Sitting of 6 May 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

    Milk Marque
    Mr. David Heath: When he will publish the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of Milk Marque; and if he will make a statement. [82356]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain has now been received. I expect to publish it before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but the delay and uncertainty caused by his inability to publish the report are having the gravest consequences for the dairy industry. Somerset dairy farmers in my constituency have already suffered enough this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the rumour now sweeping the industry and give an absolute assurance that the report has not been delayed for political convenience connected with the Welsh elections, and that it will not be delayed until the summer recess? We need an answer now.
    Mr. Byers: The report was not received until the beginning of March. It is receiving detailed consideration and will be published before the summer recess. The timing is not for political reasons, but to ensure that full and proper consideration is given to the recommendations.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am afraid that the Secretary of State's response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was not good enough. Given that dairy farmers are suffering their worst crisis for 60 years, with average incomes having fallen by more than 60 per cent. in the past two years alone, and as the Government's botched common agricultural policy negotiations in Brussels mean that Britain's milk producers cannot expect to receive any increase in quota until 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the keen interest and anxiety with which the MMC's verdict on Milk Marque is awaited by dairy farmers in my
    1070
    constituency? He has had the MMC report for more than two months—70 days, to be exact. When will he stop dithering and announce a decision?
    Mr. Byers: There is no dithering. The report is being considered and we shall publish it as soon as it is practical to do so. That will be before the summer recess.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Atkinson: If he will make a statement on progress with the millennium readiness of computer systems in the private sector. [82359]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): On 4 March, Action 2000 published its fourth report on its state of the nation survey of millennium preparedness among United Kingdom businesses, which showed a continual improvement in terms of the readiness of their systems to cope with the end of century date change.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that, without total disclosure of their millennium compliance by all computer-dependent businesses, no one can say that the British economy will be safe after the end of this year? As the Government missed—indeed, objected tothe two opportunities that I offered them through my private Member's Bills to provide for such disclosure, can the Minister assure the House that British business will be millennium ready?
    Mr. Wills: We are well aware of the keen interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the problem and we are grateful to him for it; he shows a commendable public spirit. However, we do not think that legislation such as he has suggested is necessary. We must be careful not to create bureaucratic requirements for companies to check things unnecessarily. Companies are subject to many pressures, of which the century date change is one, on their limited resources.
    However, may I offer the hon. Gentleman some reassurance about the state of preparedness, especially in connection with the crucial infrastructure of this country? As he will be aware, the national infrastructure forum gave us the latest information from Action 2000 on 21 April, and it showed a considerable degree of readiness. He will be familiar with the colour coding of blue, amber and red. Blue indicates no identifiable risk of material disruption, and, if I may, briefly, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, refer to the fact that in the—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps that could be the subject of an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Wills: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a high degree of readiness, and I am confident that there is no significant risk of disruption.

    Exporters
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the prospects for exporters in the present financial year. [82360]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Treasury and independent forecasters expect the volume of exports of goods and services to grow both this year and next.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As unemployment is expected to rise over the next two years, and, contrary to what the Secretary of State has just said, the Confederation of British Industry forecasts that economic growth will be sharply down this year, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Financial Times editorial yesterday, which advocated a weaker currency? What representations is he making to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce interest rates—although, of course, the Chancellor no longer has the power to do that? Does the Secretary of State not bitterly regret that fact?
    Mr. Byers: The Government made it clear that we would not play short-term party politics with interest rates. We have given independence to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, and we will support decisions taken by the Bank on interest rates. It is largely because of that independence that we now have the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years, which is good news for exporters and for the economy in general.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's historic change in Britain's constitution will herald a new era for exporters in which each region can consolidate in partnership to export and compete in the global marketplace? The new regional development agencies and the Welsh Development Agency can help in that. Does he also agree, first, that the political fallout will precipitate a change in the Opposition leadership, which will become more Euro-friendly and therefore build confidence in our key export markets; and, secondly, that today is a great day for British exports?
    Mr. Byers: I do not intend to attack the Conservative Opposition, because they are very good at doing that for themselves. It will be an historic day, with the votes being cast in Wales and Scotland. I have no doubt that when people cast their votes they will reflect on the success of this Government, with some 400,000 new jobs having been created since we took office. Some 3,000 new jobs were announced in Scotland during the election campaign and 6,500 jobs have been created in south Wales, with the Baglan bay energy project. For the two years this Government have been in office, a job has been created every two minutes. We are proud of that and we are confident that, when people cast their votes today, they will acknowledge the Government's success.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister accept the estimate of the influential National Institute of Economic and Social Research this week that the pound is currently 15 to 16 per cent. overvalued in terms of the underlying competitiveness of the British economy? If he does not agree, will he explain why?
    Mr. Byers: What I do know is that, if hon. Members consider sterling in terms of its appreciation against other
    1072
    currencies, they will see that its current position bears no comparison with the dramatic increase that we saw before the 1997 general election. Two thirds of the drop in exports last year was not in exports to those countries where our currency has appreciated in value but because of the decline in the south-east Asian markets. That is where the problem arose.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the important components in the competitiveness of British industry in exporting goods is the cost of transporting those goods. In Northern Ireland, we are heavily reliant on the road haulage industry for the export of goods from our part of the United Kingdom. Is he aware that £100 will purchase 129 litres of diesel in Northern Ireland, but 227 litres in the Irish Republic; and that the additional burden placed on road hauliers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer through increases in excise duties is making it much more difficult to export goods from Northern Ireland, compared with our competitors in the Irish Republic? Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Chancellor on behalf of the road haulage industry to see whether that burden can be eased in any way?
    Mr. Byers: There are many companies in Northern Ireland that are doing well in exports and I was pleased to present the Northern Ireland exporter of the year awards last year. I hear the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that my colleague the Minister of Transport has set up a group with the industry to consider the problems it faces, and I hope that the group will produce some recommendations that will address the very real difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Why does the Secretary of State show such dismissive contempt for a significant group of British exporters who are the innocent victims of United States trade sanctions? I have asked questions that the Secretary of State has not answered, and firms that are badly affected have written to him and received no response. He was quick to provide £40 million in compensation for the cashmere industry, so why will he not supply some help for a firm such as Beamglow in Cambridgeshire, which employs 100 people and recently invested £2.5 million in new machinery to supply the United States export market? That market has been completely cut off to that firm as a result of the sanctions, and the Government are not doing anything about it.
    Mr. Byers: That was all totally wrong. There is no dismissive contempt. The Government offered support to the cashmere industry in Scotland—and in England as well—because the time at which the levy was raised by the United States customs and excise coincided with the period in which cashmere exports were going to the United States. It is a seasonal industry, and the period covering late March and April was one of particular difficulty.
    As we discussed in the House last week, the real solution is to resolve the trade disputes. The Government are committed to achieving that long-term solution to the problems. The solution to the problems that companies such as Beamglow face lies in the Government using our

    1073
    best efforts to ensure that the trade disputes with the United States are resolved and that free trade and commerce are able to flourish. The message has to be clear—that protectionism anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. That is what we believe, and that is why we shall support measures to ensure open commerce and free trade.

    Libya (Trade Relations)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on trade relations with Libya. [82362]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am currently considering what Government services can be restored, following the suspension of the United Nations and European Union sanctions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Albeit after 15 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie, I myself shall not go back to Libya until proceedings at Zeist are over. However, my right hon. Friend's reply is constructive and pleases me greatly, so I dare to suggest that he might consider himself leading a delegation to Libya. Given that Hadrian's wall is in my right hon. Friend's constituency, the descendants of the great artists of the Roman empire would be delighted to show him Leptis Magna and Cyrene, and he might be tempted to go.
    Be that as it may, will my right hon. Friend say whether a problem remains with the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher? Two years ago, I went to see Assistant Commissioner David Veness in Scotland Yard. Evidence from George Styles, the British Army's senior ballistics officer, Huw Thomas, the former consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, and Home Office pathologist Bernard Knight suggests that there is grave doubt about how that tragedy happened.
    In view of that doubt, surely the tragedy should not form the basis for future relations with Libya. If my right hon. Friend were to visit Libya, would he reflect on whether it would be possible for him to make an apology for the permission given in 1986 for bombers based at Fairford to launch an attack on the working-class areas of Benghazi and Tripoli? That attack was as ill-conceived as the bombing attack on Al Shifa and the Sudan now turns out to have been.
    Mr. Byers: Our response to the end of sanctions will be positive, but satisfactory progress must be made in a number of areas and especially in resolving the outstanding issues in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. Until that matter is resolved satisfactorily, it will not be possible to resume full diplomatic relations.
    However, the lifting of sanctions means that we can examine in a far more positive light the steps that we might be able to take with regard to considering matters of trade with Libya.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: (Harrow, West): If he will make a statement on the Government's progress in encouraging power generation from renewable sources. [82364]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies as soon as possible. We hope to achieve that by 2010.
    On 30 March, the Government published a consultation paper entitled "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century", reaffirming the commitment to developing renewable sources of energy and seeking views on future support measures.
    Mr. Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent consultation document that he published before Easter. Can he assure me that the pool review will properly reflect the needs of renewable generators? What action does he intend to take to promote the prospects of solar and wave energy?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend may know that we recently produced proposals to draw the potential of wave energy into renewable energy sources. In February, I announced three new photovoltaic initiatives, worth £15 million—£5 million from the Department of Trade and Industry—to consider the potential of solar. Wave and solar are being brought in from the cold.
    The reform of the wholesale market—the pool—is vital. If we had left it as it was, it would have squeezed out potential for renewable energy companies. Our remit to the regulator and the team considering reform in the wholesale market is to ensure space for the renewable energy companies which I believe will begin to displace traditional fossil fuels as we move into a new century.
    Mr. Richard Page: I welcome the Government's commitment to renewable energy, which I vehemently support. However, has there not been a problem with the non-fossil fuel obligation rounds? No matter how large they are, and no matter how many awards are made, the number of schemes that achieve completion and production remain a problem. When they are considered in future, would the Government bear in mind the achievability of bids? What is being done in that regard? Are the Government approaching local authorities, for example, to find out whether planning permissions are likely? There is no point in taking the lowest possible bid if it will never work.
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman championed NFFO when he was in government, and it is accepted in Europe and more internationally that it was a good scheme which has been successful. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise problems with implementation and planning permissions, however. We have discussed that matter in my Department, and with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We cannot impose schemes from the centre on local communities or override local planning constraints. Projects must win support.
    Planning is not the only problem, as companies are sometimes over-ambitious in their bids. We are encouraged, however, by the number of bids and their range. Bids have come in not only for wind schemes, but for landfill gas—the landfill tax is encouraging the use of methane gas. Energy from waste is also becoming increasingly popular. A range of sources will exist and

    1075
    projects will continue successfully under NFFO. We are urgently addressing the planning matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tony Colman: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his excellent consultation paper on renewable energy? It is a real step forward as regards sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Is he aware of the "100,000 rooftops" solar energy programme initiated by the German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology and supported by 10-year, interest-free loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development? Will my hon. Friend consider that idea for the UK, and will he consider in particular the rooftops of the houses of Putney?
    Mr. Battle: I must enter one caveat. I know of the German scheme, and it is ambitious. However, one problem with PV in Britain is the structure of our houses. It may not be well known that around half the homes in Britain are more than 100 years old. We tend to do up and renovate our homes rather than build new ones. It is easier to fit PV solar in new homes than in refurbished homes. There are also price problems, as the cost of PV may be between £14,000 and £20,000. Achieving a payback on investment is difficult.
    To tackle that problem, our recently announced £15 million PV initiative will examine technologies in order to reduce costs. PV will be tested on 100 homes, and we are moving towards introducing PV in a price-competitive marketplace, rather than taking the German route of direct subsidy. We also have SCOLAR schemes intended to help 100 schools to use PV so that youngsters—new scientists and technicians—learn about the technology, develop it and bring it to fruition in the new century.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: We welcome both the Minister's acknowledgement of the success of the previous Government's NFFO policy and the testing and challenging objectives of the Minister's Green Paper on renewables. However, can he confirm that he has set himself an interim target of achieving 5 per cent. of energy generated by renewables by 2003? He mentioned that the pool review was an important future consideration, but does he acknowledge that, however much we do on renewable energy, it is important to ensure that generation in the short term is as environmentally friendly as possible? Will he therefore give consideration to the earliest possible elimination of the moratorium which is holding back the development of more environmentally friendly generation in this country?
    Mr. Battle: In case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusion, we are trying to encourage non-fossil fuel sources under renewable energy. The strict consent policy is in position until we can reform the pool. As I said, unless we tackle that and get a new reference price for renewable energy companies, the new energy companies will be squeezed out altogether by the forces of the pool. In September, we announced a record 261 renewable energy projects for 1,177 MW contracted. If the projects in NFFO 1, 2, 3,. 4 and 5 go ahead, we will achieve that target of 5 per cent. without difficulty.
    The targets are challenging, but when we include other measures—such as in response to the suggestion that disposing of waste in landfill tips is not the best answer,
    1076
    and that the more tips we cap and seal, the more methane gas is generated; and that, rather than flaring it off, it is better to use that gas to generate local combined heat and power—we will find that some of that renewable energy source of supply will enable us to achieve the 10 per cent. target.

    Technology and Research Clusters
    Mr. Brian White: What assessment he has made of the economic impact of (a) clusters and (b) networks of high-technology, research-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. [82365]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Firms often perform better when they come together in networks and clusters. The Government are working in partnership with all types of business to encourage collaboration, innovation, and the sharing of best practice.
    Mr. White: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Many high-tech firms would not exist if they were not allowed to develop in clusters. Does he agree that the planning policy guidance issued by the Government needs to be amended to encourage clustering? Does he accept that, in other countries where clustering has been successful, it has happened because a partnership between the Government and private industry has provided the infrastructure? And does he accept that that is what is needed in this country?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I recognise the great authority with which he speaks, gained particularly from his long experience of the IT industry. We are reviewing how the planning system can best promote the needs of clusters and the review is due to report in August.
    Of course we recognise the importance of partnerships between the public and private sectors. We are doing a great deal to promote them across the board. We recognise the importance of building the right infrastructure, particularly the right electronic infrastructure. We in this Government are building the electronic future in a number of ways. I will publish shortly an important consultation document about making spectrum available for broad band wireless networks which, as my hon. Friend will recognise, will be a crucial part of that electronic infrastructure.
    Mr. Colin Breed: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in the knowledge-based industries at the potentially damaging effect of IR35—a rather hastily introduced and badly designed anti-tax avoidance measure? Will he undertake to speak to the Treasury on behalf of the industry?
    Mr. Wills: The proposed new rules to which the hon. Gentleman refers are designed to remove the scope for the avoidance of tax. Rather than criticise the measure, I would have hoped that he would welcome anything that enables those who are due to pay tax to pay it.
    The rules will not target the IT sector in particular. The vast majority of businesses do not avoid tax and national insurance, and will not be affected by the new rules. I am

    1077
    slightly baffled by the intensity of the hon. Gentleman's concern. The Inland Revenue is working with representative bodies on the details of the new rules.
    I hope that it will offer the hon. Gentleman some comfort if I say briefly that the information from the Inland Revenue to all those concerned deals with three matters: the new rules will not prevent individuals from setting up service companies; they will not prevent agency working; and they will not prevent workers and clients from arranging engagements through service companies, agencies or similar intermediaries.

    Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
    Mr. John Cryer: What plans he has to promote an increase in the level of investment in manufacturing industry. [82366]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): One of the main factors holding back investment was the UK's record of macro-economic instability. Our Government have now put economic management on to a more stable footing and the recent competitiveness White Paper and the Budget introduced measures to encourage investment, especially in manufacturing.
    Mr. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer; he is correct. However, does he agree that the multilateral agreement on investment constituted a menace to British manufacturing and to investment in manufacturing, given the unstable nature of the world's financial markets and the number of multinational cowboys roving the planet?
    Does the Minister agree that the proposals dreamt up by the European Commission in December, which basically amount to MAI mark 2, serve no purpose other than to act as an attack on living standards and on investment in manufacturing—not only in this country, but in other countries in the European Union? Does he agree that we should tell the EC to stick its proposals and to get on with what it knows best—maintaining the biggest gravy train in western Europe?
    Mr. Battle: Like my hon. Friend, I am not into gravy trains. However, I understand that the MAI was dropped; our Government regarded it as flawed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, it is fair to say that, in general, we are in favour of open markets, but we are determined to blend and hold together economic efficiency and social justice—nationally and internationally. We shall campaign and fight for that not only here, but in international forums.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If Her Majesty's Government's policies for manufacturing are so admirable, why have those who earn their livelihood from manufacturing been suffering so much? There is a squeeze on profit margins and, above all, a squeeze on employment. Is the Minister aware that the Trades Union Congress expects that no fewer than 250,000 jobs in manufacturing industry will be lost during this year and that the Confederation of British Industry records that, in recent months, the rate of job losses in manufacturing under this Government has been the fastest for six years?
    Mr. Battle: As someone who comes from a city built on manufacturing throughout the 20th century, I saw that manufacturing base in my city sink from 52 to 22 per cent. of the economy under the previous Administration. There were 1.5 million jobs lost during the recession of the 1980s; under the Conservative Government, a million jobs were lost during the recession of the 1990s. Under the Labour Government, there are 400,000 new jobs; we have set about salvaging manufacturing from the wreckage of the previous Government's savage economic policies.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Notwithstanding the comments that the Minister has just made, is he aware that the number of firms going into receivership has increased by one quarter during the first three months of this year, and that one third of them are manufacturing firms? It is indeed correct that jobs in manufacturing are now being lost faster rate than at any time during the past six years. Given the continuing high interest rates in this country and the continuing high value of sterling, does he accept that hundreds of firms are being driven out of business, and that that will not stop until the Government make a firm commitment on a programme for the UK to enter the euro?
    Mr. Battle: In response to that general ragbag of proposals, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that our economy is not immune to international forces. I absolutely accept the pressure on manufacturing that now exists; I realise that—it is evident. However, we are putting in place the fundamentals to ensure that manufacturing has a chance in the future. All the measures that we have implemented—whether on corporation tax, or those introduced as a result of the competitiveness White Paper—will bolster and support manufacturing, when other people prematurely wrote it off. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts; he will find that long-term interest rates are currently the lowest for 30 years.
    Mr. John Redwood: With regard to modern industry, the Minister is living in a dream world. We all know that forecasters are saying that investment by many companies will fall or be slashed, and that jobs are being lost day by day.
    Will the Minister explain what he and his colleagues are up to in relation to regional assistance? Is he planning big cuts in the map? Why has he delayed making the necessary announcement? Have Ministers met recently to decide to delay the timetable of publication of the new map not only until after today's elections, but until after the European elections?
    Do not manufacturers need to know whether they will be eligible for grant support, at a time when investment is under so much pressure because of the bungled economic policies of this Government? Do not voters need to know today and on 10 June what the Government's plans are for the worst-affected industrial areas?
    Mr. Battle: It is vital to get regional selective assistance right, but more than half the European countries have not yet submitted their plans. It is important to get it right; we shall get it right; and we shall publish the report in due course, at the appropriate time. I am tempted to point out that the right hon. Gentleman would have

    1079
    been first to jump up and accuse us of using the report for political ends had we published it during the election campaign. We are doing exactly the opposite.
    On the subject of jobs, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said: 3,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland and 6,500 in south Wales; more than 400,000 new jobs have been created under this Government; and a job has been created every two minutes for the past two years—that is different from what happened under the previous Government. We are working on that agenda and clawing back an economy that was sinking under the previous Administration.
    On a personal note, in the privacy of the Chamber, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really on the shortlist for the Institute of Directors job? Given the Tory prospects today, I think that we should be told.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What assessment he has made of the effect of the current value of sterling on the UK steel industry. [82367]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Our Government have had frequent discussions with the steel industry, both management and trade unions, on the export difficulties arising from the current value of sterling. Notwithstanding current problems, the UK steel industry achieved exports of nearly £3.2 billion in 1998 while addressing underlying long-term competitiveness issues. That is a significant achievement in the circumstances.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recording that success story, but the steel industry has suffered from two huge problems: first, the high rate of sterling inherited from the previous Government and, secondly, the fanatical anti-manufacturing culture of the Tory years. However, is he aware of some little rays of sunshine on the horizon? First, in its estimate for the end of the year, Goldman Sachs predicts the pound coming down significantly against the euro, which is good news for steel, although my hon. Friend should spend his wage-frozen salary on holidays abroad now, rather than wait for a weaker pound in nine months' time. Secondly, in Asia, prices are being posted higher and order books are picking up.
    Will my hon. Friend consider three specific issues? First, will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put somebody from manufacturing on the Monetary Policy Committee? Secondly, will he look harder and faster at excessive electricity prices? There is no doubt that we need harmonisation with Europe on that matter, because we need lower electricity prices. Thirdly, will he agree to meet representatives of the industry to discuss those problems in the near future?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend champions the steel industry at every opportunity and he should be applauded for doing so. The message from the Government is loud and clear: we positively support manufacturing and we shall do what we can to ensure that there is an economic climate of support for manufacturing. To achieve lower electricity prices and to ensure that heavy industrial users of energy are not unfairly priced out is precisely the
    1080
    purpose of the reform of the energy pool electricity trading arrangements. That is why we are working on that project, and I am glad to report that the work is going well. I shall be happy to meet John Bryant, the new chief executive officer of British Steel—indeed, I hope to meet him soon—and I shall continue to hold frequent discussions with the steel industry.

    Milk Marque
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he intends to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the selling of milk in the United Kingdom. [82368]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): As I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I expect to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that dairy farmers in England, especially those in Cheshire and my constituency of Macclesfield, face grave uncertainty about the Government's intentions and plans for the future of Milk Marque? Does he agree that, because they deal with a perishable commodity, it is essential that dairy farmers have the right collection and distribution organisation to enable them to get that perishable commodity to the market?
    It is quite wrong that Milk Marque should be held to ransom by the big boys in the dairy trade. That is not good for our countryside. In the face of what I would describe as the tragic fall in milk prices, strict quotas and the threat of increased milk imports, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to respond before July to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? The industry is in crisis and we should do something to help an essential and vital element of the countryside.
    Mr. Byers: I understand fully the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman. He may be interested to know that some 200 right hon. and hon. Members have made representations on this issue, and they will need to be considered when we examine the recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report. We will do that. I am conscious of the uncertainty, which is certainly not helpful to the industry, and I will do all that I can to publish the report as soon as possible. I give an assurance today that that will occur before the House rises for the summer recess. However, as I said in my evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, we will need to take account of the many representations received before we publish our response. We must recognise and consider that information properly if we are to discharge our legal responsibilities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will publish as soon as we can practically do so.

