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, about whether extending the franchise to Gibraltar would affect the Treaty of Utrecht.
Perhaps I may continue with a further exposition of the Government's position. I do not believe that this Bill will do the work that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, wishes it to do. However, I reiterate that we are committed as a government to giving effect to the ECHR ruling at the earliest possible date. I have to say—because I think it unkind not to do so—that I think that it is extremely unlikely that things will move fast enough to allow the Gibraltarians to exercise their vote in June.
I believe that we have taken on board our obligations pursuant to the judgment of the European Court. That judgment was given only this February. We announced our intention to seek the amendment early the following month—that is, this month—and we tabled our amendment on 16th March. So I do not think that it can be suggested that there has been any criticizable delay.
I believe that I have answered the questions put to me. I reiterate our support for the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has suggested. However, I do not believe that this Bill will do that work. Many details remain to be resolved, not least the question of where Gibraltarian voters would vote. Would they need postal votes or absent votes? What would be the registration procedure? I do not think that any of those points will be sorted out in time for the June elections.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister, who has been more positive on this point today than on previous occasions. He has accepted in the most gracious fashion that erroneous advice was given. I am sure that that will be noted with appreciation by the people of Gibraltar, 90 per cent. of whom asked your Lordships to give them the vote in the June 1999 elections.
I hope that some progress can be made before 10th June. I am glad that the Minister speaks in terms of that being unlikely or very unlikely whereas the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was more negative. He said straight out that it was impossible. So we are making some progress towards bringing about the conclusion that I believe we all accept must be reached sooner rather than later.
This debate will be observed most carefully by the Gibraltarians. They will be pleased that at last something is happening, but disappointed at the rather negative idea that this measure may not take effect in time for 10th June. However, I trust, that the principle having been conceded, the measure will eventually find its place on to the statute book.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police Vehicles
9.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give advice to police authorities on the circumstances in which police vehicles may exceed speed limits, ignore traffic lights and in other ways disregard the regulations governing traffic on public roads.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who I am glad to note is to reply to the debate, can inform the House about the present situation and any review of guidance to police that may be in train. The police have to achieve a difficult balance to respond urgently to emergencies and also to create the minimum of danger and inconvenience for the general public in doing so.
I am raising an aspect of relations between the police and the public and not just the motoring public. My aim has been to help improve those relations. A recent incident some four weeks ago brought the subject to the headlines. A well-known television presenter, Sheena McDonald, was, as a pedestrian, hit by a police car with its blue lights flashing and siren wailing. She had to be placed in intensive care in hospital. I hope she is making a good recovery.
I shall not comment on cases in which investigations and proceedings are continuing. I shall refer only to indisputable facts reported in the press—the accidents, deaths, and injuries. These are some of the recent ones. The Times of 3rd February reported a court in Newcastle being told that a police car on the wrong side of the road travelling at 70 miles an hour had killed a pedestrian.

1525
The Daily Telegraph of 22nd February reported a case of two police officers seriously ill in hospital after crashing in east London when answering an emergency call. In November, on the outskirts of Aberdeen, two pedestrians (a married couple) were killed by a police car answering a call to investigate a suspected robbery in a video shop. Last Christmas Eve a 10 year-old boy was severely injured in South Shields by a police car that crashed into a fence and lamp-post before mounting the pavement. Noble Lords will know of other incidents.
The Times has also provided some general statistics from Home Office sources presumably referring to England and Wales only recording that between 1991 and 1995 nearly 100 people were killed and about 1, 400 injured in accidents involving police vehicles.
I am not launching a campaign against the police. Far from it. In six days' time I am to initiate a debate on car crime, having been successful in the ballot, and I shall then, as in the past, be examining ways in which the police should be assisted and supported. I am a member of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance whose membership includes police forces. We work together at meetings and in correspondence.
My interest and concern in the roles of police cars were aroused during the four years when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and answerable to Parliament for the police forces in Scotland as Minister for Home Affairs. As Secretary of State I made an official visit to the Scottish police college at Tulliallan. I was glad to be briefed there on driver training, which I count as very important. I insisted, though, that exercises in speeding at 120 or more miles per hour should only be carried out on the adjacent public roads when the essential training of drivers required it, in the interests of the public. Of course, in certain situations the police have to reach high speeds; for example, in a chase. And we encourage them, if they are pursuing known murderers, terrorists or drugs gangs. However, speed can be a killer and should be resorted to with care.