    Internet (Military Equipment Sales)
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What plans he has for regulating the advertisement of military weapons and manuals on the internet. [82370]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Before I answer my hon. Friend's question, may I take a few moments to thank you, Madam Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the many cards, letters, e-mails and faxes that I received wishing me well during my recent illness? I assure hon. Members that the rumour that I am the first DTI Minister to be bitten by the millennium bug and survive is completely untrue. I hope that they will see from my responses today that I am back in full working order.
    In the United Kingdom, the law applies equally on-line and off-line, which means that goods or services can be advertised or sold on the internet in the same way as on traditional media, provided that they comply with UK law in that area. The majority of British defence manufacturers advertise their equipment and services in the "British Defence Equipment Catalogue", which is widely available. It is an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1911 to publish classified material without authorisation, regardless of the medium of publication. In addition, the Government's White Paper on strategic export controls, Cm 3989, contains a proposal to make it an offence to publish controlled technology relevant to the development of weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Beard: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the pages on the internet that advertise, for example, lock-picking tools that are described as "deluxe" and "the standard choice of the industry"—it does not say what industry that might be. Even more sinister are the pipe-bomb-making instructions, which carry the thoughtful caution, "Pipe bombs are killing devices", and the helpful advice, "For more bombs, click here". The intellectual market is also catered for with the "Improvised Munitions Handbook" and the "Anarchist Handbook", which provide advice on making small arms, mortars and incendiary devices and the explosives that go with them. Does the Minister agree that the greatest danger lies not in importing the American gun culture to this country, but in allowing a few criminal and crazed individuals to access such material and know-how, which leads to tragic consequences, which we witnessed recently in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and comments. There is no one in the House who is not filled with horror, revulsion and continuing concern about recent events, some of which we can make no further comment on because they are now part of the court process—I want to say nothing that would interfere with that. We are concerned also about the incident that took place in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    We are taking action and will continue to do so. We need international co-operation on enforcement in different jurisdictions. Businesses and consumers need tools to protect themselves, such as the ability to filter material for harmful content and the ability to ensure that children and young people are not able to skim the net and get information that they can use inappropriately. The users and sellers of internet and hardware products could assist in that process. Service providers should and must uphold the law on-line. However, we shall keep the options open, while remaining mindful of the potential need for future regulation. I shall report to my right hon.
    1082
    Friend the Home Secretary the comments made today about issues that hon. Members would like the Government to review.
    It makes sense to have laws controlling the misuse of information. For example, it is an offence to make or possess explosives under suspicious circumstances, and that is appropriate. Internationally, we need to do much more and to try to co-operate on what is a difficult matter, given the different jurisdictions.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment he has made of the effect on the UK economy of the implementation of the national minimum wage and the working time directive. [82371]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The national minimum wage will ensure fair competition on the basis of quality of goods and services provided and not low pay. It will help to promote work incentives, encourage firms to invest in training and improve the morale and commitment of workers, bringing about reduced levels of staff turnover and absenteeism. Productivity will improve and employers, workers and the economy as a whole will benefit.
    Our assessment of the costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of the working time directive are contained in the regulatory impact assessment relating to the directive, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.
    Adjusted data from official statistics, which will be available in October, will give some idea of the extent of the shift in workers' earnings resulting from those new legal protections.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Dispatch Box. It is good to see him in such fine fettle. Does he agree that, although the minimum wage has been operating for only a short time, its competitiveness has been well established during that time? Does he agree also that, taken alongside the working time directive, trade union recognition and other measures taken by the Government, the minimum wage has vastly improved not only the lot of the British worker, but the economy?
    Will my right hon. Friend compare and contrast that with the policy of the Conservative party, which not only opposed those measures but, in government, viewed the way forward as a low-wage, low-cost, low-productivity, sweatshop economy? Does he agree that the national minimum wage and the working time directive are not over-regulation, but better regulation-better for the economy and better for the workers?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on several counts. Nine out of 10 companies in the United Kingdom support the concept and principle of the minimum wage because of the business case for it. Four out of 10 companies complied in advance of 1 April. In all the inquiries so far, only 50 companies that have had complaints made about them have refused to implement the minimum wage and, in those instances, our inquiry

    1083
    teams are following procedures to ensure that the workers in those companies get justice and receive the minimum wage.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the only people in Britain who still oppose the minimum wage are the party of Scrooges on the Conservative Benches and the handful of isolated employers who refuse to implement the minimum wage. Since 1 April, 2 million workers in Britain have received the minimum wage, including more than 180,000 in Scotland and 100,000 in Wales. It has been a tremendous success and the Conservatives are the only people who are still avoiding the question. At the next election, will they say that they will cut the minimum wage?
    Mr. John Redwood: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome back the Minister. We are all delighted that he has made a good recovery and we have missed his own special brand of invective in our recent exchanges.
    The Minister believes that the minimum wage must be seen to be fair and bear a fair relationship to what others can earn. Mr. Gavyn Davies, and his loadsamoney, has obviously made it much more difficult for the Minister to set out the case. As one of the leaders of the anti-fat cats campaign when the Conservatives were in government, will the Minister take action to detach Mr. Davies from some of his loadsamoney, or has the Minister come round to our view that it is quite wrong to interfere in money that people come by legally in a private marketplace? If he has changed his view and agrees with us, where does that leave him in presenting Labour's brand of different policy and fairness?
    Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. We introduced the fat-cat tax—the windfall tax—which he opposed. That tax got 250,000 young people and long-term unemployed people back to work. We have halved youth unemployment and long-term unemployment. It was he and his party who were the supporters of fat cats, and this Government who introduced social justice. He still has not answered the question of why his party is committed at the next election to opposing the continuation of the minimum wage, when that would impose a wage cut on 2 million British workers.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister just answer? Does he approve of Mr. Davies's remuneration or will he do something about Labour fat cats?
    Mr. McCartney: Fortunately for Mr. Davies, he does not qualify for the national minimum wage—but 2 million British workers do. The right hon. Gentleman still opposes that minimum wage. He is the Scrooge, not this Labour Government.

    Science Parks
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will review ways to stimulate the creation of new companies in science parks around universities with the participation of university staff. [82373]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government are aware of the important role that incubators and science parks can play in nurturing new companies, and have supported the setting up of UK Business Incubation as a centre to promote best practice among those nurturing young companies.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I understand that Cambridge university attributes the flowering of science companies partly to the university's policy of allowing staff to use research from the university to start companies. I know that not all universities follow that practice. Given the importance of the generation of new technology companies, does the Minister think that Government recommendations on how universities might best promote such activity would be suitable, bearing in mind universities' independence?
    Mr. Battle:: As well as making recommendations, we are developing policies on moving the excellent research and engineering base into the productive economy. There are some 50 science parks across the country, including Cambridge, Aston, Teesside and Warwick. We want a synapse between universities, commerce and business so that new products and processes are created, resulting in new jobs. There are two relevant policies. Some £60 million seed capital funding from the university challenge fund is matched by money from universities to enable them to turn research into good business. The £25 million behind the science enterprise challenge will encourage eight centres to develop entrepreneurship alongside the excellent science developed at universities.
    Mr. John Randall: I am sure that the Minister recognises the achievements of Brunel science park at Brunel university in my constituency. I am sure that he also recognises that, when companies that have been nurtured in science parks outgrow the parks, they find it difficult to locate on suitable sites nearby and very often must relocate, causing local job losses. Can his Department suggest any measures that might alleviate that problem?
    Mr. Battle: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. Indeed, I have visited Brunel. In answering, I shall simply recall an anecdote. A person in my constituency who developed a valve wanted to set up a business and asked for assistance. From working in a bedsit, he was offered 20,000 sq ft of flatted factory floor 20 miles away. People need small and appropriate assistance. We must combine assistance to universities with support through business links. That one-stop shop will support fledgling businesses, so that they are enhanced and thrive and develop to provide new jobs.

    Energy Prices
    Ms Joan Ryan: What assessment he has made of the effect of current energy prices on the least affluent sections of society. [82376]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Tackling fuel poverty is a key priority of the Government. Although energy markets are being opened up, we are keen to ensure that the highest price is not paid

    1085
    by the poorest. With the new tariff structures, we are taking measures to ensure that the fuel-poor are not priced out.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. While I fully accept our environmental obligations, I urge my hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that, in meeting those commitments, we do not hit hardest those least able to pay. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Labour's proposals are about a revenue-neutral energy tax levied on polluting businesses and are not, as was the case with the previous Government, about increasing VAT on domestic fuel and deliberately hitting hardest those on the lowest incomes?
    Mr. Battle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The lowering of prices should be coupled with the reduction of VAT to 5 per cent. We said that we would do that and many people have benefited from it. It is fair to say that there has been a reduction of some 10 per cent. in the price of gas and electricity, but it has not been spread evenly among all consumers. Those on direct debits benefit more. We have told the regulator to look at a social action plan to examine tariff structures to ensure that the poorest do not pay the most. The market will work when all benefit, not just the better-off.
    On the environmental question, it is important to ensure that we blend the reduction in prices with proper energy efficiency, including in people's homes, so that the energy that they buy does not go out through the gaps between the doors and windows. We are taking appropriate measures to insulate homes and make them energy efficient. We are doing that under other schemes, supported by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Parental and Family Leave
    Ms Harriet Harman: If he will make a statement on parental and family leave. [82377]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): We are committed to bringing about a more family-friendly culture in the workplace and the Government will be launching a promotional campaign to help achieve that. The Employment Relations Bill provides for rights to parental leave and time off to deal with domestic incidents. We will be consulting on the detail in the next couple of months, and will take account of the views that we receive before finalising the arrangements.
    Ms Harman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Is he aware of the evidence from the United States Family Leave Commission which shows that low-income workers who need time off when their children are sick either do not take that leave because they cannot afford it or, take it, borrow money and get into debt? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see whether there is some way that we can use the working families tax credit and extend it when people lose their pay on parental leave to ensure that low-income families do not lose out when taking advantage of those important new rights?
    Mr. McCartney: The most important thing is to bed down the new culture as soon as possible, getting involvement and agreement from employers and employer organisations about the best way forward. The directive gives us that opportunity. For example, more than 2 million employees will benefit from taking time off for domestic incidents, 85,000 women will benefit each year from the maternity changes and over 61,500 employees will benefit from the parental leave changes. The Government are building up a process of involving industry in best practice, underpinned by a regulatory framework to ensure that no worker is given the sack or has any other action taken against him by his employer him when seeking to take advantage of the new rights. The Government believe that the balance is right, and so do employers. In the consultations, nine out of 10 employers supported what we are doing, and there was overwhelming support from trade unions.

    Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurs
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What plans he has to increase the number of entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities. [82378]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Ethnic minority business make an important contribution to the economy and the Government recognise that. The Department of Trade and Industry is working to reduce the barriers faced by people from all sections of the community in starting and growing successful businesses. The Department has recently joined Business in the Community's race for opportunity campaign, and one of our aims in joining this campaign will be to target support for ethnic minority-owned businesses more effectively. I also expect the Small Business Service to take account of the special needs of minority-owned businesses.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating the dynamic contribution made, particularly by Asian entrepreneurs, to British business in general and to my constituency in particular? Will he ensure that policies such as those that he outlined will continue to facilitate the growth of entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities? Asian entrepreneurs in my constituency were severely clobbered by the woeful economic mismanagement of the Tories and will never again support their lunatic, wide-eyed policies.
    Mr. Wills: I recognise the force of the last point, particularly, and am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the success of entrepreneurs in his own constituency. I look forward to meeting them when I visit Harrow this summer. I am happy to give him the assurances that he seeks.

    European Structural Funds
    Mr. John Greenway: What account he proposes to take of the needs of upland and coastal areas in North Yorkshire in allocating objective 2 status for EU funding. [82379]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): The Government are consulting interested parties on the designation of eligible UK areas under objective 2. All areas will be considered equally for inclusion, on the basis of need.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank the Minister for that reply—and you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to ask the question. Does the Minister agree that low per head GDP, low population density and low average earnings, and heavy reliance on seasonal part-time and casual employment—especially in the livestock, farming, fishing, tourism, and food processing industries—should
    1088
    be the essential criteria in deciding the rural strand of EU funding under objective 2? Although I realise that the Minister will not be able to give me an answer today, does he accept that, on those criteria, a formidable case can be made for retaining North Yorkshire's upland and coastal areas within the ambit of EU objective 2 funding, and that, without that funding, the economies of Ryedale and Scarborough will seriously struggle?
    Mr. Wills: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his views, with all other views, will be taken carefully into consideration in the consultation period, which ends on 25 May.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MAY—Second Reading of the Northern
Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MAY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Labour's Pensions Failure", followed by a debate on implications of Scottish and Welsh devolution for the Westminster Parliament. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day].
Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate on effective parliamentary democracy, followed by a debate entitled "American Food Imperialism and European Trade Policy". Both motions will arise in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
TUESDAY 18 MAY—There will be a debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. It will be the pre-Cologne Council debate.
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY—Until 12.30 pm, there will be a debate on the third report from the Health Committee on the welfare of former British child migrants, followed by a debate on the fifth report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on regional Eurostar services, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 20 MAY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 May there will be a debate on assistance to new independent states and Mongolia in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 19 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 5263/99, Assistance to NIS and Mongolia; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-xi, HC 34-xiii (1998-99).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business, and for an indication of business for the following week.
1090
I welcome the response to my regular requests for a debate on the House of Lords, and have pencilled in the one for the week after next. I also welcome the proposed debate on Europe, which will give the House an opportunity to debate the problems facing the Commission.
On Kosovo, there has been much political and military activity since a statement was last made to the House, on 26 April. Last week, the Leader of the House responded sympathetically to my suggestion that there should be regular opportunities for the House to ask questions and be kept informed. May we have a statement early next week, possibly on Monday, after the talks among members of the G8, and may we have another full day's debate on Kosovo before the Whitsun recess?
What arrangements does the right hon. Lady propose for debates on public expenditure and the economy? Since the abolition of the unified Budget two years ago, the House has not been told how it will perform its key role of holding the Government to account on matters relating to finance. May we have an early announcement on that?
In view of recent speculation, will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether we might expect a statement soon on the much-delayed freedom of information Bill? Finally, what has happened to the leak inquiry into the Macpherson report? The leak happened two and a half months ago, and there are a limited number of suspects. Might we have a statement on the outcome of the inquiry next week?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that we have found time for a debate on the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords. He is right to say that the pre-Cologne Council debate will allow hon. Members an opportunity to raise a number of matters, including the affairs of the European Commission.
We are giving full consideration to how we can fulfil our responsibility to keep the House informed about Kosovo—a responsibility that we have faithfully carried out so far. I expect that the right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions are taking place on that. I take on board his request for a statement, perhaps early next week, and for another full-day debate before Whitsun. We shall give that request favourable consideration.
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's request for an early announcement on arrangements for public expenditure and economic debates. We are pursuing that, and I shall report to the House as soon as I can. I also hope to be able to report soon on the freedom of information Bill.
I confess that I have not been following the timing of the Macpherson report leak inquiry.
Mr. Eric Forth: You should be.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an inquiry into anything that the Government have done; it is an inquiry into what went wrong in the Macpherson commission. The commission has readily acknowledged that the Government were not at fault. We shall give the House information when we can.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Has my right hon. Friend seen the written answer that I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday? He said:

1091
"I have had no discussions on the use of depleted uranium with my NATO counterparts. The United Kingdom has not used DU ammunition in the Balkans. It is a matter for the individual nations as to what ammunition they employ."—[Official Report, 5 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 383.]
Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House accept that a cynic outside the House might well interpret that answer as meaning that such ammunition has been employed? Will she ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House to explain why, in a war conducted by NATO in which we are led to believe that senior politicians such as him are regularly involved in discussing strategy, we cannot be told whether NATO nations are employing such weapons?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I have not seen the answer to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand the concern that he has expressed. Like him, I have seen several press reports, all of which have seemed highly speculative—"It is possible"; "It might be"; and, "If so would it not be the case?" It is hypothesis piled on hypothesis. He is undoubtedly right to say that some people will assume that something is being hidden. However, those reports may well be no more than speculation. As I have already said, we intend to keep the House informed. That may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to raise the issue.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, particularly for notice of the timely debate on the European Union. Will she find time for a debate on incorporating first-aid training into the national curriculum? The case is well set out in early-day motion 596, which has attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House regrets that thousands of lives have been needlessly lost because the public has not been given lifesaving and first aid training; welcomes the work of the St John Ambulance, who celebrate their 900th Anniversary this year, and other charities in providing such training in school; acknowledges the millions of pounds of savings available to the NHS if more people were empowered to take lifesaving action; and calls upon the Government to incorporate first aid training into the National Curriculum.]
Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would enable the House to acknowledge the work done by the St. John Ambulance and other uniformed organisations in first-aid training and would help us to empower more of our citizens to give life-saving support as we saw many Londoners so bravely do after the appalling recent bombings in the capital?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the importance of debates on the European Union. Secondly, we all share his admiration for the work of the St. John Ambulance. I entirely take his point that the aid and assistance that people in London were able to give those who were injured by the recent bombs were improved by training. The Government are examining ways to introduce such training in schools, and members of the St. John Ambulance are about to offer such training to Members of Parliament—a truly courageous act. The
1092
hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should be included in the national curriculum takes the matter further, but the Government are considering how to improve such training.
Mr. Tony Colman: On behalf of the whole House, may I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the excellent address you gave us yesterday morning in a very moving ceremony in the Queen's Gallery to celebrate the tremendous achievements of the Council of Europe on its 50th anniversary? Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider a further debate to celebrate the achievements of the Council of Europe? 1 realise that debates on Europe repeatedly expose divisions in the Conservative party on the subject, but, despite that, I feel that the House should have a full debate on those tremendous achievements in the very near future.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for his acknowledgement of the importance and value of Madam Speaker's address. Having heard her speak on a number of occasions, I know that she always does the House credit—although whether we always do her credit is quite another matter. As for a further debate on the Council of Europe, although I am attracted by my hon. Friend's suggestion that it would expose divisions within the Conservative party, I feel that Conservative Members need no help from us in that respect, and I cannot find time for an extra debate on Europe.
Sir Peter Emery: Having heard Labour Members congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your speech yesterday, let me acknowledge on behalf of the Opposition that yours received more applause than the other three speeches and it was much to your credit.
I have a question on Kosovo for the Leader of the House. Does she realise that statements by Ministers do not in themselves provide an adequate opportunity for debate? An illustration of that was the statement by the Home Secretary yesterday, when, although a number of hon. Members asked questions, others were still waiting to participate when time was called. Does she realise that Kosovo has three aspects: the military factor, the negotiations and foreign affairs issues, and the massive problem of refugees? Can she find perhaps half a day of Government time to discuss the problem of refugees—how they will be dealt with and what assistance they will receive—sometime in the immediate future?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that statements are not enough and that there must also be debate—indeed, that is why the Government have repeatedly found time for both and will continue to do so. I take his point that there are several aspects to the matter and that debates may focus on one aspect rather than another. However, I would prefer to leave that in the hands of the House. When we can, we provide Government time for debate, and it is a matter for the House whether it wishes to focus on one aspect rather than another; otherwise, we should be in danger of fettering the concerns of hon. Members.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following the point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, albeit that in parliamentary terms we both

1093
might be out of Jurassic park, what does my right hon. Friend think that people such as Judith Hart, for whom she once worked, Jack Mendelson and Michael Foot, whose parliamentary activities kept us out of the Vietnam war, would have thought of a Leader of the House who said that we have statements to keep Parliament informed? In the old days, it was a much wider matter than keeping Parliament informed; there had to be parliamentary debates on substantive motions so that Members of Parliament could reach decisions by vote. I do not doubt that the Government would get a huge parliamentary majority, and that the dissenters among us may be few. However, given what is happening in the House of Representatives, the Folketing and the Bundestag; given the grave doubts of the Italians, with Mr. Rugova coming to talk to the Italian Prime Minister; given the dissatisfaction of the Greeks; and given the enormous environmental problems, with toxins spewing forth from chemical factories throughout Europe, is it sufficient for the House of Commons to agree to be kept informed? Is it not high time that the House registered an opinion? This is a parliamentary matter, not a party matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend entirely followed what I said to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is the ex-Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Dalyell: Forgive me.
Mrs. Beckett: It is the right hon. Gentleman's successor, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who needs placating.
I said to the right hon. Member for East Devon that the Government would continue to find time for statements and debates. As for what some of our distinguished predecessors—including my great and very dear friend Judith Hart—would have thought of these proceedings, they all, as great parliamentarians in their day, would have anticipated that the Leader of the House would look into the precedents with regard to the handling of discussion in the House during a campaign—namely, the provision of statements and time for debates. I have done that. I have looked into precedents from the second world war, the Falklands war and the Gulf war.
Our predecessors would also have expected the Leader of the House to look at the precedents with regard to how Parliament comes to decisions on these matters. I greatly respect the strong views of my hon. Friend, who strayed at the end of his question into whether Parliament should make a decision on a substantive motion. I tell him again that there is no precedent for that whatever.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Home Secretary has today pronounced on the matter of Mr. Fayed's citizenship. She may recall that, on the previous occasion when this matter was considered by the former Home Secretary, the present Home Secretary—in his previous Opposition incarnation—made a fuss about the need for transparency, for statements and for details to be given. Does the Leader of the House share my surprise that, apparently, no such details have been provided as yet? Will she therefore provide time as a matter of urgency for
1094
the Home Secretary to come to the House to give us in great detail the reasons for the decision that he has made today?
Mrs. Beckett: The mistake that the right hon. Gentleman makes is in drawing a parallel between someone not knowing the reasons why their application has been refused and someone knowing the reasons. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced the refusal, and has made plain his reasons, in full, to Mr. Al Fayed in a letter to his solicitors. However, my right hon. Friend believes that it is for Mr. Al Fayed to decide whether he publishes those reasons. Mr. Al Fayed now knows where he stands, whereas he did not before.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on British identity and British nationality, so that we can make it clear to the wilder forms of nationalist extremism in Scotland and Wales, and to the growing English nationalist sentiment in the Conservative party, that my constituents—many of whom came to this country as refugees in the 1930s from Austria and Germany, with others coming from Somalia and fleeing from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq—feel proud to be British? In such a debate, we could make it clear that Britain includes people of all religions, all cultures and all nationalities. We are proud of that, and we will not tolerate the wilder forms of separatism and nationalism that are being pedalled in Scotland, in particular.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that one of the honourable things about the history of this great country is that it contains people of a rich variety of shades, cultures, opinions and religions, and has always done so. That is something that we celebrate, rightly. I am confident that many will consider it unutterably complacent to say so, but I fear that I share the view of a journalist who wrote recently that the other characteristic of the British identity is that one does not need to get excited about it, because it is a matter of feeling secure in that identity.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill has a financial measure attached to it, because relatives have already been seeking compensation for the cost of burying their dead.
Can we have a statement from the Chancellor or from someone else on a growing problem in Northern Ireland? One person is estimated to have an income of £2 million from smuggling, and some people are making £40,000 to £50,000 a week. Is it not time that we had more customs officials employed to deal with the haemorrhaging of money that should go to the Treasury?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. As I understand it, resources for customs have been increased as a result of the comprehensive spending review. I have little doubt that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chancellor will keep the matter under review, because we are keen to have effective enforcement of law and order.
Mr. John Cryer: I have asked my right hon. Friend before for a second debate on the Jenkins

1095
report on electoral reform. My request is given greater urgency by the emergence of a shadowy organisation called Make Votes Count. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 592?
[That this House notes recent articles in the Tribune newspaper regarding the decision by the Make Votes Count campaign to appoint lobbyists Lawson Lucas Medelson to run its public relations; is alarmed that LLM is not a member of the Association of Professional Political Consultants and is therefore not bound by its ethical code; and condemns LLM's threat of legal action against the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union as an attempt to suppress debate on electoral reform.]
As far as I can gather, LLM is attempting to use legal action to suppress the debate. That demonstrates that the debate on electoral reform has moved to a more vicious and sectarian stage, at least on the part of the Jenkins supporters.
We need a second debate because 50 Labour Members were unable to speak in the first debate. I suspect that the vast majority of them wanted to make it clear that they would have nothing to do with the bucket of pigs' entrails that is the Jenkins report.
Mrs. Beckett: I note my hon. Friend's somewhat colourful language. I have heard of the campaign, but I am not aware of the legal action to which he refers. I can certainly assure him that it receives no financial support from the Government and is unlikely to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House will be aware that the second runway at Manchester airport is in an advanced state of construction. She will also know, as it is a matter of importance to the United Kingdom as a whole, as well as Manchester in particular, that the Commonwealth games are to take place in and around that city in 2002. People right across the party political spectrum—local authorities, business, Manchester airport itself and others—are deeply concerned that the infrastructure to serve both the airport and the games is inadequate.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to make a statement as soon as possible about the need for roads to the south and south-east of Manchester, in north Cheshire, and especially the Manchester airport eastern link road, the Macclesfield-Poynton road improvement and the Poynton bypass, which are essential if we are to serve those tens of thousands of people who will be attracted to both the airport and the games? That is critical. It is vital that the multimodal study be concluded.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, although in many ways the Manchester area has very good infrastructure compared with other parts of the country. I accept that there may be deficiencies that are causing concern. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but I remind him that Environment, Transport and the Regions questions are on Tuesday 11 May, and he might find an opportunity to work the subject in there.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend announce a debate on the
1096
House of Lords. Does she agree that part of that debate should focus on the disgraceful decision by the other place to overturn key sections of our working families tax credit proposals? Is that not proof, if more proof were necessary, that the hereditary peers are completely out of touch with modern realities, especially concerning the child care needs of working families, and that sensible reform, long blocked by the Conservative party, is long overdue?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that sensible reforms such as the working families tax credit are long overdue. It is part of the Government's multi-pronged approach to relieving the worst of the poverty for families in work which grew under the Conservative Government. Like my hon. Friend, I was astonished to learn that that was a matter in which the House of Lords thought fit to meddle. It is indeed a further example of the fact that that Chamber is now somewhat out of touch with modern realities and the modern world, and it shows that yet again it is acting on behalf of the few, rather than the many.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Although the coincidence of timing between the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs' visit to the United States and the Northern Ireland legislation next week, which I raised with the Leader of the House last week, has had some of the unfortunate consequences that I foresaw, I would still like to express my appreciation for the efforts that she made to find out whether anything could be changed.
I shall also ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and say that one of the arguments in favour of a debate on smuggling across the Irish border is connected with a speech made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in Committee on the Finance Bill earlier this week. The hon. Lady said that the issue of a buffer zone such as that between Germany and Holland, which had been raised in the debate, was a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. However, Customs and Excise, for which she herself answers in the House, put that idea in a memorandum to the Select Committee. Is there not a sense in which the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office both seek to avoid their particular responsibilities for dealing with that increasingly urgent question?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I regret that that unfortunate clash has arisen. Nevertheless I hope that between us, with some good will, we can resolve it without too much difficulty.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the concern expressed both by him and by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) about smuggling across the Irish border. The Government have provided resources for a substantial number of extra customs officers, so in that sense the Government are not ignoring the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Treasury answers for Customs and Excise in the House, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of Treasury Ministers, because it is important that we have the right liaison. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all Departments are concerned about such matters.
Sir Sydney Chapman: As Members are being elected to the Scottish Parliament today, does

1097
the right hon. Lady agree that the so-called West Lothian question now assumes immediate urgency? Will she join me in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, for taking the initiative and arranging for the matter to be debated during the Opposition day debate on Welsh and Scottish devolution next Tuesday? Because of the vital importance of the issue within the United Kingdom constitution, will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to intervene in the debate and let us know exactly where the Government stand on this burning question?
Mrs. Beckett: Personally, I share the view expressed either by Sir Malcolm Rifkind or by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, or possibly by both, that the West Lothian question did not need to be answered but could readily be put on one side; devolution could continue without it. Both men were in key positions in the Conservative party when they said such things—but of course that was longer ago than last week.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an early discussion to settle the matter with speed. I remind him that the hon. Member for Macclesfield, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, is now carrying out an inquiry into precisely how devolution may affect this House. With respect, I must tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that no one who sensibly wants the House to develop effectively and efficiently wants to rush to judgment on such matters.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House agree to make time for an early debate on another European matter—the revision and amendment of the sixth VAT directive, which is now before the Council of Ministers? The amendment would, for the first time, allow church repairs to be exempt from VAT. I am sure that the whole House will support my campaign to allow that to happen, but the Paymaster General seems reluctant to apply for the exemption. It would apply to all labour-intensive industries, and would end the anomaly between the building of new churches, which is exempt from VAT, and the repair of existing churches, which is subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent. Can we make time for an early debate, before the matter is decided in the Council of Ministers?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Lady's concerns, and I am well aware that hon. Members seek
1098
to relieve all sorts of worthy causes from the imposition of VAT. Experience suggests that the boundaries are complicated and subject to much discussion. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my Treasury colleagues, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have an early debate in Government time on the problems of small businesses? Given that businesses with fewer than 100 employees constitute 99.6 per cent. of British enterprises, employ 50 per cent. of the private sector work force and produce two fifths of national output, but that there has been a massive rise of 32 per cent. in small business bankruptcies compared with the same period last year, such a debate would give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a chance to expand on his recent statement that
"we as a Government have not got regulation right".—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 555.]
He could explain to the House and the country how and when he intends to reverse the damaging increase in regulation that his Government have spawned, and how they will create a climate in which the seedcorn of this country's prosperity can survive and flourish.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the importance of small and medium-sized businesses and have long been so. We are all mindful of the importance of trying to reduce the burden of regulation, whether on small or other businesses, but I accept that it impinges especially on small businesses. I was a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman mentioned bankruptcies. Whatever recent difficulties have arisen, there is no doubt that bankruptcy levels under this Government pale into insignificance beside the record of the Conservative Government whom he supported. We strongly believe that it is important to try to get the burden of regulation lifted as much as possible and, indeed, we hope to reverse the Conservatives' record of talking about reducing the burden of regulation but actually increasing it out of sight.
On the Government's general record, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was only recently that small business commentators were moved to say when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) left the Department of Trade and Industry that she was the best Small Business Minister there had been for years.

London's Health Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
1.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I cannot possibly start this debate on the modernisation of London's health services other than by paying tribute to the emergency services, and in particular the staff working for the NHS in London, for their swift, effective and highly professional response to the bomb outrages in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho. The staff involved all did an amazingly good job. Like the victims, the staff who tended to them were black, white, Asian, men and women, straight and gay, all united in that singular humanitarian ethic that towers above all others—the commitment to help our fellow humans when they are in desperate need.
In Brixton, 15 ambulances and three motor cycle paramedics went to the scene. The first ambulance was on the scene in eight minutes. By the time it arrived at King's College hospital with the first of the wounded, emergency plans had already swung into action. Staff already on duty had made all the necessary preparations. Other staff had been called back in. Yet others had rushed in of their own volition just in case they could help. The same was happening at St. George's hospital and at St. Thomas's hospital.
After the Brick lane explosion, five ambulances were dispatched to the scene. The first arrived within seven minutes, and was followed by emergency teams from University College hospital, helicopter emergency services, and the immediate care doctors. The Royal London hospital and other nearby hospitals were fully prepared to receive the victims. All displayed the same state of readiness and commitment that were evident in south London the week before.
Last Friday, 21 ambulances were dispatched to the scene in Soho. The first arrived in four minutes. Emergency teams from UCH were there shortly after, and once again the nearest hospitals—University College, St. Thomas's, Guy's, the Royal London and St. Mary's—all responded just as the others had in east London a week before and in south London two weeks before. All performed magnificently. The UCH Middlesex hospital did so despite operating with emergency services in Gower street and some in-patient services at the Middlesex site following the closure of the main UCH building in 1993.
This brilliant performance by London's NHS was partly because of the commitment and skill of the staff concerned and partly because of the painstaking contingency planning involving clinical and non-clinical staff, and management. One young nurse whom I met at the UCH accident and emergency department last Saturday evening explained to me that it was the first major incident she had been involved in. She had expected it to be chaotic, but it was not. She said everybody knew what they were supposed to be doing and got on with it.
I had gone there 24 hours after the bomb, partly in my role as the local Member or Parliament, to thank her and her colleagues. Some of the staff had not really had a rest since the night before, but when I met them they were involved in four main tasks. Some were still looking after
1100
badly injured bomb victims. Others were dealing with the "run-of-the-mill" patients turning up or being brought into their busy accident and emergency department that Saturday evening. All were considering what lessons could be learned, so they could do even better when the next major incident occurred, whether as a result of accident or terrorism. One senior member of the nursing was laboriously sorting out all the special kits that they use for major incidents, replenishing stocks of dressings and drugs, so that they would be ready if there was another major incident that night.
Far too often, all that is taken for granted, as if such a highly organised response to disasters was natural and spontaneous—something that just happens. But it does not just happen: it depends on professionalism and commitment, planning and accumulated experience.
That organised response is delivered by a public service, by people who do not just talk of the public service ethic, but who live by it. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the charter mark awards ceremony last year,
"This government values public service; this government is proud of its public servants. What made you choose this career is what made me go into politics—a chance to serve, to make a difference. It is not just a job. It is a vocation. Britain relies on that ethos of public service, and we need to rekindle it if we are to deliver improved public services."
The NHS staff who looked after people after the bombs in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho look a bit embarrassed when one praises them to their faces. They say that they were only doing their jobs. They chose to work in the NHS because of the people they are. They are not motivated by share options or by windfalls from stock market flotations. They do it because they work for the national health service, which is committed to trying to provide the best health services for everybody—the best for all, on the basis of quality and equality, and that is what they deliver.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, not least because the Middlesex hospital is on the border that separates my constituency and his, and because some of my constituents were among the patients treated. I should like to add my commendation and tribute to those volunteers from hospitals that were not in the front line who spontaneously came in to see whether they could help.
Mr. Dobson: I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman—my good neighbour—in paying tribute to those from other parts of the health service who came forward to volunteer their help. The right hon. Gentleman accompanied my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a visit to the UCH Middlesex hospital, which I know was much appreciated.
The NHS in London provides health care for 7 million people who live in London, 1 million who come to work in London and 25 million tourists and other visitors. The service has a hard task. Up to now, that task has not been made any easier by the rundown state of many hospital and other NHS buildings, by disproportionate cuts in beds in London, by the unreliable nature of much vital plant and equipment and by the absence of a Londonwide NHS organisation charged with planning and delivering

1101
London's health and health care as a whole. We need to modernise London's health service, and that is what we are doing.
The population served by the NHS in London is very mixed. Some people and some neighbourhoods are prosperous and healthy. Others are quite the reverse. In some parts of London, unemployment, low pay, poor housing, crime and disorder, and environmental pollution combine to undermine the living standards and health of hundreds of thousands of local people. The Government's policies are intended to reduce gross inequalities in health, partly by improving health care in the most deprived areas and partly by making those areas and the people who live in them less deprived in the first place.
At the general election, we promised Londoners action on both aspects. We are keeping those promises. Within seven weeks of taking office, I set up the Turnberg review to provide an independent report on what the NHS in London needed. Within seven months, I was able to publish the Turnberg report and announce that the Government had accepted every one of its recommendations. They covered primary care; community health services; mental health services; general, specialist and teaching hospitals; emergency services; and teaching, research and development. All of them aim to improve the treatment and care of patients.
We have got on with making the improvements that are needed. Work is under way on building schemes worth more than £400 million, including new hospitals in Bromley and Greenwich and additional modern hospital buildings at Guy's and St. Thomas's, Central Middlesex, Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's, Barnet and Homerton hospitals. National priority has been given for a further £350 million to be invested in a modern new hospital at UCH, and major modern developments at King's College, St. George's and West Middlesex University hospitals.
Subject to national prioritisation, further investment of more than £500 million is planned, including new hospitals at Oldchurch and the Royal London, and substantial modernisation at Bart's, St. Mary's at Paddington basin, Queen Mary's at Roehampton, Newham and Whittington. All over London, smaller modernisation schemes have been completed, are under way or will be under way shortly. More than £300 million will be invested in these smaller-scale improvements and modernisations over the next three years. More than £100 million is planned for this year.
London is a major centre of medical research, and we intend to keep it that way because it is good for Britain's reputation as a world leader in medical science and also good for patients. An excellent example of the role of research and development in improving health care delivery is the improvement in mortality of children with meningococcal septicaemia over the past five years in the children's intensive care unit at St. Mary's hospital, Paddington. By centralising critically ill children from the south of England in a single unit that can undertake research into the disease and assess new forms of treatment, greatly improved mortality has been achieved. St. Mary's has 5 per cent. mortality for children suffering the sudden shock associated with meningitis, the lowest rate reported anywhere in the world. That is an important example of the benefits of combining research and service on relatively rare diseases.
1102
The Turnberg report recommended that we review specialist services in west London, and we have made progress. A west London partnership forum chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, a former Tory Cabinet Minister, was established last summer to advance that work.
We want local people to receive accessible top quality treatment and care. We also want Imperial College medical school and its NHS partners in west London—especially the Royal Brompton, Harefield, Hammersmith, St. Mary's, Chelsea and Westminster, and Charing Cross hospitals—to maintain and enhance their national and international reputations in medical education, medical research and the development of new, improved, science-based treatment and care.
The leading clinicians in the area have been involved in formulating this new approach. I welcome this imaginative and long-term approach to the problems and opportunities of the area and look forward to receiving further details in due course.
We will not allow the development of these long-term plans to interfere with immediate developments in both services and research in west London. As I have personally told Sir Magdi Yacoub, there will be no planning blight. I am therefore pleased to announce that, over the next three years, we will be investing up to £2 million of NHS resources in a new heart sciences research centre at Harefield hospital. We hope shortly to approve similar investment in a new patient services centre at Harefield and in the Fulham wing at the Brompton hospital.
Work is continuing on the plans to build a new hospital at the Royal London in Whitechapel and transform Bart's into a major specialist cardiac and cancer centre. The distribution of cardiac services between the two sites has been sorted out with the help of Sir Terence English, and I hope to be able to announce the same about cancer services fairly shortly.
In the meantime, children's services have been successfully transferred from Queen Elizabeth's Hackney to the Royal London site, and the centre was opened on 28 October 1998 by Her Majesty the Queen. That was a big boost for the Royal London and demonstrated the commitment of both staff and management, who maintained a top-quality children's service while first meticulously planning the move and then doing the actual moving.
In the meantime, work to complete the Homerton hospital is well under way. The new A and E unit opened last December, the new children's and out-patients' departments will open next month and the work will be completed in May next year. Plans for extra modern acute services at Newham general have been approved.
The east end has also benefited from the extra £9.6 million which went with being designated a health action zone which is concentrating on children, young people and mental health. One programme covers refugees in the area, many of whom are suffering from post-traumatic stress. Other deprived areas in London designated as health action zones are Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, Camden and Islington, and Brent. All are helping reduce health inequalities by targeting special help on the most deprived groups in the most deprived areas.

1103
Since the publication of the Turnberg report, which emphasised the need to improve primary care, altogether 73 new or improved GP premises have been opened in London in the past year, and many more are to come. As a result, the proportion of substandard primary care premises in London has fallen from nearly one half to less than one third.
As in the rest of the country, primary care groups have been established in every part of London. The 66 PCGs bring together for the first time local GPs, nurses, people from social services and lay members—all working to improve the standard of primary care, commission improved services from local hospitals and identify and tackle local causes of ill health—all this in place of the previous Government's divisive internal market, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital.
It will take time before all the benefits of this approach begin to work through, but let me give the House a few examples of how London PCGs are improving treatment and care for their patients.
The Harrow PCG is extending physiotherapy and dietetics services across the PCG, and developing and extending a community leg ulcer clinic which has transformed the treatment of leg ulcers in the area. The Bexley PCG is maintaining and extending physiotherapy, dermatology and chiropody services, and extending rheumatology outreach clinics PCG-wide. The Newham PCG is retaining and extending counselling, dietetics and physiotherapy across all the practices in its area.
Their work will tie in with the health improvement programmes which every health authority now has to draw up to identify and tackle the health and health care needs of their area. It is a modern, across-the-board approach which, again, is possible only because, under the new Government, all parts of the NHS are working together in place of the obligation to compete placed on them by the previous Government.
As recommended by Turnberg, we have increased investment in mental health services and improved co-ordination between the NHS, councils and voluntary agencies, not only in London but throughout the whole country. Last December, I announced a £700 million strategy to deliver safe and modern mental health services. That money is being invested in providing enhanced rapid response teams, more 24-hour staffed beds and more continuing care in the community. In London this year, health and social services will receive about £37 million extra for mental health services.
As recommended by Turnberg, work has begun on developing a Londonwide mental health strategy, drawing on the opportunities provided by new information technology. Part of that has been called by the people operating it a virtual institute in mental health research and development; it is a technological link, bringing together people in London who are doing research into mental health to provide better solutions for patients.
The movement of people and patients in London is very complex. It does not reflect the official, artificial boundaries of health authorities and trusts; that is why a Londonwide office makes so much more sense than the previous arrangements, whereby responsibility for London was divided between two regions, both of which
1104
also had responsibilities outside London. Therefore, to a quicker timetable than that envisaged by Turnberg, I have established a Londonwide regional office. The upheaval involved was kept to a minimum by good management, and the staff appear to have taken to their new role like ducks to water. Their work has been given a new purpose and dynamism. They will not be expected merely to formulate plans in consultation with the rest of the NHS in London; they will be expected to see to it that the plans are implemented.
The change has brought together health and social care programmes Londonwide, so that they can better work together to promote better and more effective working between the NHS and local social services in every part of London. That is crucial in raising the quality of service offered to elderly or disabled people and people with learning difficulties—for example, by playing a part in helping to improve the joint work among the NHS, local councils and voluntary organisations. That is already paying dividends. All over London, new arrangements are being made to help to look after patients better at home, so that elderly people do not have to go into hospital unnecessarily for want of proper care at home. Patients who have completed their hospital treatment can be discharged in the sure and certain knowledge that, between the local health and social services, there will be someone to look after them properly.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State referred to patients being discharged into the community and to the welcome review that he has initiated into the number of beds in the NHS. Given those points and the concerns over beds in London, can he tell us whether he has reached any conclusions about the number of beds we need, not in our acute hospitals, but in the community, for respite, recuperation and discharge? If not, when may we have such an assessment? That is one of the pressures of which we are all aware; there must be non-intensive care facilities for people who are nearly ready, but not quite ready, to return to their homes.
Mr. Dobson: Some of the national work has been completed. The London office is now working on the detail of what is needed in particular localities in London. That stretches from intensive care at one end to ensuring that people can sleep happily in their own beds at the other—with various intermediate stages. I hope that we shall be able to make some announcements on that matter before the summer. Some action is already being taken: additional intensive care beds are being provided and, in some places, more is being put into providing reception wards behind the accident and emergency departments, so that such care is better conducted. I hope that we shall have some detailed intentions to announce before the summer.
In the meantime, the NHS in London has been delivering treatment and care to Londoners as never before. Last year, London hospitals treated record numbers of patients. Record numbers of people came off the waiting list, record numbers of emergencies were dealt with and record numbers of out-patients were treated. London's hospitals have made a huge contribution to the record national fall in waiting lists. The final figures are not yet available, but figures for the end of February show that the London total of people waiting for in-patient

1105
treatment was well below the number that we inherited when we came to power in May 1997, and that the total waiting list had fallen by 37,000 since March 1998. I can safely predict that the next set of figures will show a further drop of several thousand, for which the people involved are to be commended.
Those are not the only changes that we have made to health care in London to make it more modern and dependable. NHS Direct, the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, now covers 1.4 million people in west London and 700,000 million in south-east London, giving Londoners their first access to that most popular and successful service. In west London, the service is being organised, not by the ambulance service, as is usual, but by the Harmoni GP co-operative. At the co-operative's instigation, NHS Direct in west London is already being extended to provide access to GP out-of-hours services, mental health services and social services. NHS Direct will be extended to cover a further 1.9 million people in London by December of this year, and it will cover the whole capital next year.
London can look forward to other services that are currently being tested in other parts of the country, such as NHS Direct not only taking calls, but making them, which is a positive development. Already in West Yorkshire, during troughs in the flow of incoming calls, nurses ring patients to remind them of appointments with their doctors or for screening services; and in the west midlands the service is about to proceed with an arrangement whereby people who have been discharged from hospital are telephoned by NHS Direct to check their progress. The development of NHS Direct will enable dramatic improvements to be achieved in the general standard of health care in this country, especially because, in every part of the country, that development is taking place in co-operation with existing clinicians, doctors, nurses and others.
As everyone knows, one of the major problems besetting health care in the capital has been staff shortages, especially of nurses. The previous Government used to deny that there was a shortage of nurses, but, unlike them, we have not buried our head in the sand. Our efforts to improve nurse recruitment received a special boost in this year's pay awards: the London allowance was increased by 15.4 per cent. That, combined with the national awards, means that a newly qualified nurse in London now starts work on a salary of £17,325, and that two thirds of all nurses in London will be paid more than £20,000 a year.
When the new pay award was announced, we launched a major advertising campaign to recruit nurses and get former nurses to return. I can report that up to now—or rather, up to yesterday; there were probably more calls today—6,046 calls have been made in London in response to the advertising campaign; 840 came from nurses wanting to return to work in the NHS, and 91 such nurses have already returned. They are being further encouraged by the provision of free return-to-nursing courses. Those have proved to be a popular success, as I learned when I visited the Mayday hospital, Croydon to welcome a dozen nurses back to the NHS. They had been on a short three-week course to bring them up to date, which was geared to meet their family needs, such as by not clashing with school drop-off or pick-up times. Nearly everyone who had been on that short course had returned to nursing.
1106
Of course, the Mayday has become more attractive by its having benefited from the recent opening of a new accident and emergency unit.
Many students of nursing and young nurses require good-quality secure accommodation that is near their place of work. Regrettably, much of that accommodation was sold off under the previous Government and a lot of what remains is in a deplorable condition. I am having talks with the hospital authorities concerned and the Housing Corporation in an attempt to turn back the tide and provide somewhere decent, affordable and convenient for nurses to live, because a modern work force need somewhere safe and decent to live.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the Secretary of State's last point. On the nurses' pay issue, I have learned in the past few weeks that, although the pay award was very welcome, many nurses were frustrated to discover that they had not received the increase in their April pay packets. I do not want to be over-critical at this stage, but can the Secretary of State address the problem whereby pay awards announced with great flourish in January and February do not come through before September? That is a disgraceful situation, and many nurses feel badly let down.
Mr. Dobson: Most nurses have received their pay increases and, as far as I know, no one will be kept waiting until September. If anyone is kept waiting that long, the chief executives of the trusts concerned should receive their P45s and insurance cards in September. Like every other hon. Member, I believe that it is quite unacceptable to keep people hanging around in that way.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman always wants to sack people.
Mr. Dobson: If the people in charge of large organisations that depend on many loyal staff cannot sort out their pay systems for five, six or seven months, I think it is wholly appropriate to contemplate doing without their incompetent services.
Mr. Duncan: I also said that the Secretary of State should give the trusts the money to pay for the awards in full. According to many trusts, the money that they have received does not cover the awards that were announced in the House.
Mr. Dobson: Those chief executives should be more careful about what they say because virtually the whole of the increase was met—
Mr. Duncan: Virtually.
Mr. Dobson: Yes, virtually. I try to tell the truth in the House and I am rather careful about what I say. Virtually all the increase was met from the allocations that the trusts had already received and knew about. The additional sums were found, as we intended, from the modernisation fund. Very few trusts have had to find much money. That is in marked contrast with the previous Government's total refusal to fund any pay increases in some cases. The previous Government provided no additional resources in some years to meet trusts' pay obligations.