Another organisation with which I am associated is the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport and Safety. Six weeks ago it held a conference solely on the subject of speed and its connection with crashes and severity of injuries. The opening speech at that conference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. So I hope that I need not dwell now on the dangers of speeding and the need to restrict it to special circumstances.
My concern was heightened when, by chance, about four years ago I saw a police car accident near here and reported it, realising that I might be the only independent witness. I should explain that I have to visit hospitals as a patient to be inspected at least every six weeks as a result of being severely wounded in the war, and when I am in London it is St. Thomas' Hospital I visit, now the parliamentary hospital. In the Lambeth Palace Road near here, I saw a police car being driven at speed on the wrong side and at a blind curve have a head-on collision with a car whose driver could not have avoided the crash, though both managed to slow down. When I returned to the Houses of Parliament I reported what I had seen to the Metropolitan Police who then
1526
acted, I thought, admirably. They thanked me because they had received no other observer's report and kept me informed about the case, to my surprise, for months. Finally, they informed me that there had been an appropriate reprimand or equivalent given to the policeman in the car. In that connection, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, can confirm a recent report that the Metropolitan Police are starting to fit black box recorders, like those used in aircraft, in their cars to help trace the course of those cars.
I have been pursuing my own research and inquiries into other incidents. It seems that a large proportion of emergency calls are false alarms or are found to be trivial or unnecessary. We have to ask whether a reasonable balance is being maintained between a quick response on the one hand, and the danger and inconvenience to the public on the other. Of course, the police have to respond quickly; they are not to know until later whether or not an emergency call was a false alarm.
At this point I must comment on the report of the Audit Commission for England and Wales published last January on police performance indicators. The commission produced league tables comparing the records of various police forces on two counts. The first was the average time before a police car responds to an emergency call. The second was the average time to reach the incident. The first is an excellent competitive measure—that is, the time between a call and the car moving off—a test of readiness at all hours. The second is, in my opinion, unfortunate in promoting competition of a different sort. The time taken for a police car to reach an incident depends on several factors beyond its control; for example, whether it is in a city or urban area, whether it is during the rush hour or in fog or bad weather. Pressure to drive fast through red traffic lights on the wrong side of the road in order to compete and record times that look good invites accidents.
I thoroughly approve of the Audit Commission's general principle of obtaining value for money, but on the subject of emergency calls I believe that the test should be limited to how quickly the police car moves off after receipt of the call.
I have so far been speaking of accidents and casualties. But there is also the inconvenience, the aggravation and the minor damage often experienced by the public, whether motorists, cyclists or pedestrians, when, for example, a police car suddenly decides to start up its siren and dash through red lights as traffic observing the green light is already crossing its path. Any damage may be minor—small dents to bumpers or panels caused by sudden braking and involuntary shunting. But the repairs needed deprive the owners of their cars for a day or two, or longer.
My understanding is that if a police car hits something or someone, the police accept some responsibility. If, however, it does not hit anything, the police practice is not to accept any responsibility nor to contact witnesses who have come forward to volunteer accounts of what they saw of the police car's passage. The trail of minor mayhem that a police car may leave

1527
in its wake, especially at the crossings and corners on its path, which may extend for several miles, is not, apparently, their concern,
I entirely understand that attitude. The bills that the police would face could be enormous. There are specialist solicitors who will advise their clients in those situations how to claim for such things as whiplash, stress, nightmares and other alleged conditions. The police may avoid such claims, but the insurance companies will have to cope with them to the detriment of the public as insurance premiums increase. I speak as one who was the non-executive chairman of an insurance company before I reached its retiring age. I am aware of the escalating quantity of claims in this area. I am informed that police forces are now insuring only against claims above £50, 000. Nonetheless, I hope that they are covering fully injuries to their own personnel.
A recent development that may reduce the turmoil among the traffic affected by a speeding police car is a new kind of siren called the "Localizer". It apparently indicates the direction from which the police car is coming. Noble Lords will immediately see the advantage of this if they have experienced the sudden, deafening start of a siren nearby. It is impossible to tell whether the police are coming from behind or from either side at a crossroads. Drivers try to react helpfully, but perhaps do so in the wrong direction or bump into each other.
The West Yorkshire Police who are carrying out trials with the new siren have so far reported favourably. Where other traffic is concerned, their figures are these. There has been a 15 per cent. reduction in what are described as "panic" manoeuvres, and a 20 per cent. increase in signalled manoeuvres, while the police car has experienced an 8 per cent. reduction in lane changes. That is the way that the success of the experiment so far has been described. I suggest that this directional siren should be an improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, may care to comment in that respect.