1107
Now that the pressure for internal competition is out of the way, a group of 35 inner-London trusts have done the sensible thing and have got together to promote better recruitment arrangements and to make working in London more attractive. They intend that work to cover not just nurses and midwives, but pharmacists and other groups as well.
At my instigation, trusts are now pursuing rigorous anti-violence policies: logging incidents, liaising with police, changing working practices, issuing staff with personal alarms, installing closed circuit television and changing the layout of buildings. I am told by those concerned that the new policy has already brought benefits in the modernised A and E departments at the King's College and Mayday hospitals. Our commitment to renew and modernise all A and E departments will deliver similar improvements in every part of the capital.
London is a multicultural city and the ethnic origins of a quarter of its population are black or Asian. Some ethnic groups have special needs and London's NHS must cater better for those needs, which include tackling heart disease in the Asian population, stroke prevention in the Caribbean population, and the take-up of breast and cervical screening among Asian women.
Many people from ethnic minorities have also felt excluded from the decision-making processes of the NHS. At the general election, we promised to make NHS boards more representative of the communities that they serve. Since we came to office, 53 per cent. of our appointments in London have been women and 24 per cent. have come from an ethnic minority background. The previous Government had a target that every health authority or trust with an ethnic minority population of 10 per cent. or more should comprise board members from an ethnic minority. That was all very well as a target, but they did not get around to achieving it.
Sixteen trusts and health authorities in London serving areas with more than 10 per cent. ethnic minority populations did not meet that target before the general election. Now all but three of them do. In total, 46 NHS boards in London have one ethnic minority member; 17 boards have two such members; and three boards have three. [Interruption.], I did not catch what the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) said.
Mr. Alan Clark: I was going to suggest that all the white middle-class males in the catchment area be employed as cleaners.
Mr. Dobson: On the basis of that comment, I shall not make the right hon. Gentleman the principal recruiting officer for the NHS in London.
My actions should help to make sure that proper attention is paid to rooting out institutional racism faced by patients and staff, but I emphasise that this is a task for everybody, not a lone member from an ethnic group who serves on a board.
That brings me to the wider question of tackling inequalities in health, not only through targeted effort by the NHS, but by using every instrument at the Government's disposal. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner. I have been stating that ever since I became an MP, and we have had further confirmation of the truth
1108
of that in the past few days in reports revealing that strokes and cancer are more common and more harmful for people who are badly off. We all know the factors that systematically make poor people ill: unemployment, low pay, poor housing, crime and disorder and a polluted environment. This Government are taking concerted action to tackle those problems.
There are now 143,000 more people in work in Greater London than there were two years ago, when we were elected; 36,000 young people have started the new deal, and 6,800 have already got jobs. There is still a long way to go, but our proposals are working despite the opposition of Tories and Liberals who preferred to defend the windfall profits of the utilities rather than invest in our young people and the long-term unemployed. Getting a job will improve the health of those people. The figures reveal that, if a middle-aged man loses his job, that doubles his chances of dying in the next five years, and the group that has suffered the highest increase in mortality is made up of young men who are out of work.
The introduction of the national minimum wage—I am inordinately proud to be a member of the Government who introduced that measure—has benefited 116,000 people in work in London by putting more money in their pockets and handbags. The working families tax credit, which guarantees a minimum full-time pay of £200 a week for a family with children will benefit 125,000 families in London.
As far as I know, all those measures were opposed by the Tories and some were opposed by the Liberal Democrats. They will all put money into the pockets of the worst-off and thereby improve their health and that of their families, and that is one of our main reasons for introducing them.
Mr. Duncan: Setting aside any arguments about whether the minimum wage is good or bad, will the Secretary of State, for the information of the House, advise us how much the implementation of the minimum wage has cost the national health service in London?
Mr. Dobson: For an organisation that will be spending £40 billion this year, the answer is next to nothing, and certainly not the stupid, harum-scarum sums of £500 million that were quoted by Tory Members who have held the job that I now have. They gave those "estimates", as they called them, because they wanted to put people off supporting the minimum wage and because they were too idle and feckless to have collected any information on the levels of pay in the health service. They apparently gloried in the thought that they had been presiding over a health service in which tens of thousands of hard-working staff were so badly paid that their pay would be improved by the introduction of a national minimum wage. The impact of the measure is minimal.
Mr. Eric Forth: As the Secretary of State has been so typically robust about comments that my colleagues have made in the past, will he now demonstrate his grasp of the subject by giving us the actual cost of implementing the minimum wage for the health service as a whole and the health service in London?
Mr. Dobson: The costs are minimal. [Horn. MEMBERS: "What is the figure?"' Below £10 million—not £500 million, which the fools on the Opposition Benches were quoting. The last estimate that I received of the costs of implementing the £3.60 minimum wage was below £10 million.
Mr. Duncan: Is that for London?
Mr. Dobson: No, that is for everywhere in the country. We have not broken down the figure. Because levels of pay in London are that bit higher, I doubt whether anyone in the NHS in London is earning less than £3.60 an hour. I emphasise that such information was not available to me when I first became Secretary of State because the Tories had deliberately stopped the collection of that data three years earlier. Indeed, it cost us £46,000 to carry out a survey to find out what the impact would be.
Mr. Duncan: If the cost to the NHS was less than £10 million overall, how can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that there was a problem of low pay beforehand?
Mr. Dobson: I was not saying that.
Mr. John Horam: What is the point of the minimum wage?
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman asks the more than 2 million earners who are now getting a national minimum wage of £3.60 instead of £1.80, £2 or £2.30 an hour, which his well-paid little friends were paying them, he will find that plenty of people think that there are advantages to a national minimum wage. Practically every decent person in this country thinks so. Despite all the Tory propaganda, there was scarcely ever a time when less than three quarters of the people in this country believed that the national minimum wage was a bad idea. We have never thought that it would have much impact on the NHS. The Tories were estimating that it would cost £500 million, which shows how stupid and ill-informed they were about that aspect of the NHS for which they were responsible.
In London, 2.6 million employees will benefit from the cut in national insurance contributions, and the new 10p starting rate of income tax will halve the tax bill for 170,000 Londoners. Putting more money into their handbags and pockets will improve their health.
Record increases in child benefit will raise the living standards of the worst-off families with children. The sure start programme, over which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is presiding, will bring together early education, health services and family support for families when they need it—with more than £450 million over the next three years. Some of the pilot schemes will be in London. There will be one in Camden and, I believe, the other will be in Southwark. There seems to be some strange coincidence between the location of those pilots and the places represented by today's Front-Bench spokesmen.
New improvements in pensions and the £100 million winter payment fund will benefit 1.2 million London pensioners. Their finances and health will also benefit from the abolition of the charge for eye tests for over
1110
60-year-olds, which the mean-minded Tories were happy to introduce because they wanted to start charging for everything in the NHS.
As part of our efforts to provide people with somewhere decent to live, the Government are investing £145 million to reduce the number of people sleeping rough. The bulk of that money will be spent in London, which will certainly improve the health of the people concerned. We are also investing more than £5 billion a year on building new homes and renovating old ones; £390 million from the capital receipts initiative will be invested this year in new and better homes for Londoners, which will therefore improve their health.
It would be silly to try to pretend that everything is fine with London's health services, and that improvements can be made immediately, but it is certainly true that things are improving and will continue to improve. New hospitals are being built, old hospitals are being modernised, staff pay and conditions are being improved, new and better ways of working are being introduced, the quality of treatment and care is being raised and more and more patients are being treated.
In March, we published a modernisation plan for the NHS in London, which describes the targets that the Government are setting—no longer keeping them a closely guarded secret, but spelling them out, so that Londoners know what they are and can judge whether they have been met. I am confident that they will be met and that it will be largely because of the commitment, skill and professionalism of the NHS staff working in London, which, as I said at the beginning, were so amply demonstrated by their brilliant response to the three outrages in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho over the past three weeks. We owe them a great deal and we are determined to provide them with modern buildings, modern equipment and modern ways of working so that they can deliver a service to a standard to which they have always aspired.
1.45 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with what the Secretary of State said in some detail—it needed that detail—in praise of those who work in the national health service and their response to the three outrageous nail bomb attacks in London over the past few weeks? No praise can be too high. Lives have been saved and people have been treated quickly and well. Their response to what happened in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho was admirable. I am sure that the Secretary of State joins me in condemning the contemptible nature of those attacks, which were all the more contemptible for being targeted at minorities.
The praise given to health service personnel today is the sort of praise that hon. Members want to give pretty well all the time because, by and large, the health service is successful because of the people who work in it. It is the people who make it. It is their dedicated nature that makes it the success that it is. It is what they do that makes the health service something of which to be proud.
In London and every other part of the country, things are not perfect. As politicians, we have a grave duty to make sure that debate on this subject is of the highest standard possible. If we get the debate wrong and we are irresponsible in our discussions, quite literally, it can cost lives.

1111
The health service is a massive enterprise, probably one of the largest single employers in the world. It has a massive budget and a massive task. It has a duty of care which perhaps no other organisation has to meet on such a large scale. Therefore, it behoves us to treat it not with the political licence with which so many other topics are treated, but with a grave responsibility and deeper thought than many are prepared to give.
Conservative Members are trying to do that. We are trying to recognise that this is a modern world where wants are taking over from needs and people expect things to be delivered. It is a consumer world where people expect their wants to be met as well as their needs and, clearly, the NHS will not be able to do it all. It has never been able to. If our starting point for debate is a denial of that basic fundamental point, which every cabbie in the street will say is common sense, we will not be treating this matter with the responsibility it deserves.
I want to make it clear where we are coming from. We admit that rationing exists and that it always has. We admit that there is a shortfall between what the NHS can deliver and what its resources can allow it to deliver. Our basic position is simple—we recognise that the NHS cannot do it all.
Mr. Mike Gapes: What does the hon. Gentleman think that the national health service should not provide, and for what should people be forced to pay?
Mr. Duncan: The Government should consider exactly that in recognising that the national health service cannot do it all. There is no prospect—no chance, even—of starting a sensible discussion on the national health service's limitations and capabilities without first admitting that the health service cannot do it all. As I said the other week, in a lecture, if the national health service cannot do it all, it is immoral for anyone to stand up and say that it should—unless they are prepared to say clearly from where the resources will come.
Our vision of health care in Britain is for the overall health care sector to be expanded when possible. In other countries, a private sector larger than ours works in harmony with the public sector. We want the United Kingdom to develop such a mutually supportive private-public mix. Those who say that the national health service can and should do it all are only trapping us in an unreal world in which patients will suffer.
The Opposition's position on the national health service is clear, whereas the Government, who are responsible for the health service, have not made their position clear. The Government gained office by stirring up grievance and campaigning against almost every hospital closure. In some cases, they won a seat in this place by promising that they would keep a hospital open. They also continue to enjoy blaming the previous Government for every possible problem in the national health service, although they refuse to come to terms with the basic fact that the national health service cannot do it all.
One has only to consider the Secretary of State's comments on the minimum wage to realise that the Government's campaign promises do not marry with their statements in government. The Opposition's task is to
1112
ensure that the Government are held to account, so that their actions since being elected to government may be judged by their statements before the general election.
There is rationing in London, as there is in the whole country. The Secretary of State attended the London school of economics—albeit at a time when it was teaching some pretty funny things—and studied economics. He should therefore know the definition of rationing—[Interruption.] I hear him pleading guilty, and I join him in that verdict.
There is rationing. By what definition is there not rationing in the national health service? If there is a limit to what the national health service can do, if everything that is demanded is not supplied, and if a monopoly supplier is deciding for patients what they can or cannot have, what is it, if not rationing?
I ask the Secretary of State—who, even on Tuesday, denied that there was rationing—and the Minister for Public Health, who answered no when asked point-blank whether there was rationing in the health service, to define rationing. If the national health service is determining what people can or cannot have in the face of scarce resources, what is it, if not rationing?
Mr. Dobson: By the normal definition of rationing, the only rationing of health care in the United Kingdom is occurring in some parts of the private sector, which provide insurance cover only up to a certain sum, after which people must pay for care themselves. That is rationing. Every definition of rationing—I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Oxford English Dictionary"—
Mr. Duncan: Answer the question.
Mr. Dobson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Oxford English Dictionary", as it might be a good idea for him to base his arguments on something sound. All dictionary definitions of rationing describe limits to what is available to an individual—but that situation does not apply in the national health service at all. Everyone knows that there are limits to available resources. However, suggesting that we have rationing in the national health service is like saying that, because there are no more seats on the jumbo jet that one wanted to go on to New York, for example, flights are being rationed. No one thinks that that is a sensible definition of rationing.
Mr. Duncan: That is an extraordinary statement. The Secretary of State has just said that there are no limits to what an individual can get on the national health service. If that is his defence against my charge that there is rationing, he is in a very peculiar position and his comments will not bear scrutiny.
Let us consider daily life in the national health service in London and throughout the country. Waiting lists are a form of rationing. Patients want and need treatment, but they cannot have it yet. They have to wait. It was the same during the war when there was a shortage of food. People could not have their sausages until new supplies came in. Delays for treatment are a form of rationing.
The situation is not even improving, as the Secretary of State claims. It remains as bad as ever. For every fall in the waiting list that he publishes, he knows that there is a pretty well equal rise in the number of people trying to get on the waiting list. We have continuous, unimproved

1113
rationing by making people wait not just to get the treatment that they need, but—this is worse—to get the diagnosis that they need to work out whether they need treatment.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman apparently sees a parallel between the national health service and wartime rationing of food. Under wartime rationing, people got a specific amount of bacon a week and nobody got more. That is rationing. We do not have that in the national health service. We do not say, "You can have £50 of treatment and then that's your lot." That would be rationing.
Mr. Duncan: The situation is even worse. Such is rationing in the national health service that someone who needs beta interferon for multiple sclerosis might not get it at all, depending on where they live. Some people get it and others do not. That is another form of rationing.
If even those logical arguments have not persuaded the Secretary of State that rationing exists and that he has yet to treat this massive issue with the honesty that it deserves, let me refer to Viagra.
Mr. Roger Casale: rose—
Mr. Duncan: Before I do so, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale).
Mr. Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the introduction of nursery vouchers was a form of rationing? Is his party proposing something similar for access to the national health service?
Mr. Duncan: I am trying to explain to the Secretary of State that there is a difference between the resources put into the health service and the demand that is put on it, but he seems impervious to that point. The shortfall leads to rationing, but he is not prepared to admit to that form of rationing.
Viagra is the perfect example to fit in with the Secretary of State's narrow and peculiar definition. There is a lawsuit under way about the manner in which the Secretary of State has taken a decision about Viagra and I would not dream of straying into any details that might be deemed sub judice. The more general point, which is evident from the statements that he has made in the House and to the press, is that he intends to ration Viagra. It will not be freely available on prescription in the national health service, even if GPs, using their clinical judgment, assess a patient to be in need of the drug. Instead, the Secretary of State intends to restrict it to the narrowest possible form of availability, thereby paradoxically forcing anyone else who might otherwise be prescribed it within the national health service into the private sector—which the Secretary of State so loathes and reviles—where they have to pay double or even more.
So we have a new drug which can do a lot of good to people who clearly need it, which is recognised by clinicians throughout the health service and which will not be available from the national health service. Its availability is restricted. That is rationing and it applies in London and everywhere else. We need some transparency as to the rationale behind the Secretary of State's decision about what is available on the national health service, what is rationed and what is not available at all.
1114
Unless we have a realistic, grown-up, responsible debate about what the health service can and cannot do, London will suffer, the future of health service care throughout the country will suffer and the Secretary of State will not go down in history as someone who has met the responsibilities that have been entrusted to him. The debate has become puerile and deceitful. It has become a nasty form of politics of which the Secretary of State cannot be proud.
Let me turn to deficits in London. The Secretary of State has paraded no end of generosity about the spending round. He came to office two years ago—that is, two financial years. If he thought there was a great problem, he has had time enough to sort it out. However, a recent article in the Health Service Journal reported that London trusts and health authorities have a deficit of £74.74 million. That figure does not include mental health trusts or Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authorities. It is estimated that the total deficit in London is probably in excess of —100 million. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is snoozing or smiling, but he does not seem to want to address the fact that —100 million is a large deficit, which he used to criticise in opposition. Given what he said in opposition and what he claims to be doing in government, what does he propose to do about the —100 million deficit in our health service?
How can the Secretary of State reconcile everything that his party campaigned for in opposition with what has subsequently happened in respect of closures? When we were in government, we had the honesty to admit that, as old buildings decay and patterns of health service demand change and the requirements of technology and population shift, some hospitals will close, others will provide different services, others will take on different responsibilities and new hospitals will have to be built. That is a fair-minded, sensible view of how a developing health service should operate. However, that was not Labour's opinion in opposition. According to Labour, every closure was bad, every change was bad and no hospital was doing enough. Some Labour Members even had the deceit to put out election literature promising that certain wards or hospitals would remain open in order to grub for votes, only to collude with the new Government on their subsequent closure. Does the Secretary of State have any qualms about that? Is he worried that his reputation might sink? He seems impervious to accusations that such deceitful politics harm the reputation of his own party and the health service.
Mr. Dobson: Instead of making generalised smears, will the hon. Gentleman be specific?
Mr. Duncan: Barnet, Edgware and Roehampton are all examples. Indeed, I shall be more specific. The Turnberg report said a great deal of sensible things, but it does not marry with what Labour said in opposition. The full list of closures includes the accident and emergency department at Guy's and a reduction in bed capacity there; the closure of Greenwich hospital; loss of facilities to St. George's at Atkinson Morley's hospital and the closure of Queen Mary's hospital at Roehampton—another one that they said they would not shut. Queen Charlotte's is another example—I could go on, but first let me turn to Bart's.
Mr. Dobson: Has it not registered with the hon. Gentleman that we are building a new hospital at

1115
Greenwich, and that the movement of Queen Charlotte's hospital to the Hammersmith hospital was—as far as I know—welcomed by virtually everybody involved, including the Labour party when we were in opposition? The hon. Gentleman may take as an example amalgamations of hospitals and closures. Four hospitals will go into the new University College hospital in my constituency; the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, University College hospital, the Middlesex hospital and the Hospital for Tropical Diseases. I supported that through thick and thin in opposition, and I continue to do so. I do not regard it as four closures; I regard it as a promise to build a new hospital.
Mr. Duncan: The Secretary of State tries hard, but he knows that Labour's campaign promise was that the Edgware and Roehampton hospitals would stay open.
Mr. Dobson: They are.
Mr. Duncan: The accident and emergency departments are shut. Does the Secretary of State admit that Labour in opposition promised that those facilities would remain open, but shut them when it got into government? Will the Secretary of State admit that? He will not.
Ms Joan Ryan: When the last Government were ensuring the closure of Edgware district general hospital, I was a member of Barnet council. That council—along with the Labour party locally, the Labour Opposition in this House and the entire local population—fought tooth and nail to keep the hospital open. Your Government did everything but close the door. You ran it down—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It was not my Government; the hon. Lady should refer to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Duncan: As the House well knows, the Government have it in their power to keep open hospitals that they said they would shut. They did not, but that is how they got into office.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—who is an honest man, filled with integrity—would not want to mislead the House. The Edgware general hospital accident and emergency facility closed on 1 April 1997—not after the election. Will he correct his inaccuracy?
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman should look at the election literature of his colleagues. He will realise that it does not stand up to scrutiny; nor does what the Government have done subsequently on Bart's.
Mr. McNulty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, however inadvertently, to mislead the House and not correct his inaccuracy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are matters of debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "These are the facts."] These are issues in the debate. Obviously, all right hon. and hon. Members
1116
should seek to make as accurate statements as they can to the House. May I suggest that an air of calmness should descend upon the debate?
Mr. Duncan: Perhaps I can ask the Secretary of State a specific question. This morning, 1 was given a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Save Bart's campaign.
Mr. Dobson: When?
Mr. Duncan: This morning.
Mr. Dobson: No, when was it sent?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I just suggested that the debate was starting to become less ordered than it should be. Sedentary comments from Front or Back Benchers are not helpful.
Mr. Duncan: I was given the letter this morning, and I would welcome the Secretary of State's denial if what is in it is untrue. In the letter to the Prime Minister, the Save Bart's campaign said that plans were reportedly in preparation for Bart's renowned specialist expertise not to be concentrated at Bart's, but to be fragmented between Bart's and the Royal London hospital. The letter suggests that Bart's will provide a limited range of cancer and cardiac services only, and that that negates the Secretary of State's earlier decision. Does the Secretary of State deny that those suspicions are accurate, or not?
Mr. Dobson: We are committed—the Prime Minister backs that commitment—to having a major cardiac and cancer centre at Bart's, and we will. That will be delivered, as I said in my speech. The share between Bart's and the Royal London of cardiac services has been agreed to the satisfaction of all concerned, including the clinicians at Bart's. I hope that we will be able to reach the same conclusion about cancer treatment shortly. It will be delivered.
Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for that assurance. I hope that subsequent events will put the concerns of supporters of Bart's at rest. They are deeply concerned about the Royal Hospitals trust timetable for what is to happen over the next months and years. We will monitor events closely to find out whether their suspicions are founded. I know that the Secretary of State chooses his words carefully, but I hope that the suspicions expressed in the letter are unfounded.
Mr. Dobson: Let us get it on the record that the hon. Gentleman's Government—not yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker—intended to close Bart's. We will keep it open and turn it into a major cancer and cardiac centre. That is what we said we would do, and we will deliver.
Mr. Duncan: Let us hope so. I cannot understand, then, why people in the Save Bart's campaign are so upset. They clearly know something that the Secretary of State does not.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday asked the Prime Minister specific questions about what the Government were doing in moving

1117
amendments to European Union directives on junior doctors' hours. We did not get a straight answer. I have here a document addressed to the general secretariat of the Council. It says:
"The UK delegation is proposing the following text"
on doctors in training, and it includes the figure of 65 hours a week as the maximum. That affects some of the most significant hospitals in London, such as St. Thomas's across the river.
Junior doctors' hours are crucial. Why have the Government proposed that they should work 65 hours a week? I invite the Secretary of State to explain why they have done that, if, as he says—and I know that he is honest—they have no intention of ever increasing the figure beyond 56 hours? He refuses to answer. We have him pinned down.
Mr. Dobson: rose—
Mr. Duncan: Aha!
Mr. Dobson: The previous Government came to an agreement, a new deal, with the junior doctors, in which 56 hours was to be the target. When we came to office, 20 per cent. of doctors were working longer than that; the figure has been reduced to 15 per cent. and we intend to continue to reduce it. The proposition originally in the European Union directive would have been more restrictive than we thought sensible. We are taking part in negotiations and we believe, as I said in the House on Tuesday, that at the end of those negotiations we will have a sensible directive that will meet the needs of our junior doctors.
As I said on Tuesday, and as the BBC seems incapable of understanding, we want to get the junior doctors' hours down—that is what we will do—and we have no intention of increasing them, despite all the lurid headlines from the hon. Gentleman and his little friend who is not here today.
Mr. Duncan: We have become very familiar with that sort of response from the Secretary of State. Whenever he has his back to the wall, he either blames the BBC or says that someone in the national health service should be sacked. I have negotiated a few things in my time, but I cannot understand why, if the Government are aiming for 56 hours, they should table a proposal for 65. If anyone is brainy enough to explain how that can be good negotiating and will lead to what the Secretary of State says he wants, when the presidency itself has had to propose 56 hours, perhaps they can enlighten the House, because I am blowed if I can work it out.
Will the Secretary of State correct what he said on Tuesday? He said:
"Children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and people on low incomes have always been eligible for free dental checks and sight tests."—[Official Report, 4 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 689.]
Pregnant women and nursing mothers are not eligible for free sight tests. He does not seem to know that. What he said was totally inaccurate, and I hope that he will have the decency to correct it.
Mr. Dobson: If I said sight tests, I said it inadvertently. I am perfectly aware that it is dental checks that pregnant women and nursing mothers are entitled to. If the two got stuck together in one sentence, I duly apologise.
Mr. Forth: A rare event.
Mr. Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for that apology, which is indeed a rare event. We have to be
1118
persistent in opposition and try, by degrees, to bring him and his ministerial team down to a level where they will engage in serious debate and be accountable for what they say in the House, rather than continuing to distort so much of their stance on the health service.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman said at the start of his speech that he wanted us to have a grown-up and mature debate on the health service in London. When is he going to start it?
Mr. Duncan: I will be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my lecture, and I look forward to a sensible critique.
Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan: To do so seems like a hopeless way to raise the tone of the debate, but I will.
Mr. Gapes: While the hon. Gentleman is sending out copies of his lecture, will he send out extracts of his book containing the chapter that was in the original version but left out of the reprinted edition?
Mr. Duncan: That rather proves my point.
There are clearly problems in the London ambulance service, and I hope that the Minister will address them in detail when she winds up. We all recognise that national health service staff work very hard but, as I try to argue day in, day out, they are hard pressed and overstretched and are being asked to deliver far more than should be expected of any normal human being, especially on straitened resources. That is certainly the case in the London ambulance service.
The Evening Standard last week carried a large article on the state of the ambulance service, claiming that morale is plunging, that there is a growing staff shortage—not an inherited one—and that sickness and absenteeism are on the increase. It appears that there has been a sharp increase in response times and new figures show that the service is struggling. What steps are being taken to remedy that? It is important to keep response times to a minimum and we need to know what the Government intend to do.
I always try to give credit where credit is due. There was also a survey in the Evening Standard on people's views on GPs in London. By and large, the views were highly favourable, and we should congratulate the GPs—the family doctors—on that. That will change, however, if the Government continue to impose on family doctors structures in the primary care groups with which they are not happy.
What flexibility will be introduced in the way in which primary care groups can be changed? At the moment, doctors are forced into groups, often against their will. The survey shows that most people are happy with their GP, but that people especially like it when their GP is a single practitioner and do not necessarily want to go to a group. How do the Government intend to ensure that satisfaction ratings continue to be high? Moreover, how does the Minister respond to the accusation by the British

1119
Dental Association this week that it is increasingly difficult to find a national health service dentist in London?
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: How does the hon. Gentleman think that Londoners will gain a health benefit from his plan to introduce charges for visiting GPs?
Mr. Duncan: As neither I nor any other Conservative Member has said anything about that, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and does a bit of research.
The health service in London is a massive endeavour. Like the health service everywhere else in the country, it is doing its best on limited resources—and, as elsewhere in the country, it requires a vision for future health care, which it is not getting from the Government. The Opposition congratulate all those who work in the health service in London, but we look forward to a debate that will go beyond mere political battling and look to health provision for the benefit of future patients both inside and outside the public sector.
2.21 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you for calling me early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can correct some of the extraordinary statements made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). He started his speech saying that we, as politicians, should not use political licence when we talk about the national health service, but hon. Members on both sides of the House should condemn what he said, especially in the later stages of his speech, because that is exactly what he did.
First, I need to put the record straight about Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, so I remind the House what happened before 1 was elected to represent Putney in May 1997. The decision on the transfer of services was taken in December 1996, and supported by Tory Wandsworth council, by the previous Tory Member for Putney, David Mellor, and by the Tory Government.
The changes, which took place in April 1997, a month before I was elected, involved the transfer out of acute surgery, orthopaedics and paediatric and maternity services, and the downgrading of the accident and emergency department to a minor injuries unit. The services were largely transferred to Kingston, but the previous Government had made no plans for their reception there. There were no additional wards or beds, and no additional help for the A and E department, so there was chaos. That was what I found when I became the Member of Parliament for Putney.
The Turnberg report mentioned the piecemeal erosion of services at Queen Mary's hospital, which had been going on for many years before the decision was made in December 1996, and utterly condemned it. It offered a vision of a new community hospital with a rapid diagnostic unit on the Queen Mary's hospital site, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm his commitment to that hospital in his opening speech. I look forward to the business case for it going to the region, and then to Ministers this autumn.
1120
I note that, in the report on what happened in the year since the Turnberg report was published, there is a commitment of £25 million for the development of that new community hospital. I remind hon. Members that the existing hospital dates from the early 1920s, and many of its buildings are converted Nissen huts. That is a good example of the way in which the health service had to patch and mend for so many years, especially under the Conservative Government. An appalling situation has been allowed to continue for too long, and my constituents and I look forward to the building of a new community hospital under a Labour Government.
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman said that services had been transferred from Queen Mary's to Kingston hospital in recent years. I know that he was recently a patient at Kingston hospital, so can he confirm that the transfer of services put great pressure on that hospital, and that it needs backing in the form of new capital and extra resources to meet the transferred demand?
Mr. Colman: I entirely support everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall deal with that subject later.
Secondly, I shall remind the House of what is happening in the interim, while we are waiting for the new community hospital to be built. A newly refurbished out-patients unit was opened on 27 April by Chris Patten, the former chairman of the Conservative party, who is now a resident of Barnes. The choice of Chris Patten was a cross-party move which I strongly supported.
One hundred consultants continue to work in the out-patients clinics at Queen Mary's, and the rapid diagnostic packages of care are developing. Streamlined procedures for breast care, cardiology, dyspepsia and thyroid care are already in place. Furthermore, at a cost of £924,000, services for out-patients and the elderly that were previously provided at Putney hospital and Barnes day hospital, in outmoded wards, will be transferred to the Queen Mary's hospital site this summer.
I make a particular plea for the continuing use of the Putney hospital site when it becomes vacant. It should remain available for health care purposes, and I especially endorse the bid being made by Abbeyfield nursing homes for housing for elderly people on the site.
As part of the funding package for the new community hospital at Queen Mary's, there is a proposal that land not needed and therefore released—the hospital now sprawls over a large area, so the new hospital will not need the whole site—should be used for the relocation of Whitelands college, which is part of Roehampton institute and the university of Surrey at Roehampton. That will ensure that all the constituent colleges can be on the same site.
One of the services on the new Queen Mary's site will be a healthy living centre, for which a bid will be made in the next round. I also endorse the services provided at the cancer support centre in Wandsworth, which now operates in not totally suitable premises at the Battersea Methodist church mission hall, but has none the less been supported by the local community health trust and the health authority as a centre of excellence for the support of cancer sufferers.
I welcome the introduction of NHS Direct, which is now available for my constituents, and others in south-west London. As the hon. Member for Kingston and

1121
Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, although some went to St. George's, the vast majority of the acute services for my constituents were transferred to Kingston hospital in April 1997.
The present Government are having to pick up the pieces of the Tory Government's failed policies, and they built additional wards and provided extra beds in the Roehampton wing of Kingston hospital, which were opened in September 1998—just in time for me to occupy one of the beds the following November, and see for myself the great difficulties that the hospital is having in the A and E department, where I waited for eight hours to be treated. I strongly urge the Minister to take forward the current bid for a £2 million renovation and extension of the existing A and E at Kingston.
I understand that, in the past few days, the local trust has withdrawn the bid, because it foresees some major rebuilding that could cost up to £10 million. However, I am keen to ensure that, from this autumn, my constituents—including me, if I suffer again — do not have to wait as long as I, and they, have had to wait in the past.
Mr. Davey: I spoke to the chief executive of Kingston hospital today to clarify what he seeks from the region for his A and E department. He is suggesting several options, including renovation, but also including new build. It will be for the region to decide, but the business case has not been withdrawn; several options are being suggested and are now being properly costed. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is the proper business approach to making that important investment at Kingston hospital.
Mr. Colman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that additional information and I am sure that he would agree that the site needs an immediate improvement this autumn. I would be concerned by any delay.
My third point about the situation in Kingston is the fact that many of the nurses on the acute wards who were transferred in April 1997 subsequently left, for a variety of reasons, but among the key ones was the unavailability of creche facilities. A bid is being made for a new 48-place day nursery on the Kingston site and I ask the Minister to support it. Another problem in the transfer of the nurses was the move from an inner-London weighting area to an outer-London weighting area. Everything must be done to ensure that nurses do not leave. It is not acceptable to recruit from the Philippines, however good those nurses are, because nurses who have previously worked at Queen Mary's cannot transfer, because of the lack of creche facilities or the diminution in their salaries for moving all of three miles.
My fourth point is the need to ensure that communication links between Kingston hospital and the Queen Mary's hospital sites are improved. At the moment, those links hardly exist and they are crucial to ensuring the development of the rapid diagnostic unit. Further communication links are needed between the two primary care groups that operate from the Queen Mary's site—the Richmond PCG, headed by Dr. Ian Johnson, and the Putney Roehampton PCG, under Dr. Sarah North—to ensure a joined-up national health service in south-west London.
1122
I also endorse the bid from the chairman of the Richmond PCG, Dr. Ian Johnson, for GP beds on a site at Queen Mary's. Additionally, I endorse the work by the Pathfinder Trust on additional mental health beds as part of the new community hospital at Queen Mary's.
I especially wish to endorse the thrust of the Turnberg report about taking a local and regional approach. The report talked of a health service for London governed by a single bureaucracy, in order to leave behind the North and South Thames regions, but it also mentioned five sectors that would result in a sub-regional approach. I also endorse the South West London community trust, which came into being in the past month by bringing together the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton trust, the Wandsworth community health trust and the Merton and Sutton community trust. The new trust will minimise bureaucracy, and I especially endorse the work of Dr. Liz Nelson, the outgoing chair of the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton trust and the new chair of the south-west London community trust, and of Lucy Hadfield, the new chief executive. As part of the move to sectoralisation, I hope to see Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and the Kingston and Richmond health authority coming together, so that we have the primary care groups on a constituency level and a more over-arching approach on a sub-regional basis to deal with contracting.
The Turnberg report clearly stated in its criticism of the previous Government's delivery of health care services for south-west London that there was a need for a clear, unambiguous commitment to fulfil a credible plan. I have described such a plan today. The previous Government left health care in south-west London floundering: this Government, in modernising London's health service, have a clear vision that is being realised.
2.34 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I wish to begin by paying tribute to the health service in London for its prompt, skilled and dedicated work in recent weeks. The excellent and timely work of the ambulance service and the paramedics was followed by the skill and commitment shown by people who worked for hours and hours in operating theatres to try to save the lives of those who had been attacked by the deranged, and to try to ensure that their horrific injuries were minimised and the violation of their integrity as human beings was reduced. The work continues, because people are still in intensive care battling for their lives, and it is a tribute to the best principles of the health service. Those staff do huge credit to their professions.
Hon. Members present for the debate are almost entirely Londoners, because we are exempt from the democratic activities that affect the rest of the country. I said almost entirely, because the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is a notable exception. There are elections in his part of the world, but there are no Tory candidates.
Mr. Duncan: Forward planning.
Mr. Hughes: If that is forward planning by the Tory party, it must really be in difficulties. The hon. Gentleman is a welcome exception, but the rest of us are here because the Government's business managers wisely scheduled

1123
this debate today. We welcome it, as we welcomed the Turnberg report. Sir Leslie and his colleagues did a good job and we are grateful to the Government for commissioning the report and for taking from it the guidelines for London's health service.
I welcome also the Government's agreement on the preparation and publication of progress reports on the health service in London. We have now seen the first of those reports and I hope that we have regular, annual reports. Those reports should not only address the Turnberg report and its recommendations—and examine how each is being implemented—but give us the statistics for the previous year, this year and the next year, so that we can make comparisons of simple matters, such as bed and staff numbers. I guess that the House will debate only one more such report, before the matter is handed over to the Greater London Authority, which will properly wish to consider the strategic plans for the health service in London.
Another useful background document, which has not been expressly mentioned so far in the debate, has been published since the last debate on London health. The Health of Londoners Project's report, on the public health of London, was compiled by all the health authorities and it is a valuable document from which much useful information can be gleaned. I commend those who worked on the document, especially the public health directors of the London health authorities, many of whom are eminent in their own right.
All our debates about what the NHS should do must be predicated on the actual state of health of Londoners. The public health document contains various facts about that which confirm how unequal our society is and how severe some of its health problems are. For example, the document reveals that one third of London's secondary school pupils are eligible for free school meals. That is a hugely high figure for the end of the 20th century. According to definitions that I did not devise, the number of London people living in poverty rose from 14 per cent. in 1983 to 24 per cent. in 1992. Some people are in a worse financial and social position than a decade ago.
As the Secretary of State noted, indicators of homelessness, of domestic violence, of the numbers of people out of work, of those claiming income support, and of the numbers of families in which no one is in work and 324,000 children belong to such families—all show the social context of the work of the NHS in London. People must have the best opportunity to achieve the best health. We can begin to understand the pressures when we discover that two thirds of the asylum seekers and refugees who come to Britain come to London.
The Government, and their predecessor, rightly tried to define public health priorities. Three of those priorities relate to premature deaths, and are hugely important in London. Those priorities are to reduce the number of deaths from cancer; to reduce the number of deaths from heart disease, strokes and related diseases, which in large part are activity-related; and to reduce the numbers of suicides, and therefore the incidence of the mental illness that leads to suicide.
Although cancer mortality rates for people under 65 are falling, in Greater London and elsewhere, my experience is that huge numbers die from cancer in London who,
1124
with early detection and treatment, would have survived. A friend of mine died in that way last year, five or six weeks after first diagnosis. He left a teenage son, and his is one of the tragedies that all hon. Members would want to prevent.
Such problems are not outside our control. Politicians with the right social policies can resolve them. I hope that we are united in our determination to ensure that people's chances of surviving are improved. That is a bigger task in London than anywhere else in Britain. I pay tribute to the Government for having that commitment. I shall support them and work with them to deliver on it, although I shall also have a go at them when I think that they have got targets or priorities wrong, or when they do not deliver as they should. However, I hope that all hon. Members share the same goals and motivation.
I hope that Ministers will consult members of the Opposition parties—perhaps outside the House—to agree the figures and indicators used in annual reports. That would ensure a common basis for information. Debates such as this are often bedevilled by the political manipulation of statistics. Independently audited statistics—for example, about waiting lists, and so on—would ensure that we do not have to argue about their accuracy.
Three elements in the national targets require continued effort. The first is general health. We can reduce the number of people who become ill from circulatory diseases by reducing accidents, improving public transport and cutting air pollution. Above all, society should encourage people to exercise, walk and cycle, rather than be increasingly less active as they grow older.
Obesity and inactivity are bad for health, but increasingly evident. That is why it is important to try to cut out unnecessary car journeys, to encourage people to take their children to school on foot, and so on. If children are encouraged to walk or cycle to school, or if adults are encouraged to get to work on foot, or by bicycle or public transport, where possible, there is a direct effect on their chances of living longer. Such incentives, if got right, can lead to a huge reduction in death or illness rates.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest, and consider that he has made some very good points. He has mentioned people walking or using a bicycle rather than driving. Will he say how that can be brought about? I hope that he will not suggest compulsion, or that people should be dictated to, as I think that setting an example is a more appropriate approach.
Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the tragic case of a friend who died of cancer within five or six weeks of diagnosis. I hope that he is not suggesting that that person would have been saved if he had been screened earlier and the disease identified sooner. It sounds to me that that was a case of terminal cancer, and it would be grossly unfair to lay his friend's death at the door of the national health service.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is very experienced in these matters, and is right to raise those points. I agree about the need to use example rather than compulsion, but I also think that there is a place for incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was deputy leader of Sutton council when it introduced

1125
an incentive to its work force to travel to work by bike rather than by car. That incentive was a travel allowance, and has become part of good practice. There are all sorts of other practical options, such as providing enough secure cycle racks for cycle users.
I do not blame the health service for the death of my friend. His name was Dave Clark: he was the editor of my local newspaper, and the Minister for Public Health, whose constituency includes Dulwich, knew him too. He died in Guy's hospital, which did a wonderful job on his behalf. However, although it is not possible to screen people at every moment throughout their lives, the chances of disease taking hold could be reduced if people checked their health more commonly, for instance by having their blood pressure checked at work regularly. My brother did not know that he suffered from high blood pressure. He had a stroke at work. It is not certain, but that stroke might have been prevented had there been a routine way of checking blood pressure at his workplace.
The second matter about which I want to speak is sexual health. One of the real challenges in London is to improve the sexual health of people, including young people, and to reduce unwanted and unintended teenage pregnancies. The health action zone in my part of the world has that specific intention, but there are worrying signs. The number of young women who become pregnant at a very early age is still very high, which indicates the need for proper sex education. Another worrying sign is the upturn in the incidence of HIV and similar conditions as a result of unsafe sexual practices.
In a capital city as cosmopolitan, varied and diverse as London, we must use public health promotion opportunities to tackle those problems head-on. Some people may find such methods of communication embarrassing, but more would find them effective.
Thirdly, the Turnberg committee was clear that London's mental health services are the highest of priorities. I welcome that clarity. The committee made two specific points in its recommendations. The first was that there must be minimum standards for mental health services, applicable across London. Those standards should cover maximum waits for appropriate residential care, the speed of response of community teams and the availability of 24-hour support services.
The Government have allocated some money for such services, but I hope that the Minister, when she replies to the debate, will say whether there is a target date by which facilities for people with mental health needs throughout the capital will be available on a 24-hour basis. Those people need to know that such a service does not close at 6 pm, but is available around the clock. There can be fatal consequences if such people are left to struggle on their own with their depression or with the pressures that they face.
The Turnberg committee also recommended that there must be intermediate care facilities with beds for recuperation, rehabilitation and respite care. For those who look after those who suffer mental illness, schizophrenia or depression, or for those who suffer it themselves, somewhere to go for a day or two can be necessary. People need to get away from the madding crowd to be able to recover in calmness. We need community beds as well as acute beds, the type of beds that many constituency hospitals used to have, but have been closed. I do not mean high-intensity or
1126
high-dependency beds; I mean low-dependency beds which give an opportunity to get away and to seek asylum—in the proper sense—from the pressures of the capital.
On resources, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton rightly talked of the deficit in the health service at the beginning of this financial year. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said about a year ago, when he was Minister of State, Department of Health, that there should be no deficit this year. Yet Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority starts the year with a deficit of £1 million; East London and the City has a small one; Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster has a deficit of £750,000; Croydon has one of £3.5 million; and Kingston and Richmond one of £2.75 million. After two years of Labour Government, London's health authorities are still in significant deficit.
That means that, at the start of the year, money must be found out of the budget intended for front-line services. Among the trusts, University College has a deficit of £3.5 million; Chelsea and Westminster, £3 million; St. Mary's, Paddington, £6 million; and Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton, £4 million. Trusts and health authorities cannot manage and reduce such great sums if the funding system provides no money from the Treasury to pay them off and no other additional resources.
Ms Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman mentioned St. Mary's hospital, Paddington. The current deficit there was discovered some months after the general election, having been in the system for years without anyone knowing. One can ask how that happened. Undoubtedly pressure was applied before the election to ensure that the scale of deficit was not public knowledge.
Mr. Hughes: I do not dissent from the apparently valid first point. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that, no matter how deficits come about, when it comes to running a trust and delivering services at a place as important as St. Mary's, a deficit of that size requires someone to come to the rescue; otherwise, the trust is left simply paying off the overdraft rather than paying nurses or carrying out care.
Turnberg recommended a review of resource allocation funding. The Government's annual report adds that the advisory committee has concluded its work and changed the relevant formula. The changes look good, although I am not able to say whether they are enough. It would be useful if annual reports set out the cash effect of the changes. Who wins and who loses? Whether for health, transport or local authorities, the formula is often the key. If the formula is wrong, the service suffers badly.
Can the Minister tell us whether the weighted capital has been adjusted to reflect the burden of mental health need in London following the Turnberg recommendation? Turnberg said that more money was needed. If that has not yet happened, when will it?
London is under huge staffing pressure. The report tells me neither how many staff we have nor how many vacancies there are. I know that there are many vacancies for nurses, doctors, midwives, health visitors, health professionals and hospital ancillary staff. We are also losing general practitioners. We do not have enough of

1127
them—many GPs are coming up to retirement age—and Turnberg recommended that something be done to recruit enough. London is short of dentists, and the report says nothing about what is being done to ensure access for everyone to an NHS dentist. We have lost many school nurses, and we do not have enough counsellors, an important part of the health service professional family.
Pay matters hugely. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton rightly asked the question that I had asked the Health Secretary on Tuesday about NHS pay. It is no good the Health Secretary blaming the management of trusts and saying that they may receive their P45s if staff are not paid until September. Having announced the pay increase on 1 February, the Minister of State wrote to me on 4 May, saying:
"The Advanced Letters promulgating the pay increases for 1999–2000 were issued to the National Health Service on 12 March 1999 for hospital doctors and dentists, and on 8 April 1999 for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine."—[0fficial Report, 4 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 361.]
If people were not told until 8 April that they could pay the money, it was not surprising that it was not in many pay packets by 30 April. The Government, not the trusts, gave that authority.
The Minister for Public Health might tell her colleague that, in addition to speedy action by trusts, the Government must press the buttons when pay awards are announced. Nurses have told me how disheartening it is to be told that they are valued and loved, but that no one is sufficiently bothered to make sure that they get the pay increases that they may desperately need.
Ms Linda Perham: I have listened as the hon. Gentleman has outlined the problems associated with nurses' pay, dentists and doctors in trusts and health authorities, including my own Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority. I am sure that he appreciates that the Government have put billions of pounds into the health service, so what solution does he offer to all the funding problems?
Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly valid question, and I have some proposals to make. I always try to put my own suggestions on the table.
First, however, let me deal with two other troubled sectors. Junior hospital doctors are at risk. I attended a national forum in Bath the other day to talk to junior doctors who feel undervalued and under pressure. It is hard enough to get into medical school. If people come out feeling that the health service does not want them, they will go abroad or into employment in the private sector and our huge investment in the cream of the cream will be lost.
We need more training places, and the Secretary of State is alert to that, but we must also ensure that junior doctors do not believe that they will be abused by having to work too many hours. I do not want to repeat the debate about why the Government proposed a 65-hour limit when they say that they want a 56-hour limit, although it seems to me that something has gone badly wrong. We must correct the message by saying that that proposal has been withdrawn. Until they hear that that is so, junior doctors are right to believe that there is a risk that they will be asked legally to work more than 56 hours and up to 65.
1128
The third area in which something must be done is general practice. Turnberg said clearly that the number of GPs in London needed to be increased to match numbers in the rest of the country. As the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) may know, we have far fewer doctors per head of population than all other European Union countries, bar one. If we are to have a proper health service, we must have enough doctors.
I have suggested before how we might achieve the right number of health service staff, but I shall repeat my ideas. We could offer bursaries to people to work in the health service, as used to be done for people entering the services or signing on to work for ICI. We could offer a deal, helping people through training in return for several years of service. We could offer loyalty payments to those who stay in the health service rather than deserting for richer pastures.
The regrading proposals being considered by the Government would allow people to be graded at higher levels and paid more while still undertaking hands-on professional activity. We could offer incentives for returnees, not simply saying that they will not have to pay for training, but giving some additional half-year payment if they return for three to five years.
Finally, the Secretary of State was right to say that strategic provision of accommodation for health service workers in London would replace the lottery of being unable to find anywhere because a nurses' home has been abolished. I suggest that the Housing Corporation could be asked to provide, through a housing association, something that might provide corporate housing for the NHS across London. To be honest, some of the hospitals are so near each other that they do not each need their own staff accommodation; but sufficient provision in the right places is needed.
Finally, from the viewpoint of patients, I come to the issue of waiting lists. As the Secretary of State said, waiting lists have come down. However, waiting times have not. The number of people who wait more than 12 months is still in its thousands. Although there are now none waiting over 18 months—nor should there be, because it was a patients charter obligation that there should not be—when will we have a guarantee that no one will wait more than 12 months either between seeing his doctor and seeing his consultant or between seeing his consultant and being treated?
The regional figures for London are still bad news. I have the North and South Thames figures rather than the new London regional figures. Since Labour came to power, there has been a 77 per cent. increase in North Thames and a 112 per cent. increase in South Thames—up from 43,000 to 76,000 in North Thames and from 26,000 to 55,000 in South Thames—in those not seen by their consultant for 12 months or more after having been seen by their GP. In other words, the number of those waiting for a consultation has effectively doubled since Labour came to power. That is no good. It is no use telling a patient that the time between seeing the consultant and getting the operation has been reduced if the time the patient has to wait to see the consultant has doubled. Both waiting times must be considered together. Resources are required to tackle both at the same time.