I know that the law allows police vehicles to ignore speed limits and other regulations if the purpose of their mission would otherwise be harmed or frustrated. But how is that decided, often at very short notice, and by whom? The police are not above the law. We wish them well in their endeavours to curb crime and help with emergencies. But who polices the police?
Is a decision to start on a dangerous run through traffic at speed delegated to a sergeant or constable in the car, or must he get permission over the radio? I presume that most forces delegate instant decisions to the policemen in the car, but if so they should nonetheless be operating within clear guidance and according to directives carefully prepared by their superiors. Can the noble Lord confirm and tell the House that reviews are taking place, with government supervision, to spread best practice and to standardise procedures where this is relevant?
The police are performing a difficult function in this area. Ultimate responsibility at higher levels is divided and not clear. Chief constables have duties concerning
1528
their particular forces. Police authorities are now a mixture of councillors, magistrates and others. The presiding Ministers are the Home Secretary and the Scottish Secretary in their respective territories, with the exception that the Home Secretary of course is also directly responsible for the Metropolitan Police.
It is our job as parliamentarians, I suggest, to protect the interests of the public—and that is my aim this evening—to improve safety for individuals on our roads and pavements, whether on wheels or on foot, and also to reduce the disarray and tribulations that a speeding police vehicle can leave in its wake.
9.51 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has tabled this Unstarred Question. It gives us the chance to debate matters which are of concern to many people today. I may inadvertently even answer some of the questions that the noble Lord has raised.
It is quite common for people to complain about the press conducting witch hunts unnecessarily, but on this occasion I am pleased that the Daily Mail has decided to highlight certain aspects of police driving. Before proceeding any further I should perhaps declare that I am a civilian holder of the police Class 1 driving certificate, a former examiner of advanced motorists in Australia, and a civilian who regularly goes on traffic patrol with the police and is learning many other aspects of their difficult job.
Legislation exists which gives drivers of emergency vehicles exemption from certain aspects of the Road Traffic Acts when attending an emergency call. It allows drivers of such vehicles to be exempted from compliance with speed limits, and traffic signs etc., but places an obligation on the driver to drive with due regard to the safety of other road users, including pedestrians, at all times. And, to answer one specific part of the noble Lord's question, it should be pointed out that traffic signs, such as red lights and stop signs, are treated as give way signs and individuals should only exercise legal driving exemptions when they have received the appropriate driver training. Should an emergency vehicle, travelling in these circumstances, cause, or be involved in, a crash, then the driver of the emergency vehicle is liable to prosecution. If an emergency vehicle is not on an emergency call and the driver fails to comply with the Road Traffic Acts, that driver is liable to prosecution.
Regarding the fitting of black boxes, these were tried out some time ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated, they are being fitted again to about 500 vehicles. I think that they will certainly be useful.
It should not be forgotten that emergency vehicles attending an emergency have been summoned by somebody who believes that urgent intervention is necessary; nor should it be forgotten that the police attend more emergency calls than the other two emergency services. But it would be unhelpful to divorce police vehicles from other emergency vehicles which have permitted exemptions and whose vehicles have completely different handling characteristics.

1529
The ambulance service must meet certain standards—called Orcon standards—set by the Department of Health and those standards exist for urban and rural areas. The fire service has slightly more complicated response times imposed upon it depending on the number of pumps to be deployed, whether the call originates within a city, town or is rural.
Operational control of each police force rests with the chief officer and instructions cannot be issued by the Home Office or a police authority which in any way remove that operational autonomy. The level of response and time of attendance is determined by questioning the caller about the nature of the emergency and a graded response has frequently been adopted to cope with demand which sometimes outstrips available resources. I have been with a crew in London responding to a call for assistance some 10 miles away when no other vehicle was able to attend. This took place after dark but with numerous other vehicles on the road. The driver went rapidly between points A and B and was only slightly hindered by a youth stopping on a pedestrian crossing and giving us a "V" sign before continuing to amble across. It transpired that someone, who was completely blotto, had been bowled over by a van—fortunately without injury—and I assisted the officers in their examination of the vehicle involved and the cause of the crash. But, in this instance, all the crew knew was that someone had been run over and that, despite being far away, no other vehicle was available. Therefore speed was of the essence. I can only say from personal knowledge that traffic officers do not exceed speed limits unnecessarily nor speed inappropriately.