1129
Cancelled operation numbers remain high—when people are told on the day or the day before that they cannot be admitted—and need to be tackled.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I will not give way only because I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and others may wish to speak and because I have taken a couple of interventions.
The Secretary of State, rightly, introduced a review of beds and we applauded him for it. He tells me that work is being done and that he will return with proposals. Turnberg was clear in saying that we had no excess number of beds in London. We were pleased to hear that because the previous report suggested that there was. Yet, since the Government have come to power, we have lost 651 beds in acute, geriatric, learning disability and maternity provision. We have lost 16 maternity beds, six learning disability beds, 85 geriatric beds and 569 acute beds. As far as I am aware, only mental health beds have increased, by 116. If Turnberg said that we did not have enough beds, for a Labour Government two years later to deliver 651 fewer beds is not to solve the problem. I am prepared to wait a few months for the Secretary of State to come up with a considered view, but he will not honour any implied or expressed Labour party commitment to save the NHS if the Government do not provide the beds we need—not for those who are being dealt with as day-case patients, but for those who need them.
Mr. Clive Efford: I should like some clarification of the figures. An extensive building programme is taking place which will result in an increase in the number of acute beds on those that currently exist. Are they included in the hon. Gentleman's figures?
Mr. Hughes: I quoted from parliamentary answers to me about the number of beds when the Government came to office and at the last date when that number was recorded. Obviously, the figures do not include beds that do not exist yet. I accept that there is a building programme and that more beds will be provided, but that is no consolation to a patient who needs a bed now. Therefore, my question is: how are we dealing with the current shortage and when will we make up the shortage, let alone have the additional beds that we need?
On the provision of in-patient services, not only do we need more beds generally, but we specifically need staffed beds for mental health—another Turnberg recommendation —and to ensure that we get the reorganisation of services right. Some of such improvements will be brought about by the new planned Greenwich hospital in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world.
One of Turnberg's proposals is that no A and E department should treat more than 100,000 admissions, based on a report by Professor Browse. Turnberg went on to say:
"Closures should therefore only be planned where access to patients is not compromised, the number of patients attending remaining A and E departments is not so large that it overwhelms the staff and accommodation, and the number of beds available is sufficient to cope with the increased admissions."
There may be different views about who did what to the health service in terms of A and E provision, but—the Minister, more than anybody, will be aware of this—
1130
the Government's decision to confirm the proposals of the last Government, which they need not have implemented, to close the A and E department at Guy's was probably the most unpopular decision that the Labour party has ever made for my constituents. Certainly, it has meant that the Labour party is viewed with much less credibility in my part of the world. Given that the decision has now been made, which clearly my constituents, including Labour councillor colleagues, and I opposed, what is the procedure for making sure that the alternative facilities at St. Thomas's can cope? I have seen nothing to suggest that there will not be more than the upper limit recommended of 100,000 admissions a year having to be treated at St. Thomas's, however good the staff are. We cannot take a gamble on other hospitals being able to pick up the pieces when, for example, we close the A and E department at Guy's.
I shall conclude with a list of proposals. First, for those who are mentally ill and who have a history of violence to themselves or others, please may we have a named professional responsible for co-ordinating their care? In so many cases, the health service, social services, housing department or local authority have all been doing their own thing. Somebody must take responsibility for those people.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is that compulsory?
Mr. Hughes: It is not, but, where a person has such a history and convictions, somebody needs to be held to account to ensure that that person lives in a place where he does not disrupt the neighbourhood, where he has the drugs and takes them if necessary, where if he needs to be readmitted, he will be readmitted, and where if an order needs to be served on him, it will be served. Far too many, although not huge numbers, of such people are wandering around and, regularly, some people are killed and others are threatened and injured by them. I hope that the Government can agree to that straightforward proposal.
Secondly, may we have a system in place so that, if people are troubled by the advice or service given by a GP, they have a right to a second opinion from somebody who might be designated a GP consultant in their area? Many of my constituents have been unhappy with their GP. It is difficult to change one's GP and it often takes a long time to do so. A patient may not want to change his GP, but may just want a second opinion.
Thirdly, may we have a similar system for in-patients? Over the years, a stream of constituents have said that they felt uncomfortable and did not feel that their relative was being treated properly. In every hospital, at every hour of the day, there should be somebody on duty, possibly not employed by the health service, to whom in-patients, friends or relatives can go with their complaint or concern. That person should not be directly involved in the care of the patient. A complaint system that does nothing for six months makes people angry, impatient and frustrated. It may also come too late. A system that deals with complaints there and then would be far more responsive.
Fourthly, may we have a regular review of transport services to and from hospitals? In Sutton and surrounding areas, the local authority linked up with the health authority and the trust to make sure that the buses ran from where people lived and shopped to the hospital at

1131
the appropriate times. It is no good buses stopping at 6 pm. They need to run during visiting hours in the evening and at the weekends, so that people have access to the hospitals. Fifthly, can we concentrate on improving the waiting areas of many of our hospitals? They are grimness exemplified. A lick of paint and a little money would improve them.
In conclusion, there are lots of big issues coming down the tracks. There are questions about whether London will be prepared for the millennium, and about ensuring that we have primary care groups coterminous and working with local authorities. Our views, however, are these: as soon as possible, there should be a democratic regional tier for the health service in London and we hope that London regional government will be given that responsibility; as soon as possible, there should be a merger between health and social services to reduce management, improve co-ordination and the delivery of services; and all the parts of the health service should be brought together, so that the range of services—from self-medication to NHS Direct, the local chemist, the clinic, the surgery and the hospital—are seen to be part of a family of services to be drawn on, depending on the acuteness of one's need.
However, there must a real growth in the resources allocated to our health service—a growth in the share of the gross domestic product devoted to it—so that we can reach the same levels of care as comparable countries. Without that growth, we shall always struggle. There must be a real growth in the number of staff, who can be paid for from the growth in investment, and a real growth in accountability. We probably have the best health service in the world, but it could be very much better. The people of our capital city want that, and they are asking for it urgently.
3.10 pm
Mrs. Eileen Gordon: It would be impossible to discuss the modernisation of the national health service in London without first talking about why we need to modernise. I shall talk about acute services, because that is where I gained the little knowledge that I have on this subject. I shall talk particularly about Oldchurch hospital in Romford.
I have campaigned to save Oldchurch hospital services for at least the past 10 years, on and off. Before that, I tried, with others, to save Rush Green hospital in Romford, but the previous Government sanctioned its closure and the land was sold off. That land would have been the ideal site for a new hospital for the people of Barking, Dagenham and Havering. We suggested that at the time, but no one listened, and that opportunity has now gone.
When I tell the House that we campaigned to keep the accident and emergency department at Oldchurch, I must expound on that a little because it was a splendid campaign. We did not have the resources—the people or the financial resources—of the Bart's campaign, but we cared as passionately about our hospital and we certainly made a great deal of fuss. Every Saturday for about two years, we had a stall in Romford market. We took thousands of postcards to the regional health authority. We held candlelight vigils, and circled the hospital with
1132
about 700 people linking hands. We visited one regional health authority with our arms in slings—which was a bit embarrassing when the tea lady insisted on helping us with our cups of tea.
Our campaign, supported by the local press, touched every family in our community. We even had a mascot, which bore a striking resemblance to the right hon. Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the then Secretary of State for Health. It was made on the guy principle, although of course it was a gal. She went everywhere with us—on the stall, up to London in a wheelchair, on candlelight vigils. The trouble was that she was stuffed with paper and her legs just grew and grew. In the end, to get her into a car, we had to wrap her legs around her neck. She was in a sorry state-like the national health service under the previous Conservative Government.
Certainly Oldchurch hospital, with an uncertain future hanging over it, was also in a sorry state; no money was spent on it and little maintenance was carried out.
Ms Perham: I should like to pay tribute to the campaign for Oldchurch hospital with which my hon. Friend was involved over many years in the constituency that she serves with such distinction. Does she agree that it is important for us to achieve effective co-ordination and planning of hospital services throughout London, so that the viability of existing hospitals, such as King George hospital in my constituency—which most of my constituents use —is not at risk?
Mrs. Gordon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; I shall deal with that point later in my speech.
At the time of the campaign, I was a member of the community health council when we were invited to see the cockroaches in the nurses' home—not a very edifying sight. By 1997, the staff of the hospital were demoralised and everything was in limbo. However, the campaigners did not give up because we knew that we were right.
During the general election campaign, I never promised that we could save the Oldchurch services, but I did say that the only chance was a change of Government, and so it has proved. Early on, the Labour Government set in train the review of London's health services. The Turnberg report confirmed what members of our campaign group had always known—that the general hospital should be at the heart of the community at Oldchurch and that, furthermore, we should have a new hospital.
We now await the decision to go ahead with the project and, yes, I am impatient about it, but I have already waited 10 years and am prepared to wait a bit longer, because I know that we have a good scheme. However, I have to say that I am waiting for the decision with everything crossed and that gets a bit uncomfortable, so I do hope that it will be announced shortly.
In the meantime, the buildings are old and old-fashioned. The staff are working their socks off to provide a first-class service in third-class buildings. I was therefore extremely pleased when the Government awarded £748,000 to improve the accident and emergency service until the new hospital is built. I have always believed that a minor injuries unit should be part of any accident and emergency department, and I am glad that that is one of the uses being made of the money. It always

1133
made sense to me; I thought that keeping people with minor injuries at the back of the accident and emergency queue was daft, and that it would be best to treat them quickly, so that they could go home rather than hang around for hours waiting for minor treatment.
The hospital will also improve the children's accident and emergency services, providing an additional treatment area. It is important that young children should not have to suffer the distressing sights in adult A and E departments. There will also be an out-of-hours primary care service, where patients can get advice or treatment from a GP. There will also be an observation area with six beds, which, we hope, will speed up ambulance turnaround and free up trolleys in the A and E department. When in place, those Government-funded strategies will transfer to the new hospital, because they are mainly about new ways of working and not so much about bricks and mortar. They will greatly improve the services given to the 90,000 patients who attend Oldchurch A and E department each year.
The staff have been involved in developing those ideas, just as they have been involved in working up the plan for the new hospital. Their input will be invaluable in ensuring that the new hospital will really meet the needs of its population in the new millennium. In the meantime, the Government money will help to ensure that patients get the best possible care.
I have highlighted one hospital and one modernisation scheme, but the most exciting aspect of the changes that are taking place is that, from Turnberg onwards, we are considering London as a whole and planning service provision across the whole capital. A few years ago, we saw the horrible spectacle of hospitals poaching patients and competing for contracts. Hospitals were seen as a commercial threat to one another. It was appalling. The new ethos of partnership and co-operation instead of competition will bring great benefits for Londoners using our hospitals and for all those marvellous people who work in them.
3.18 pm
Mr. John Randall: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and to hear about the campaign that she has undertaken over the years. Later in my contribution, I shall touch briefly on some issues that affect local hospitals in my health authority. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate as it enables me to air my concerns and those of some of my constituents regarding the national health service in London.
I begin by paying tribute to all those who work in London's health service—the doctors, nurses, midwives, health workers, support staff, managers and members of the ambulance service. They succeed in delivering a remarkable service, despite the many constraints and problems that they face.
That the national health service has a unique place in the public's affections is in large measure thanks to those who work in it. The NHS in London provides a service to the 7 million people who live in the London area, to the 1 million who work here and to those who come specifically to London for treatment. London is also a major centre of academic excellence and research, which contributes to health care both nationally and internationally.
1134
The NHS celebrated its 50th birthday last year and, like most 50-year-olds, it has witnessed many changes since its birth in 1948. It now faces new challenges and new problems. Changes in demographics and technology have fuelled ever-rising expectations; for example, people now live an average of two years longer than they did in 1979. Increased longevity, combined with changes in public expectations of what the health service can and should do for them, ensures that the demand for health care continues to outstrip supply. Since its inception, the service has faced that basic, inescapable fact.
We must question the idea that once, long ago and lost in the mists of time, there was a golden era of the NHS, when everything ran perfectly and there were no problems. My first memory of Hillingdon hospital, Uxbridge dates back more than 30 years, when, as a schoolboy, I arrived at the accident and emergency unit with a broken wrist one Saturday lunchtime. More than eight hours later, I finally saw the consultant and the wrist was set. Such delays were by no means unknown in those days, but expectations were not so high then.
Today, the existence of those expectations and the ever-accelerating and extremely welcome advances in medical knowledge and treatments drive the need for modernisation of the NHS, because the NHS must do more, for more people, as cost-effectively as possible. That might lie behind the Government's welcome damascene conversion to the virtues of the private finance initiative. Any private-public partnership that can ease the pressures on the NHS is to be welcomed. Twenty-five of the 31 new hospitals that the Government plan to build are to be financed through the PFI—an ambitious programme that could go ahead only with private sector involvement.
Any new money is also to be welcomed, even though the Government's tendency to announce and reannounce the same sums at different times and places, while good for spin doctoring, has the effect of misleading the public and greatly irritating NHS professionals. The hyperbole that characterised Labour policy on health when the party was in opposition—the public were told during the election campaign that they had 14 days to save the NHS—has now been seen through. Last winter's cash crisis, to which an increasingly disconcerted Secretary of State admitted, combined with the waiting lists fiasco, which was a problem entirely of the Government's own making, started to test the public's patience.
It is true that the London trusts have achieved greater reductions in waiting lists than trusts in other parts of the country, and I am pleased to say that the Hillingdon hospital NHS trust has a good record on waiting lists. However, the drive to reduce waiting lists is a fundamental distortion of clinical priorities. None the less, that remains a totem pole for the Government: having spent a long time constructing it while in opposition, they are slavishly determined to continue to dance around it. Conservative Members argue that waiting times are more important than lists: how long one has to wait matters more than how many people are waiting ahead of one.
I was interested in a table that recently appeared in The Observer, in which the Hillingdon trust came top. Apparently, the trust issues the fewest anti-depressant drugs, although I have yet to ascertain from the chief executive the reason behind that statistic. As a great believer in looking on the bright side, I think that it is because we in Hillingdon and Uxbridge are inherently

1135
happy with our lot—as we should be, living in a pleasant suburb located somewhere near our great capital city, yet having access to some therapeutic countryside and green areas, which we guard ferociously. However, I recognise that many are not as fortunate as we are, and that there are parts of the borough whose residents might not recognise my description of the area. Those people must be a priority for the NHS in London.
I should like to draw attention to the problems that Hillingdon hospital encounters in the recruitment and, more important, the retention of nurses. However, I should be churlish not to welcome the introduction of NHS Direct, as west London has been in the vanguard of that innovative service. I wish it well; I hope that its progress will be carefully monitored and that improvements, if and when needed, will be implemented swiftly. I shall not refer in any detail to the Government's plans for the NHS set out in the Health Bill. We debated it earlier this month, and the Conservatives' opposition to it has been made clear. We think that the Bill will make the NHS more inflexible and more bureaucratic rather than help to modernise it.
Instead of repeating my objections to the Bill, I shall turn my attention to some specific problems associated with Hillingdon and the surrounding area. Some of the hospitals that I shall mention are located not in my constituency, but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), whose work in respect of these problems has been assiduous. I am sure that, if he has an opportunity to speak in the debate, he will flesh out the argument. Many people in my constituency feel strongly about these matters.
Without wanting to bore the House too much with my personal experience of Mount Vernon hospital in Northwood, or threatening to show any scars to back up my tales, I have to say that my association with that hospital goes back a long way. My experience usually accrued in the now-defunct accident and emergency department, where injuries sustained on the sports field were treated.
It might appear to be inconceivable and to require an act of faith to believe that I was at any time regarded as being athletic, but I assure the House that I have photographic proof. I have occasionally wondered when the decline in my athletic prowess occurred and, as I sat watching the Secretary of State today, I came to a sudden realisation. At a formative time in my life, when I was a young and impressionable student from Uxbridge, I resided in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. Watching him stroke his beard today, I realised that, subconsciously and rather worryingly, I must have adopted him as a somewhat dubious role model.
The problems involving Mount Vernon hospital and the neighbouring Harefield hospital, Uxbridge are serious. There is a proposal to move the burns and plastics unit to either Northwick Park hospital, Harrow, or Hemel Hempstead general hospital. That has raised serious questions about the viability of the regional cancer centre at Mount Vernon, which works closely with the bums unit in its regular work and on general research. The cancer centre, the well-thought-of Gray laboratory and the plastics and burns unit have an excellent track record on breaking barriers in research and patient care.
1136
The Secretary of State knows of local concerns about the implications for the future of the hospital without the burns and plastics unit. Thirty-seven local organisations, two community health councils and more than 80,000 local people have signalled their desire to keep the unit open and ensure the hospital's future. I pay tribute—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood will speak about the subject in more detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to those groups, particularly Community Voice and its chairman, Mike Turner, and to the hard work of my constituent Mrs. Constance Evans, who, despite being in a great deal of pain, has been tireless in her efforts to bring these matters to the attention of all those concerned. Those people and many others cannot be ignored; it is, after all, their national health service.
An expert advisory group has been considering various options for the future. However, real concerns have been expressed about the group's objectivity and its seeming unwillingness to consider all the possibilities. I hope that the interrelationship between the plastic and burns unit and the cancer centre will be a paramount consideration. It is difficult to see how the unit's closure will mean anything other than a deterioration of local provision and a threat to a much-valued facility. Relatively modest additional capital funding would be required to modernise Mount Vernon's facilities.
In addition to the threat to Mount Vernon hospital, the fate of the internationally renowned Harefield hospital hangs in the balance. It is the largest transplant centre in the world. Thousands of operations are performed there, and doctors from 60 countries complete their training at the hospital and then take their skills back to their countries. Under the leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield has become a world centre for lung and heart transplants.
The Government have said they recognise both the unique nature of Harefield and the fact that the interaction of science, research, teaching and services is its enormous strength. The Government also acknowledge that, if the Harefield team were split up, it would be very difficult to reassemble. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State's earlier remarks about Harefield. I have drawn the attention of the House to the fate of both of those hospitals because of deep public concern. There is widespread local anger about the threats to their survival.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and neighbouring constituency Members from both sides of the House have campaigned assiduously for the retention and modernisation of both hospitals. I raise my voice—as I have done in the past—in support of that objective. I am deeply concerned that not only are the wishes of local people being ignored, but the whole process is being conducted in a far from transparent manner. Many fundamental issues should be considered, and I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that the interests of the people of west London are prioritised above the demands and desires of bureaucracy and short-termism.
3.33 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refer to the new Oldchurch hospital with an air of imminence, which gave me the impression that it cannot be too far away.