There have been other times when a crew has been called to an incident but, after a short time, has had its attendance cancelled, leaving anybody observing the marked deceleration and extinguishing of lights and noise somewhat bemused.
Ambulance crews know roughly what they are going to; fire crews usually know what they are going to: but the poor police officer sometimes knows what he is attending, but not always, and therefore the response time can be critical. I was amused to read in the Mail on Sunday last weekend that the police rushed to the aid of a terrified woman who told them, presumably when they arrived, that she had seen a gigantic, poisonous tropical spider. It turned out to be a large ball of wool.
Police officers receive a very high standard of driver training at various police driving schools throughout the country. The Metropolitan Police adopt these standards, with trained divisional officers either assessing and authorising the basic driving qualification for panda cars or, as at present, courses at the police driving school at Hendon for those who drive emergency response cars and vans. It has been said that a Hendon-trained advanced driver is one of the best in the world, and other countries have not only adopted its training methods, but send some of their officers to be trained there.
The system of car control has evolved since the driving school was first opened in the 1930s. As a direct result of being trained, I have to say that the last insurance claim I made was about 40 years ago. Unfortunately, like other areas of modern life and the
1530
demands placed upon it, fewer but sufficient funds are being allocated in different ways and are being better targeted towards those who need the driving skills.
The newspaper suggests that driving should be independently monitored. There might be some benefit in that suggestion—I am not in a position to judge—but it should be stressed that police driving is not linked to normal civilian driving. Advanced training reduces the chance of accident and the skills reached reflect the competence to drive urgently in an unusual scenario. The ACPO Police Pursuit Driver Training Report of September 1998 makes many recommendations, including accreditation of driver training, competency-based assessments and standardisation of instructor training. I would hope that this important ACPO report is adopted by every force. Having said that, it should be noted that in some forces basic drivers are not authorised to respond to emergency calls.
A recent report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate makes the recommendation that although traffic policing has been ignored for some years it should become a core police activity. I hope this recommendation will be implemented.
While legislation and service instructions already exist in respect of compliance with the Road Traffic Acts, no call is so urgent as to warrant the involvement of an emergency service vehicle in a crash, which will only delay the attendance of help to the person or incident. Drivers of emergency vehicles have the ultimate discretion to discontinue a fast response or pursuit if the safety of others is compromised in any way.
Sometimes we hear of someone being killed in a crash involving a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit. Thankfully, such incidents are rare. The newspapers always seem to make as much as possible out of such a tragedy, usually slating the police, whereas in reality if the driver of the pursued vehicle had stopped when ordered so to do, the death would not have occurred. There can be no excuse for not stopping when so ordered.
I wrote down what someone said in April 1997 in Greater Manchester, when her son, and others, had been killed following a pursuit. She said, "There are five mums who have all lost sons because of this. We have come here to try to work out what happened. The police should not have been chasing them". I feel sure that, if she has come to terms with her awful loss by now, she will agree that everyone should stop their vehicle when ordered to do so by a police officer. Sympathy goes to the family and friends of anyone killed in a crash following a pursuit, but that does not hide the fact that, had that person stopped when told to do so, the fatality would not have occurred.
Noble Lords may be interested to learn that within the Metropolitan Police (I do not know about other forces) a system exists of awarding points for mishaps and more serious incidents. Similar to the civilian points system on licences, one to 12 points may be given depending on the severity of the wrongdoing. At a certain stage the officer is recalled for assessment and possible retraining.

1531
I am led to believe that an officer receives one point for damaging a wheel after hitting a kerb. So the system demands a high standard even of standard class drivers.
Finally, it might be worth reminding your Lordships that a police vehicle called to an incident may well be making a loud noise and flashing blue lights. But that is necessary to warn other road users and pedestrians of its approach. While some people may regard that as an intrusion on their senses, those people would not expect anything else if they had caused the emergency and were awaiting the attendance of the police. The use of noise and lights only applies when necessary.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are more or less agreed on the principles of this subject. We all want the police to arrive quickly when we need them, particularly at serious incidents, when crime or danger can be avoided by the police being present. The same applies to the other emergency services. But at the same time we want them to drive safely for the sake of others, and indeed for their own sake. Policemen have been hurt in accidents in the course of high speed manoeuvres en route to incidents as have other people, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out. Certainly, our sympathy goes out to everyone who is hurt in this way, and particularly to those who who have been close to people who have been killed.
Speed on the roads is dangerous in any circumstances. That is why we have speed limits. But speed is sometimes necessary for the police and the other emergency services. That is why I welcome this Unstarred Question requesting fuller consideration of the matter and guidance for the police. I do not mind whether it comes from the Home Office or from ACPO; it should come from whichever is most appropriate.
I hope that those who prepare any new guidance will think the matter through. I hope they will consider whether it might be possible in these days of fast, elaborate and more accurate communications to give more information about the cause of a call and to distinguish between a real emergency, when police on the ground a minute or two earlier can make a real difference, and other incidents where an extra minute or two makes little or no difference. In these days of better communications that might be possible. False alarms are a matter about which the police can do little at the time. But not all genuine 999 calls justify risking lives. It is much worse for someone who is maimed by a police car in those circumstances or for someone who loses a relative or friend, if it turns out that the call was made for some relatively trivial incident where a policeman arriving a minute or two later would have made no practical difference to the situation.
I do not pretend it is an easy matter to sort out but, as the noble Lord suggested, it needs careful consideration, particularly because the other two emergency services sometimes have more information about the incident they are trying to attend.
Obviously, the best training that can be provided is important and highly desirable. However, I should not wish to limit high speed response to a selected group of
1532
policemen who were specially trained, while those not specially trained were not allowed to respond to an incident. It is not desirable.
While the matter is being examined, I reinforce what my noble friend said about sirens. It is an important question and I find it difficult to tell from which direction some of the modern whistling, wailing sounds come. It makes it more difficult to keep out of the way or take appropriate action in a car or vehicle. In urban situations the sound reverberates from the buildings and as the vehicle moves, the sound appears to come from different directions, and it reverberates differently. Careful thought should be given to the problem and if new types of sound would be of benefit, they should be adopted as soon as convenient. When crashes occur, they are not necessarily all the fault of the police drivers. It may be that others react in an unpredictable way, not least because they misunderstand where the sound is coming from.
Altogether, the debate has been valuable in drawing attention to the matter and I thank my noble friend for providing the opportunity for your Lordships' House to consider it.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising the issue. It is right that when Parliament passes laws we should pay particular attention to anyone granted exemption from them. The police driver has been granted some exemptions from road traffic law, but they are limited and specific.
Before I discuss those matters in more detail, I wish to deal with some of the points raised here tonight, particularly those made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. My noble friend Lord Simon was supportive of the police and made many of the points that I shall make, so I shall reinforce what he said. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, also was supportive of the police, as were all those who spoke tonight.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, we cannot discuss particular cases but we all hope that Sheena McDonald is making a speedy and complete recovery. We extend our sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives after being involved in crashes with police vehicles, as well as other vehicles.
It is interesting to look at the statistics. Most of the fatalities occurred in three police activities: 20 per cent. were routine patrol cases; 23 per cent. arose from responses to emergency calls, which we have been discussing; and 45 per cent. were pursuit-follow situations. It is also interesting that in 73 per cent. of the cases the vehicles were travelling at below the local speed limit when the accident occurred.
I was also asked about driver training. The media have made a number of comments about that. As has been explained by my noble friend Lord Simon, driver training is very rigorous. Drivers are trained to a very high level of expertise. Like my noble friend, I hope that the ACPO police pursuit driver training document issued in September 1998, which made a number of

1533
recommendations, including night training for drivers— because that is when many pursuits take place—will be accepted by many police forces.
Reference was made to black boxes being fitted to vehicles by the Metropolitan Police. It is true that those boxes are being fitted. If any vehicle were involved in an accident the black box would be able to provide independent evidence of speed. Other police forces will be watching with great interest to see just how effective that is.
Various aspects of police vehicles were referred to, including police sirens. White noise sirens have been developed by the University of Leeds. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to this. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that if there was a better type of siren it would be a great advantage because very often one did not know from which direction the police car was coming. The white noise Localizer siren operates on a broader sound frequency and enables people to determine not only the presence of the emergency vehicle but, more importantly, the direction from which it is coming. I believe that that is a great advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, accurately summed up the results of the experiment in West Yorkshire. The new siren has resulted in a 15 per cent. reduction in the incidence of panic manoeuvres, a 20 per cent. increase in signalled manoeuvres and an 8 per cent. reduction in lane changes.
Work is also being done to improve the visibility of police vehicles. It has been suggested that motorway police vehicles in particular should be of standard design and that they should have blue and yellow side markings. I am pleased to say that already 22 forces in England and Wales have adopted that. In addition, pulsing headlamps have been designed which show more white light to other road users. That is another safety device that will become available. All of those measures, taken together, I believe will help to improve road safety, which is what we are about.