1137
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), who has campaigned for more than a decade to keep the hospital open. Without a shadow of a doubt, if the Tories had won the last election, Oldchurch hospital would have been closed and the accident and emergency department would have been shifted to Harold Wood hospital. That would have disadvantaged my constituents and those of my hon. Friend enormously.
I have quite a long constituency, which extends down to the River Thames. People from Rainham, which is next to the Thames, would have had enormous difficulty travelling to Harold Wood hospital by public transport. Oldchurch hospital is situated in the centre of the conurbation and it is much easier to reach, particularly for older people who travel by public transport. Its proposed closure was little more than an asset realisation: the previous Government planned to sell the land for the maximum price and to concentrate hospital services on those parts of the trust property that were worth considerably less.
We can thank the Labour Government for keeping the hospital open. However, I have some doubts, not about Oldchurch, but about some of the new hospital schemes. I have read in the past few months about the bed levels proposed under those schemes. I realise that the greatest bed reduction since the founding of the national health service in 1948 occurred during the 1980s, when there was a 33 per cent. reduction in the number of beds across all specialties in the national health service. The biggest single reduction was in the number of mental health beds, which were cut by 50 or 55 per cent. That is why, in the past few years, deeply vulnerable and sometimes dangerous people have been left to wander the streets without proper care and medication. The most notorious case was that of Christopher Clunis.
Some of the new schemes propose a reduction in the number of beds to eight or nine per thousand people. The traditional national health service standard is 13, 14 or 15 beds per thousand people. I am more than willing to recognise that technical advances have changed the situation considerably. However, what will happen if there is a winter crisis when many elderly people fall and break hips, legs and arms? If the number of beds is reduced-notwithstanding the huge technical advances-what will happen in those circumstances? I hope that the Minister for Public Health will answer that question when she replies to the debate.
I would like to touch on one or two local problems, the principle one being the shortage of speech therapists. I suspect that that is a national problem, but it seems to be particularly acute in Havering. The health trust covering Barking, Havering and Brentwood, which is responsible for primary care services and therefore for speech therapists, is starting to address the problem.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that shortages are a problem common to all paramedical services in the NHS? There is a shortage of all the people who help doctors and nurses in their work. That is due primarily to the very low rates of pay, which the Government have failed to address this year.
Mr. Cryer: I agree that there is a shortage of people working in the NHS in all sorts of specialties. However, the shortage of speech therapists—which, as the hon.
1138
Lady pointed out, is a national problem—seems to be particularly acute in Havering. I am not sure why that is so. The local trust is beginning to address the shortage but, apart from pay, the root of the problem nationally is that we are not training enough speech therapists. We are probably not training enough physiotherapists and other specialists in those sorts of fields either.
Most of those who go to speech therapists in my area—and probably across Havering, Barking and Dagenham—are children who suffer from learning difficulties, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and other conditions. They are extremely vulnerable. After they have had speech therapy for a few weeks, their therapist disappears and they have to wait for another block of therapy. Those patients are placed in an increasingly vulnerable position. Parents of such children have told me that their children are enormously disturbed and distressed when the therapist whom they are used to is replaced after a few months. I hope that my right hon. Friend will turn her attention to that issue at the end of the debate.
I receive many complaints from older people about an apparent inconsistency in NHS treatment. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a survey conducted by Age Concern which was released on 9 April. According to the survey, one in 20 people aged over 65 has been refused treatment by the national health service. A further Age Concern report, by Professor Peter Millard, which was recently released, claims that hospitals could make 72,000 more admissions a year if health and social services worked together to provide comprehensive rehabilitation packages. I know that partnership is an important part of the present programme, but it does not seem to be as effective as I had hoped.
That point brings me to issues that are not directly associated with the national health service, but affect the way in which it works. I refer to living and working conditions. If we started to tackle those in a big way, we would begin to modernise the health service on an enormous scale. We can build all the hospitals and clinics that we like and set up primary care groups, but if we do not tackle conditions that allow, for instance, employers to take advantage of employees and disregard health and safety at work legislation, which in many cases is too loose, we will not achieve very much.
This year, for example, about 4,000 people are expected to die of diseases related to working with asbestos. That figure will go up, not down. An easy way to start to tackle the problem, at least for future generations, would be immediately to ban the importation of asbestos, tighten up on health and safety at work legislation and allow the criminal prosecution of employers whom the court views as criminally negligent; that is difficult to do at present. If we started to make such differences, we would make an enormous impact on people's lives, and relieve some of the burdens and pressures on the national health service.
Those who originally argued for the creation of a national health service and eventually achieved it—I refer to people such as Jimmy Maxton and Nye Bevan—certainly did not foresee a health service run by an enormous army of managers and bureaucrats appointed by the Tory Government. They foresaw a democratically run organisation controlled not only by those who used it, but by those who worked in it, and in the longer term, we should move towards that position.
3.42 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) referred to the need for a democratically run health service. A theme that I have come across throughout my political experience as a Member of Parliament in London is the gap between my constituents' aspirations and what the NHS is able to provide. The NHS bureaucracy is unwilling to accede to local people's wishes. The hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) emphasised this when she spoke from her committed experience of 10 years of fighting for her local hospital, and made it absolutely plain how difficult it was to get the message across.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), in a speech of great eloquence and force, again brought home our problems in the Hillingdon borough in ensuring that a strongly articulated and well-organised campaign is translated into effective action on behalf of local people by the NHS bureaucracy. To a large extent, it remains to be seen whether we have succeeded.
I shall touch on one or two themes to which the Secretary of State referred. First, London should be the centre for medical research. At Mount Vernon hospital and Harefield hospital in my constituency, pioneering research goes hand in hand with the most advanced clinical treatments—in cancer, burns and plastics at Mount Vernon, and in cardiothoracic treatments at Harefield. The Secretary of State said that it is important to combine research facilities and clinical services. I hope that his policies will bring this about at Mount Vernon and Harefield. He said also that local people want to have access to the highest-quality care. In west London, they have it at Mount Vernon and Harefield. The question is whether they will continue to enjoy it.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State announced again the £2 million of new resources for the second stage of the heart science centre at Harefield hospital. The centre is a monument to Sir Magdi Yacoub's pioneering work in heart and lung transplantation and cardiac treatments generally, and its work is recognised the world over, as is that of Harefield hospital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge explained. The hospital is as excellent as it is because of the quality of Sir Magdi and his team.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that there was no asset more important to the national health service than the people who work in it, but he said also that the health service is more effective if there is a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors. We have this in the research work done at Harefield and Mount Vernon; Mount Vernon has important private medical facilities in the Bishopswood hospital, as well as the privately funded research which is conducted at the site.
I shall concentrate on the health service as it is perceived locally because that is how it is judged throughout the capital. It is only by the quality of service delivered to our individual constituents that we can make an informed judgment. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Romford, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) said that, in the process of modernisation, we should not forget the potential for improving good hospitals. In essence, we should not put all our eggs in new baskets.
1140
There is a drive in the NHS to create more and more brand new hospitals, funded by the public or by the private finance initiative. They have their role, and we welcome them where they are created, but they should not be built at the expense of centres of excellence that have been built up, in some instances, over generations, which still do pioneering work and could do even more such work for a relatively modest input of additional funding. I hope that the cautionary tale I shall tell today will have genuine relevance, particularly for building on success.
Mount Vernon hospital is the biggest cancer centre on a single site in the south of England. The Secretary of State has referred again and again to the importance of cancer treatment; it is at the heart of his strategy for the NHS. One wonders how he or anybody in the NHS bureaucracy could contemplate undermining a cancer centre of such strategic importance and excellence.
Undoubtedly, cancer treatment is enhanced if there are plastic surgery facilities on site, as there are at Mount Vernon. This is not a run-of-the-mill facility, but, with its burns unit and the research done at the site, a comprehensive one. It brings in a great deal of private capital and exciting research, particularly through the Restoration of Appearance and Function Trust charity.
This charity is recognised and appreciated in the House. Many questions have been asked in the other place about its future, and the all-party fire safety group appreciates its work. I must remind the House of RAFT's origins. They lie in the generosity of the consultant plastic surgeons at Mount Vernon who, from their own salaries, put money aside to fund research into plastic surgery and burns treatment. From that small acorn a mighty oak of research has grown, which is internationally recognised and greatly appreciated in the House.
So important is the burns facility that, when its future was called into question, I challenged the chairman of the then North Thames executive, Mr. Ian Mills, to a bet. Mount Vernon is ideally located for burns and plastics work by virtue of not only its complementarity with the cancer unit, but its location. It is in the same borough as Heathrow airport, quite near RAF Northolt and at a modal point of the M4-MI-M40-M25 network. Helicopters may also land there, which is important.
I hypothesised to the chairman of North Thames on the dire eventuality of a major air accident at Heathrow involving many bums casualties. I said, "We will go to Heathrow, you and I, in my car, pretend that an air crash has occurred, and time the journey to Mount Vernon as against that to Chelsea and Westminster hospital," to which Hillingdon health authority was at that time suggesting the burns and plastics unit should be transferred. I said that, if we could get to Chelsea and Westminster in a lesser time, I would give Mr. Mills a crate of champagne. Understandably, he did not take the bet because he knew full well that he had not a hope in hell of winning.
The health authority's incomprehensible proposal aroused huge hostility in the community. There was a series of so-called consultation meetings, which were a charade; the general public asked questions, but the bureaucrats refused to answer them. It was only by dint of massive effort that, in October, we persuaded the regional health authority at least to look again at the future of the burns and plastics unit. An expert committee was established under Professor Lessof. The committee is still

1141
sitting and I believe that it is due to come to its conclusions today. We know that its favoured conclusions—my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge described them—are a move either to Hemel Hempstead or to Northwick Park.
I think that I have explained the importance of keeping the burns and plastics facility next to the cancer unit at Mount Vernon, but I should like to mention also the consequences for RAFT, which is a privately funded charity. Why should the donors, who have been so generous over the years, bear the cost of their unit being translated to Northwick Park? I know that a number of Mount Vernon's consultants have said that they are not against the move to Northwick Park and are quite sympathetic to the idea—but only as a second best, because they believe that NHS bureaucrats have prejudged the issue and are determined, whatever the arguments in favour of Mount Vernon, to ignore them and to see that the facility moves elsewhere.
Dr. Tonge: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be saying that because Mount Vernon is a big cancer hospital—I will not dispute his claim that it is the biggest in the south-east, although the Royal Marsden might also make that claim—
Mr. Wilkinson: On a single site.
Dr. Tonge: That is as may be. He is arguing that the burns unit must be at Mount Vernon because it is a very big cancer hospital. Cancer is hundreds of diseases, but I can think of only a very small number of them that involve plastic surgery as a consequence. I cannot see the connection.
Mr. Wilkinson: Obviously, I defer to the hon. Lady's medical expertise, but, undoubtedly, both the cancer specialists and the plastic surgeons at Mount Vernon all agree that, time and again, reconstructive work following cancer surgery requires plastic surgery. It is just as fundamental as that. Although I do not belittle the hon. Lady's expertise, taking the burns and plastics unit away from Mount Vernon would undoubtedly diminish the scope of treatments available to assist cancer therapy.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the intervention of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was not particularly helpful to those of us who are campaigning for the future of Mount Vernon hospital, but does he accept that the loss of its accident and emergency unit in 1996, against which I argued at the time, has already diminished its status and made it much more difficult for those of us who are fighting to secure its future, as has been put to me by many of my constituents?
Mr. Wilkinson: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. I remember making a speech in this place 20 years ago in which I argued that the accident and emergency unit at Mount Vernon should be kept open at night. The then junior Health Minister, now the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), agreed that it could and should be. A few years ago, however, health professionals argued that it was not appropriate to maintain such a facility, that there should be fewer, better-equipped A and E units in
1142
the country and that, in the interests of our constituents, we should accede to the proposed transfer. Against our better judgment, we went along with so-called professional opinion and, as the hon. Gentleman makes clear, the transfer diminished the range and scope of services at the hospital to the detriment of its longer-term potential. I accept entirely what he says.
As for the Hemel Hempstead hospital, it is interesting to note what West Hertfordshire health authority has suggested for its reorganisation of facilities. This is germane to the modernisation of health services in London. Mount Vernon is in a joint trust with Watford general, which is of course in Hertfordshire, so the West Hertfordshire hospital reorganisation programme has a direct impact on Mount Vernon, which straddles the Greater London and Hertfordshire border.
The West Hertfordshire review has hypothesised about, ultimately, a new PFI hospital on a green-field site somewhere in the west of the county. It has not specified where, but, if it were to be built, both Watford general and Hemel Hempstead would probably close. Furthermore, it has laid claim to the new hospital1 as the location for Mount Vernon's burns and plastics unit. The plot becomes even more complicated because the South West Hertfordshire community health council has officially refused to accept the health authority's proposals, and adjudication rests with the Secretary of State.
I must also mention the work of the Cleft Lip and Palate Association, which is another charity in a particularly important field of medicine for young children. The surgery involved is similar to plastic surgery. The association has always understood the merits of Mount Vernon's work and supported it. I went to its annual general meeting at the hospital only last week.
There is still doubt about the long-term future of Harefield hospital. The Government have conducted a review of cardiothoracic facilities in west London, and the options before us are that things should stay as they are, which would mean that Harefield, which is part of a joint trust with Royal Brompton, would continue in its present form, as I and all my constituents want; that its facilities should be transferred to the Royal Brompton; or that both hospitals' facilities should be combined in a new hospital in the Paddington basin.
Three or four weeks ago, I went to a meeting of the Harefield transplant club, which consists of patients who have had heart transplants and who meet for mutual support. They met at the hospital, as they always do. They were insistent on the merits of Harefield. The hospital is located in open country, in the green belt. It is an ideal location for a heart hospital and it has helicopter facilities, which assist heart transplantation. The work of the heart science centre has already been referred to in the debate. Those in the transplant club pointed out that, although after a heart transplant one is all wired up to machines, it is easy to walk about at Harefield and to go out into the garden. It would be nonsense to try to do that in the busy streets of London. I wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him to see a delegation of the Hamsters, led by me. I am still awaiting his reply.
My constituency contains two regional specialist centres of outstanding excellence, both of which are wholly unnecessarily at risk. They are at risk from some grand design which has been evolved by bureaucrats at a stratospheric level. There has been no effective dialogue

1143
whereby the wishes of local people might be acceded to. We are presented with a series of potential faits accomplis. Luckily, the ultimate decisions have not been taken. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to demonstrate that his actions match his rhetoric and that he believes that the modernisation of hospital facilities in London can take place rationally—building on success and improving good, existing facilities which have stood the test of time, namely, those at Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals.
4.2 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: I welcome the fact that the debate is being held just two years after the general election which delivered an undeniable mandate to this Government to concentrate on the priorities of education and health. Today's debate provides an opportunity to review achievements, discuss progress on the recommendations of the Turnberg report and raise the health concerns that we all have. The debate helps us all to develop our understanding of the Londonwide health issues. More importantly, it will help us to improve care for those who need it in London and to make progress in areas that have not been addressed adequately in our great capital city.
London has lagged behind other United Kingdom and European cities in its lack of a strong citywide approach to health. In preparing for the debate, I have had cause to refer to the public health report, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred and which I commend to the House. The report is entitled "The Health of Londoners" and is prepared by the Health of Londoners project. It states:
"It is time for the health of Londoners to be put fully on the map."
That statement is right and that is what is being delivered by the Government.
The creation of the Greater London Authority—the Bill had its Third Reading last night—with an elected mayor for London and a single London office of the NHS executive provides unparalleled opportunities for the health and well-being of Londoners to be given the long overdue attention they deserve.
It should not surprise anyone that poverty, deprivation and social exclusion are the main features affecting health in the capital, as elsewhere. Although inner London seems to fare worst on many, but not all health indicators, the problems associated with poverty and social exclusion are distributed throughout the capital, even in the most affluent areas.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to a number of points raised in the report, and I want to add one or two important statistics for the record. A total of 940,000 adults in London—17 per cent.—receive income support and 750,000 receive housing benefit. Forty per cent. of the population live in electoral wards that are among the most deprived 10 per cent. of all wards in the country. There are many more statistics that demonstrate the extent of deprivation in London. Such deprivation leads to health inequality and premature death. The report states that the chances of dying before reaching 65 are almost twice as high in the
1144
most deprived areas of London as in the least deprived. That shows that the gap between rich and poor is increasing.
Those statistics were produced at about the time of the 1997 election and illustrate the circumstances that pertained during the Conservative Government. It is clear that, notwithstanding the protestations and assurances from the two Conservative Prime Ministers between 1979 and 1997 and the Health Ministers during those years, the health service was not safe in their hands. It is one of the main reasons for Conservative failure at the ballot box and why there are more Labour Members than Conservative Members in this Parliament.
In stark contrast, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have set about the task of modernising our health service with zeal. Hon. Members will be aware that there is no shortage of reading material and reports on health in London. The most important reference point and the base for this debate is the strategic review of the health service in London, prepared by Sir Leslie Turnberg.
In his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 18 November, which is when he presented his report, Sir Leslie Turnberg said:
"We found a health service under pressure. Services across the whole spectrum of care, from those in the community and primary care to those in hospitals, were sorely stretched. Although the impact of these pressures was most keenly felt in the care of elderly people and those with mental illness, others were not immune from the failures to meet an acceptable standard of service … Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the pressures are increasing. Despite ,all this, healthcare workers are doing the best they can and we found examples of good practice, even in areas of severe pressure."
The report makes a number of recommendations, which the Government have accepted. I want to refer to two. First, there is the position of Oldchurch hospital, which has been referred to today by my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). The report recommends that there should be a new Oldchurch hospital, covering the whole of the Barking and Havering health area. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say today that it was one of the areas awaiting prioritisation.
It is important that the decision is made as soon as possible because there is a need to invest in a modern hospital for a modern health service and because of the circumstances of this case. A healthy partnership has been developing between the local authority, the health trust, the community health council, GPs and the five Members of Parliament representing the area covered by the area health authority. Many other decisions are waiting on the decision about the hospital. Community provision, GPs and primary care areas are all awaiting the decision which is, in many ways, the last part of a detailed jigsaw. There are firm reasons why the decision should be made as soon as possible.
The previous Government began to address primary care issues following the Tomlinson report in 1992. In many ways that was too little, too late. The London initiative zone programme badly underestimated the extent to which the previous Government failed in their first 10 years in office. At the time of the Turnberg report, LIZ investment was estimated to have been £265 million. Ultimately, the programme is estimated to have invested £;402 million.

1145
Page 33 of the Turnberg report states:
"Despite considerable investment in primary care services in the last few years, services lag woefully behind those in the remainder of the country—the number of practices below recommended standards remains high, too many premises remain poor, single-handed practices represent a larger proportion than elsewhere, recruitment is difficult and the total number of GPs has fallen slightly in the face of a rise across the rest of England."
That is the state of London's health service, at a time when London's population, for the first time in decades, is increasing.
In 1997, in my area, only 8 per cent. of the 124 GP premises in the Barking and Havering health authority were above required minimum standards. I therefore welcome the information provided in the Department of Health's progress report. On page 9, it describes the 73 major schemes that—a year after publication of the Turnberg report—have been completed. Nevertheless, much more has to be done, particularly in my health authority—which the Department's report states is benefiting from four major schemes. However, those schemes go only some of the way towards achieving the minimum standards described in the Turnberg report.
I enthusiastically support primary care groups, which are another major development. A primary care group has been established on the boundary of my own constituency, enabling me to work with doctors who are enthusiastic about the group's work. I congratulate Dr. Haider and Dr. Anthony, who are the group's co-chairmen and are working with the local community in a true partnership. I have attended one or two of their meetings, at which—I am able to report to Ministers—enthusiasm for the group's work was expressed.
People at the group have been telling me that they want to be left alone to get on with creating stability after all the reforms. Nevertheless, I am sure that primary care groups will deliver the rewards that we expect from them.
I believe that primary care groups will have a big influence in addressing some of the issues raised in the LIZ review. I was particularly interested in the review's comments on people attending accident and emergency units. At the North Middlesex hospital, for example, 67 per cent. of patients
"suggested that their reason for attending was because their GP surgery was not open."
The report also states that the London ambulance service was
"the primary carer for 85 per cent. of patients carried",
and that, overall, London ambulance service
"crews assessed that 13 per cent. of their calls were to patients who should have been dealt with by their own GP."
The statistics demonstrate the extent to which primary care groups, GPs and primary carers generally may help us to make better use of our resources.
The House will gather from my remarks that I am enthusiastic about the Government's reforms. London's health service is being modernised. There is still a long way to go, but—with the new primary care groups, new hospitals and the new investment described today—we shall certainly be improving the health service for the people of London.
4.14 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I should like to start by picking up on the comment made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) that there is still a long way to go in modernising and improving London's health service. I wanted to speak in the debate to highlight a few concerns that have been drawn to my attention in my constituency or that my constituents have raised with me in correspondence.
I should like also to touch on a comment made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). I should deal with that now, as I believe that he is about to leave the Chamber. He made a very important reference to Professor Millard's report and work on hospital discharge arrangements for elderly people. In that work, Professor Millard—who is a constituent of mine—has highlighted the fact that too many of our senior citizens are being discharged from hospital straight into residential care, whereas proper investment in rehabilitation services would have avoided the need for them to go into such care. We have to ensure that more work is done on the issue, to ensure that independence is promoted and that people may continue to live for longer in their own homes.
Professor Millard's work in targeting that issue complements very well the work of the royal commission on long-term care. I hope that the Government will soon be publishing their conclusions and recommendations on how to address that issue. We are growing impatient to hear how they will address it, and particularly look forward to reading the guidance, which is soon to be issued, on discharge planning. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the issue in her reply. I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch for mentioning the issue, as it reminded me of that research.
I should like also to deal with the merger, in my area, of the St. Helier NHS trust with the Epsom Health Care NHS trust. Although Epsom is outside the Greater London NHS region, by dint of its merger with the St. Helier trust, it will be covered by the London region. I should like to address a number of issues that have arisen from the merger.
The first issue is the concern expressed—not least by the community health councils covering the new trust—that, at the end of its life, the Epsom trust, which no longer exists, had on its balance sheet a £2.7 million deficit, and that that deficit will be inherited by the new trust. The new trust has conceded that there are substantial cost pressures on its new budget, and that those pressures will impact on its ability to operate. Not the least of the pressures are those arising from the pay award, from the European working time directive and from year 2000 problems.
The deficit issue, and how it is handled, is a particular concern for me and my colleagues in the local community health councils. We are fearful that it will lead to "service reconfiguration"—which, too often, is a terrible euphemism for cuts—so that the new trust's budget may be realigned with the money that the health authority and the Government feel that the trust needs to deliver health care services.
Mr. Casale: It is understandable that the community health council, which is also the CHC for my area, will have some concerns about the merger of the St. Helier and

1147
Epsom trusts, but my understanding is that it has broadly endorsed the merger. Does the hon. Gentleman generally endorse it? Does he—as he has mentioned thepotential £2.7 million deficit—also welcome the £3 million that the Government have made available for the St. Helier accident and emergency service in his constituency?
Mr. Burstow: Perhaps I should first clear up the matter of where St. Helier hospital is located. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—who is unable to be here today, but shares a continuing interest and concern, as do the hon. Gentleman and I, about the provision of services at the hospital.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) was right in saying that the community health council, with caveats, indicated its support for the merger. I, too, have been a supporter of the merger—not least because of the need to reach critical mass in being accredited by royal colleges, and all of the consequences that flow from that, so that the hospital is viable and able to operate. I also welcome the long-overdue, but much-needed investment in our A and E department, so that it is able to address the issues, especially at winter crisis time, that seem to have become an element of the way in which the health service operates. However, Epsom CHC is also concerned to ensure investment in the A and E department to secure the long-term future of Epsom hospital. Anything that the Minister can say about that would be greatly appreciated.
Both CHCs have real concerns about service reconfiguration—or cuts. I hope that Ministers will give further consideration to that today. I hope at least that the new London region will do all that it can, together with the two health authorities that cover the new trust, to ensure a soft landing in managing to bring the budget into line with the resources that will be made available to the trust over the coming years.
The problems in the local health economy in my area and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wimbledon are exacerbated by the deficits that the health authority has had to grapple with over recent years. A recovery plan is in place to bring that budget into line with the Government's target for health authority spending. I dislike the language of targets and recovery plans, because it disguises the way in which budgets are being reduced. That will make it more difficult for the new trust to bed down in the way that many of us, including the people who rely on the services, would like.
Two other concerns arise from the merger. The first is that the two hospitals are several miles apart and the public transport between them is very poor. The local CHC in my constituency undertook some research and found that it would take about four hours to travel by public transport from St. Helier hospital to Epsom hospital and the journey would cost up to £7. As the services of the two hospitals are brought together and economies of scale are achieved, there will be concerns that people will have to make the journey to secure the treatment that they need. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly referred earlier to the work that my local authority has done with the local health service to promote better bus services. I am keen that my local authority and the local health service should
1148
undertake the necessary work now to establish good public transport links between the hospitals to make the trust a reality in the local transport infrastructure.
The second issue is that the trust straddles two NHS regions and two health authorities. The London region will take the lead in overseeing the new trust, but there are concerns among those who represent the interests of patients that the trust may not do so well out of that arrangement, particularly in the Epsom and Surrey area. Anything that the Minister has to say about how the London region will deal with a trust that is not part of its area would be helpful.
I had an opportunity just two weeks ago to lead a deputation of the two local community health councils to see Baroness Hayman. She was very constructive in our dialogue and I was grateful for the meeting. As a result, several messages have been sent back to the trust and the health authority. We look forward to a good on-going relationship between the CHCs and the new trust.
There are two other issues to which I wish to refer arising from my mailbag and representations that I have received from constituents: chiropody services and multiple sclerosis. I regularly attend meetings of the Sutton seniors forum, which recently received a presentation on the joint investment plan being drawn up by the local social services department and the health authority on issues related to ageing and services for elderly people. A well-resourced chiropody service is a key to promoting independence, particularly among elderly people, and unlocking resources that would otherwise be used in acute services and other parts of the care system. The pressures for cost savings are undermining the service, increasing waiting times and restricting the nature of the service that is provided to my constituents and others. Those false economies result in greater costs in the local health and social care economy in my area and in other parts of London.
The need to improve and extend foot care services was not referred to specifically in the Turnberg report, but community health care services were referred to in detail. Although I strongly welcome the merger of the Merton and Sutton Community NHS trust with a number of others to create a new south-west London trust and some of the economies in management costs that should arise from that, I am concerned that the merger may lead to a loss of focus on local situations, not just at borough level, but at individual level. It is essential that the reorganisation of the management structures of health services does not result in the loss of the local connection and focus on delivering appropriate care and treatment. Investment in foot care services must not be overlooked in my constituency or more widely in London. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that.
I was fortunate to have an Adjournment debate on MS in February, so I shall not talk about it for too long today. The treatment of MS should be about more than just prescribing beta interferon. It must be set in the broader context of neurological services. A survey last year by the Association of Quality in Healthcare found that 46 per cent. of health authorities did not have service plans or adequate information on which to base plans for tailoring services for those who suffer from MS—rehabilitation services, continence care and many others.
There are only 400 neurologists in the country—the same number as in the city of Boston—and just 58 specialist nurses. At present, 95 per cent. of patients with