Perhaps I may deal with the response time to emergency calls, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He said that there should not be any competition in relation to that. I am sure that we all agree with that, but if people make emergency calls they want the police to arrive as quickly as possible.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Minister may have misunderstood my point. I said that competition as to the shortest time to leave in the car was admirable. That could be a matter of 10 or 20 seconds. I was referring to a league table to show the time between leaving for and arriving at incidents. That might be 15 or 20 minutes. I described many variables. That was the kind of competition of which I disapproved.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I think that I understood the point made. However, when the public call the police they want to see them arrive as soon as possible, taking safety into consideration. That is why the police seek to meet the 15 or 20 minute period depending on whether it is an urban or rural area. That is important. It does not involve a league table. It is a key objective of the
1534
police service. While it will not feature as a ministerial priority, it remains an important area of police activity. My noble friend Lord Simon pointed out that when a person calls the police, he wants to see them arrive as quickly as possible.
Having dealt with the many issues raised, perhaps I may refer to the point on exemption from road traffic law. In the case of speed limits, Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that,
"No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on any occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used".
In other words if the vehicle is needed, it can breach the speed limit. The section effectively provides that not only must the vehicle be being used for police purposes but that those purposes would be hindered on the particular occasions by complying with the speed limit.
The provisions are clearly seen as applying to vehicles involved in pursuits and emergency responses. It should be noted that it gives the police no exemption from anything other than the breach of the speed limit which would otherwise constitute an offence.
The police must be very careful at traffic lights. The limited police exemption is set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 1994. Those provide that when a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used, then that restriction should not apply.
However, the restriction is more limited because the regulation goes on to state that in those circumstances the vehicle may go through the red light but should not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding correctly with the lights to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident. In other words, it simply gives the driver the right accorded to any driver in the case of a give-way sign. It is up to the driver to proceed with care, bearing all that in mind. The police vehicle has to comply with the regulations in that way. There are similar exemptions and provisions which apply not only to red lights but to pelican crossings and to various light and horn regulations so as to permit the police vehicle to use special lights. However, strict compliance with other road traffic regulations is always required.
I hope that it will be appreciated from what I have said that police officers do not have carte blanche to ignore speed limits or red traffic lights. The exemptions which have been granted to them are very specific, limited and are enshrined in law. If as a result of exercising those exemptions any accident occurs, the police driver is every bit as liable for the consequences as any other motorist using the road. The courts will have to make their own decision where proceedings are brought in the light of particular circumstances.
The law in relation to these matters is very clear. Guidance on these exemptions has been issued and we expect strict compliance with them. However, I shall

1535
ensure that all the points that have been made tonight— and they have been made in a very constructive manner—will be considered and, if necessary, I am sure that the attention of the relevant authorities will be drawn to them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, because in this kind of debate I do not have the right to wind up, I
1536
should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for having answered concisely most of the questions which have been put during the debate and particularly the matter of exemptions and the law that applied with the regulations in 1994. I am sure that what he has said will be read very carefully by the large number of people who are concerned with this subject.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  Fish Landings: French Limits
  Fish Landings: French Limits
  Public Expenditure: Scotland
  Public Expenditure: Scotland
  Bicycle Allowance: MPs and Peers
  Bicycle Allowance: MPs and Peers
  Armed Services: Medical Consultants
  Armed Services: Medical Consultants
  ASTOR Programme: Capital Costs
  ASTOR Programme: Capital Costs
  ASTOR Programme: Evaluation
  ASTOR Programme: Evaluation
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Pre-emptive Military Action and International Law
  Pre-emptive Military Action and International Law
  European Council: Forthcoming Business
  European Council: Forthcoming Business
  Iran: Efforts to Combat Narcotics Trade
  Iran: Efforts to Combat Narcotics Trade
  Strategic Export Controls
  Strategic Export Controls
  Millennium Compliance
  Millennium Compliance
  Private Security Industry: Regulation
  Private Security Industry: Regulation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Hospital Trusts: Publicity Decisions
  Hospital Trusts: Publicity Decisions
  Thanet Healthcare NHS Trust: Pain Management Service
  Thanet Healthcare NHS Trust: Pain Management Service
  Water Supplies and Fluoridation
  Water Supplies and Fluoridation
  Tourism: Consultation
  Tourism: Consultation