1149
neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and MS are cared for by their GP, not through neurological services. Such degenerative conditions all too often lead to costs falling on social care, when health care would be more appropriate.
The MS drug therapy that we hear about all too often, with debates in this place about rationing, is not the be-all and end-all. However, since 1995, NHS guidance on relapsing and remitting MS has encouraged prescribing beta interferon in the context of advice from neurologists. In too many cases, even when neurologists advise and recommend its prescription, it is not made available. Constituents have written to me to express concern about long waits.
Two weeks ago, the NHS regions were given new guidance on beta interferon that they were about to issue, but it was not issued. I understand that it would have cast doubt on the prescribing of beta interferon, particularly for secondary progressive forms of the condition. During my February Adjournment debate and during Health questions in April, Ministers declared their intention to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Why was it necessary to issue new guidance when NICE is being set up to give the Government proper advice?
NICE's work on beta interferon is only part of the picture. We need a national neurological services framework. Will the Minister be able to tell us when such work might be undertaken, so that all the issues can be brought together and dealt with systematically?
I have brought these issues to the attention of the House because they are of concern to my constituents and many others in London and have been highlighted in my correspondence. We value and welcome the progress that the Government are making in some areas, particularly some of the additional resources for A and E, but, as others have said, there is still a long way to go to secure the NHS services that we all want.
4.29 pm
Mr. Roger Casale: I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Government's plans for modernising the health service in London. I should like to report to the House and to the Minister the progress that is being made in my constituency and in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority to rebuild the national health service in south-west London and equip it to meet the health challenges and demands of the 21st century. That is happening in the context of wide-reaching demographic change, but in the knowledge that the Government are committed to giving the British people the health services that they need and deserve.
We inherited from the Tory Government a health service that was underfunded and demoralised, fragmented and inefficient and in which competition for scarce resources between different parts and sectors of the health service threatened to undermine the core values, principles and ethos of what was a truly national service and the envy of the world. In just two years, the new Labour Government have put in place a framework for massive year-on-year funding increases, a strategy for tackling health inequalities and a vision for the future of our health service based on modern forms of organisation and a new culture of partnership and consultation to identify and meet health needs.
1150
In London, the Government moved swiftly to set up a strategic review of the health service under Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg. I welcomed that decision and the report when it was published and debated last year. The shortcomings of the health service that we inherited from the previous Government were perhaps no more starkly in evidence than in London. A comprehensive review of health service provision from its very foundations was a strategic priority for London and for the national health service.
Alongside the commitment to increase funding—£21 billion over the next three years—the Government's commitment to implementing in full the recommendations of the Turnberg report stands as a further milestone along the road to rebuilding our health service. My local health authority area has felt the impact of those commitments immediately and will continue to benefit from a Labour Government delivering on their promises for many years to come.
London has suffered from a funding formula that has not truly reflected its health needs. Following a delegation last year to the former Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)—now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—which I led and in which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman), for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) participated, I am delighted that there will be a freeze on further changes to the existing formula to review key factors such as the age profile and ethnic composition of London's population. I understand that the freeze will continue until 2001, when the working group will report.
The establishment of a Londonwide regional health executive is also a major step forward. Indeed, without it, it is difficult to see how a strategic approach to dealing with Londoners' health needs would be possible. However, I welcome the new regional health executive for the efficiency savings that will now be made by cutting down administrative costs—savings that will be reinvested in the health service in London to reduce waiting lists further and deliver improved front-line patient care.
Organisational change is also taking place at the sub-regional level in south-west London, and I endorse the merger of the Epsom and St. Helier trusts and the appointment of Jennifer Denning as the new chair. Similarly, I am pleased to endorse the community trust merger to which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney referred and the appointment of Dr. Liz Nelson as chair. The new trust will not be coterminous with the health authority area, but I support it because the inclusion of the Richmond trust will provide the critical mass necessary to make Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton viable as a community hospital and also because of the strategic advantage of such a merger in the context of providing a quality health service for south London.
Most of all, however, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for the extra resources that have been made available to my local health authority over and above what was due to us through the national resource allocation on the existing formula. London—and especially south-west London—had been so starved of resources by the previous Government that one of the first

1151
reports that I was given to read by my local health authority after my election in 1997 was entitled "The River Runs Dry".
This year's budget for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority represents a cash increase of 6.3 per cent. and a real-terms increase of 3.8 per cent. In addition, the Government have provided £3 million to improve and enlarge the accident and emergency department at St. Helier and £2 million to cope with winter pressures. As a result of those and other changes, the burden of financial deficit across the local health economy has been reduced from £25 million in 1997-98 to £3.4 million for 1999-2000. The reduction in waiting lists at St. George's and St. Helier and across Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority area has exceeded the Government's target by 4.3 per cent.
Further much-needed and important organisational changes are also going ahead at the initiative of local health decision makers and with the support and active involvement of the Government. In respect of mental health care, for example, Sutton and Pathfinder mental health services are to merge and Pathfinder has now received approval to redevelop its provision on the Tooting site. One site will now provide in-patient adult services for all Merton residents and a women-only area will be part of the new development. Most important, six primary care groups are now in place across the health authority and chief executives have been appointed to each.
The Nelson primary care group in my constituency, jointly chaired by Dr. Howard Freeman and Dr. Martyn Wake, is already playing a key strategic role in shaping the way in which health services will be delivered in our local community in future. Together with the St. Helier trust, the health authority and other local stakeholders, the Nelson primary care group is developing exciting new plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in Wimbledon. The project will eventually house the Nelson primary care group and give local commissioning GPs a central role in the delivery of consultant-led services on site, relieving the strain on the large district hospitals and providing locally based services to the community in the heart of the community and, thanks to the community health council and the Wimbledon Civic Forum's health forum, in partnership with the local community.
New developments are also expected with regard to the future of the Atkinson Morley's hospital in my constituency and I thank the Minister for his intervention last year to ensure that the paediatric neurosurgery unit currently based at the Atkinson Morley's hospital will move with the rest of the neurosurgery department to the new PFI-led neurosurgery and cardiac unit at St. George's hospital in 2002.
For all the false sentimentality expressed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) about health service buildings, it is important to remember that Labour is more interested in the level of service. Atkinson Morley's services are not being broken up or reduced; they will be moved in their entirety to more modern buildings at St. George's, and I support that move.
I close my remarks by referring to what may be the most difficult and challenging task facing the Government in their drive to raise standards of health care across
1152
London: the need to bring about a cultural shift in the way in which the health service operates as the NHS moves to centre stage as the key public institution in our joined-up approach to creating a fairer, stronger and more equitable society. "Partnership" and "consultation" are the key words. They are easy to say-we all know what they mean-but more difficult to put into practice. How many of us know how to do that effectively?
Historically, the whole ethos of the NHS rests on co-operation and partnership to take forward a common endeavour in the public interest-caring for the nation's health-but that ethos was systematically eroded by a generation of Tory Governments and it will require not just good faith and good words, but hard work, organisation and perhaps further statutory duties to consult in order to reverse the decline. For example, consultants will have to learn to work more committedly in partnership with doctors if community hospitals and primary care groups are to deliver their full potential contribution to public health. It will not be enough to knock down the Berlin wall between social services and health services; many bridges will need to be built if we are to achieve a seamless service as planned.
Throughout the process, clear performance criteria must be laid down. Those criteria must be public and they must be publicly monitored. Above all, local communities and patient groups must have a stronger voice in the framing of health improvement plans and the shaping of local health strategies generally. Such an approach will help to deliver quality and equality in the health service by rooting out substandard performance and by identifying best practice and spreading it around.
The Wimbledon Civic Forum, which I established in my constituency and which I chair, brings together local residents and community groups to discuss issues of common concern with key decision makers. It is a valuable additional channel for communication and consultation in that regard.
The Wimbledon Civic Forum's health forum, under the chairmanship of Mr. Albert Johnson-together with the local community health council, under Dr. Lea McDonald-is leading the consultation on service provision at the new Nelson community hospital. The health forum has also held meetings with the chief executive of the health authority and the head of social services of Merton council to discuss the authority's health improvement plan, its strategy on mental health care and the authority's relationship with local community and social services. I ask the Minister to encourage such initiatives as a valuable way of helping to promote a cultural change in the way in which all our public services operate, as much of our success in modernising the NHS in London will depend on bringing that cultural change about.
In conclusion, our future in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth is now vastly better secured as a direct result of the Government's response to Turnberg, the comprehensive spending review and the additional benefits delivered by the Government over and above these two, such as NHS Direct, walk-in centres and many others. I assure Ministers that, in my constituency and in south-west London, we support and are working to implement the changes that they are seeking to bring about across the country as a whole.
4.41 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) made a constructive and well-informed speech. My only criticism is that, in parts, it was too flagrantly party political, as if only one party could serve the NHS. Since the establishment of the NHS, successive Governments from across the political spectrum-whatever some Opposition Members might say, or whatever some members of the public might think-have been united in their commitment to the NHS, a service providing treatment free at point of delivery. There may well be differences on how the funds and resources for the NHS can be found, but the hon. Gentleman will find, after he has been in the House a bit longer, that no one here is opposed to the NHS and its pre-eminent position in the provision of health care.
Mr. Casale: I share the hon. Gentleman's commitment to cross-party consensus, where possible, and I try to practise it in my constituency. However, one of the reasons why I joined the Labour party was that I believed that the NHS would not have a future were it not for a Labour Government. I have not been disappointed in that regard.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has some support from his hon. Friends. I have been here a goodly number of years, and I had the privilege to serve for a time on the Select Committee on Social Services. When that Committee was divided between health and social security, I chaired the Select Committee on Health for two years. There was tremendous co-operation among all members of that Committee, who were totally convinced that our NHS was the best in the world.
The Committee wanted to improve the NHS, and we worked to produce reports that would provide a better service for the people of this country. I chaired that Committee as a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Wimbledon may be aware that I was not always as warmly supported by my party colleagues as I might have been. Notwithstanding that, there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are committed to the concept and principle of the NHS.
Mr. Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept-as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) appeared to-that there was considerable concern in Greater London at the time of the general election about the thrust of the previous Government's policy towards health in the capital?
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right, and the country as a whole had a perception about what the then Government wished to do with the NHS. I think that that perception was wrong, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was right to articulate that today.
At the risk of upsetting my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I can say that the Conservative party has sought in what it has said recently-despite being misunderstood by some sections of the media-to establish once and for all that
1154
we are committed to the NHS. We want to improve it and to get more money into London, where there are problems. Those problems have been articulated remarkably well in the debate.
Ten months ago, I had an unfortunate fall in Trafalgar square. I have nothing but praise for and appreciation of the speed and efficiency of the London ambulance service and the paramedics who crewed the ambulance. Likewise, I have every admiration, respect and regard for the service and attention that I got from the hospital just across the river-our hospital, St. Thomas's-when I was taken to the accident and emergency unit. The service was first class. I experienced virtually no delay, and I greatly appreciated the service. That experience was important, as it gave me an opportunity to appreciate what the NHS can do. I praise the NHS.
Members of my close family live in London, and five of my seven grandchildren were born at St. George's hospital in Tooting. Pressure on the maternity and labour facilities at the hospital cause concern, but the quality of service and attention that mums-to-be get at St. George's is high. We have much to be thankful for in terms of the hospital services in London.
As I said earlier, I served for many years on the Social Services Committee; initially under the redoubtable leadership of Mrs. Renee Short, whose commitment to the NHS was never doubted. We worked closely together. One thing that is of immense benefit to the House is the Select Committee system, in which members of all political parties sit on a Committee, undertake an inquiry and, at its end, produce a report that is based on the oral evidence given to them, the experience of visits and the written memorandums that have been submitted. My experience on the Social Services and Health Committees was that we were committed to the health service and to social services, and we wanted to produce reports that were based on the factual evidence given to us. Many of the reports had cross-party support in the House as well as in the Committee. I believe that the health service benefited, and continues to benefit, from the work of the Health Committee.
I had the privilege to have as advisers on health over the years such learned medics and clinicians as Professor Richard Beard of St. Mary's, Professor Osmond Reynolds of University College hospital, and Dr. Luke Zander, a GP who is about to retire and who was immensely helpful and brought great commitment and experience to our deliberations, helping us to produce reports that have aided the delivery of health care.
Concerns have often been raised, especially by those who happen to be in opposition, about the hours worked by junior doctors. I am well aware of the problems that face any Government seeking to reduce those hours, but many of us, including myself, remain somewhat concerned that, although the Government rightly intended to reduce the hours, they will not be reduced as quickly as we had hoped. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter when she replies to the debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Ruislip-Northwood asked, very constructively, about current facilities and specialties at hospitals in their constituencies. I raise those matters not because they have asked me to do so, but because other people continue to write to me on the subject because of

1155
my known commitment to and interest in our national health service. I hope that the Minister will respond appropriately.
I appreciated the way in which the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) delivered his speech, which was both considered and constructive. It is important for hon. Members to present their knowledge and views to the House in a way that can be accepted across the party divide, even if people disagree. The health service is too important to be a party political football.
I am concerned about the long-term care of the elderly in London. I continue to be approached personally and to receive correspondence on the issue, even though I represent a constituency about 175 miles from London. There is widespread recognition, across the political spectrum, that the current arrangements for funding long-term care of the elderly are both unsatisfactory and unfair.
My party made proposals before the general election to begin to address the current unfairness, but it did so far too late and, sadly, the incoming Labour Government rejected those ideas and chose instead-I can understand the reasons-to set up a royal commission to consider the question of long-term care for the elderly. Having recognised the problem as urgent in opposition, the Government deferred any decision on what I readily accept is a difficult issue by establishing the royal commission.
I know that the royal commission has sought evidence from a wide range of sources, and it has produced a report that, although it may not tell us anything new, comprehensively and accurately lists the issues, options and views that were presented to it. Clearly, the Government will shortly make a positive response. The current arrangements are unfair and the matter needs urgent attention.
The proposals made by my party when in government would have met the immediate needs of today's elderly population, and especially those in London, and would have eliminated much of the unfairness in the system of funding long-term care. It could have formed an important element of a long-term solution to the problem for future generations.
As the Minister knows, the proposal was based on the concept of asset insurance, which would have allowed people to protect the assets that they had accumulated through thrift and hard work. Members on both sides of the House want to recognise thrift and hard work, and to encourage them for the future. That would have been achieved in a partnership insurance scheme with the state. Again, I am sure that that would appeal to both sides of the House. I am not trying to put everything into the private sector, or the private basket, as some people say.
That is the best, simplest and most affordable proposal that has yet been made. It is unfortunate that the Government's comprehensive rejection of the plan when they were in opposition-they ruled out the asset protection partnership scheme in advance-has left them with little room for manoeuvre. As so many people in London will be affected, I hope that the Minister will be able to make some response, even if it is only a holding response, to what I have said on the subject.
1156
Two years into the Government's period in office, many people will feel that we have scarcely moved forward on the issue. Behind the "Whitehall-speak" about further consultation and extensive debate, there lurks the suspicion that the Government-this could be said of a Government of any party-having used the device of a royal commission to delay things for nearly two years, have no intention of accepting its proposals, yet have no alternative of their own to offer. Sadly, they appear to have kicked the question of long-term care into the long grass.
The subject was of tremendous interest to me throughout the 18 years that I was involved with health and social services. The problem remains with us today. Any durable solution to the challenge of funding long-term care for the elderly must address as a matter of urgency the sense of injustice felt by many older people who have worked and saved all their lives, only to be forced to sell their assets to pay for their care.
The system put in place must be sustainable and based on a partnership between the state and the individual. Surely that is what the House wants-to provide for the care needs of generations of older people. So far, there is no sign that the Government have recognised the true urgency of the twin imperatives that I have outlined.
Finally, I apologise to the House for having had to nip in and out of the debate so frequently before I was called to speak. As I explained to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are few Members here today, apart from those who represent parts of London. At one time the House looked like a sitting of the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which I had the honour and privilege of chairing. Except for the fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or one of your colleagues has been in the Chair, and the fact that there were "strangers" on both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches, those who have spoken today overwhelmingly make up the membership of what I have described as the extremely well-informed and entertaining Greater London Authority Bill Committee.
I apologise to the House for my erratic attendance, but I had duties with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which was holding a lunch here today. Many people from the Commonwealth were here, and there were too few of us to accompany them.
I have found the debate informative and useful, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House have found my contribution both constructive and positive. I strongly support our health service, and I want to see it continue to provide an improved service for the people in London and throughout the country.
4.59 pm
Ms Joan Ryan: I am pleased to speak in this debate today, because we have a good story to tell about this Labour Government's care and concern for, and resourcing of, the health service in London in the past two years. As other hon. Members have done, I wish to refer back to the Turnberg report of November 1997, because of its importance to London and the significant difference it made to the people of Enfield, North and the security they feel about the future of Chase Farm hospital.
For some 10 years, Chase Farm hospital had been continually under threat. Its accident and emergency department was threatened with closure, but the local

1157
public valiantly fought against that time and again. However, they were beginning to feel that one more threat would see them off. The Turnberg report told us that London did not have an excess of beds and that an A and E department with between 50,000 and 100,000 new attendances per annum was the desirable size. Those two statements made Chase Farm hospital feel that it had a future.
Although I accept the comments by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about his individual commitment to the NHS, I do not accept that about the previous Tory Governments. It was always obvious that London was not over-bedded and that basing the number of beds needed in London on the blip in one year's figures in the Tomlinson report was irresponsible. Closing beds, and putting A and E departments under threat on the excuse that the beds were not needed, was a means of cutting resources to the NHS. That demonstrated that the NHS was not a priority for the Conservative Government. Words are easy and cheap, but many people, in London and nationally, found to their cost that the words "safe in our hands" meant nothing.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talked about deceit and claimed that many Labour party candidates said that hospitals would be closed if people voted Conservative on 1 May 1997. Yes, we said that. I said it, and I meant it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) revealed today that he said it, and he meant it. I am certain that Chase Farm hospital would have no A and E department and would have been left to wither on the vine, which is what happens to district general hospitals when they lose those departments, but instead it faces a bright future. It was not deceitful to say that: it was the truth. When we told people that their hospitals would close, we had the evidence of the previous Tory Governments who put many hospitals under threat and closed others. We now have the evidence that this Government have ensured a future for those hospitals.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) who worked very hard, from the time that he became the candidate for the constituency and since 1 May 1997, to try to protect Edgware district general hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is right to say that its A and E department was closed by the previous Conservative Government on 1 April 1997. During that process, they ran the hospital down and undermined and demoralised it so completely that it subsequently closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has worked hard with our Labour Government and local groups to establish a successful community hospital there with a bright future. I do not think that that would have been there if there had been a fifth successive Conservative Government. Instead, we might well have had a housing development on the site, or something similar. We certainly would not have had a hospital there.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I take a great interest in what goes on at Edgware. The accident and emergency department there was not shut on 1 April, although its closure was planned for that date-by the previous Conservative Government, as I accept-and accomplished a couple of months later. However, does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the closure of that department was balanced by a new, larger accident and emergency department at Barnet hospital? There is
1158
nothing new at Edgware hospital today that was not planned by the previous Government, although the accident services there now reside in what is called an urgent treatment centre. That used to be called the minor accident treatment centre, and the new name only confuses the public.
What the Conservative Government did in this sector is exactly the same as what the present Government are doing-when new facilities are built, old facilities are closed.
Ms Ryan: That seemed a very lengthy intervention, but I shall respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He clearly said that the previous Conservative Government planned the closure of the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital. Its subsequent closure is a matter of record. Moreover, the facilities at Edgware have been thought through carefully. What is different under this Government is that they are funded.
The hon. Gentleman and I have a connection, in that our two hospitals-Chase Farm and Barnet-now form a merged trust, with a wonderful, state-of-the-art accident and emergency unit. However, across north London, the hospitals include Edgware, Barnet and Chase Farm, North Middlesex, the Whittington and the Royal Free. The Turnberg report's assessment of the desirable number of new attendances at accident and emergency departments makes it clear that the department at Edgware was needed and that there was no reason to close it. A bottleneck has been created at Barnet hospital, and difficulties have resulted for north London's accident and emergency services.
However, those difficulties are being accommodated, and extra funding is being made available. There are new accident and emergency facilities at North Middlesex hospital, and the aim is to improve the facilities at Chase Farm. Yet that bottleneck and the resulting problems were in part caused by the decision that the previous Government took about Edgware.
I turn now to the merger of Chase Farm hospital and Barnet hospital. Once Chase Farm understood that its future was secure, we realised that there would be many advantages in merging with Barnet hospital. In November last year, we held consultations for the first time. People felt that they could discuss merger without suspecting, as they had before, that there was a hidden agenda involving the ultimate closure of one of the hospitals. They were thus able to talk about a positive way forward that would bring real benefits.
That consultation was a real exercise in rebuilding the trust between Government and public. People initially vented their feelings that the consultation that had taken 'place over the previous 15 years was either a smokescreen for further cuts, or merely an exercise in lip service. I think that we can prove that that trust has been rebuilt by showing that the future of the newly merged hospital trust is bright, and that it will continue to shine.
There will be benefits. The newly merged trust will save £500,000 a year, and that will go into patient care. There will also be clear clinical benefits for patients. We will be able to manage emergency demand at peak times much more effectively and ensure that waiting times for admission to a hospital bed are minimised. There will be opportunities to invest in new services, equipment and facilities.

1159
All that is positive news for Chase Farm and Barnet hospitals. We welcome the appointment of Jenni Bowley as chair of the new trust and Liz Heyer as chief executive. We wish them well as they face a challenging and exciting agenda for hospital care in that part of north London.
The rest of the Government's programme for modernising the NHS for the millennium will benefit people in the Enfield and Haringey health authority area and in my constituency. Out of the £;21 billion investment in the NHS that the Conservatives thought foolhardy and unaffordable, the authority is receiving about £24 million extra. We are grateful for that money which will make a significant difference. We are pleased to have had an extra £550,000 for refurbishment and modernisation of the accident and emergency department.
We also benefit from what the Government are doing through the private finance initiative. A PFI development has been signed and will soon be delivered for the newly merged hospitals. It will be sited at the Barnet part of the Barnet and Chase Farm hospital and will provide state-of-the-art facilities for people in the area.
That is in stark contrast to Tory attempts at PFI, when £ion was spent on consultancy fees without a single hospital being built. The Labour Government will build the hospitals that the Conservatives merely promised.
As regards the NHS waiting list for Enfield and Haringey, 4,400 people are no longer waiting for operations. That reduction has been achieved despite a 4 per cent. increase in attendances at accident and emergency departments because local hospitals have reached and bettered the Government's targets. That major achievement for the NHS in Enfield and Haringey has brought real benefit to patients.
We hear a lot from the Tories about waiting times. Waiting list reductions bring reductions in waiting time. We have achieved significant reductions on breast cancer care and colorectal cancer care. Reduction of waiting times is related to reduction of waiting lists; they are not mutually exclusive. Our targets for waiting lists prove that we are willing to set measurable targets on what we say we will do for the NHS, what we will put in and what can be expected from it. But targets do not mean that we have no other objectives, or that they are independent of other desired outcomes. That would be nonsensical.
We have a strong story to tell, and I am happy to tell it. The people of Enfield, North are hugely relieved that the future of their hospital, linked with Barnet hospital, is ensured. They know that, when they need their accident and emergency department, it will be there. When they need admittance, there will be a bed for them.
Enfield community care trust is doing sterling work to ensure that mental health is not a Cinderella service in Enfield. An extra £910,000, courtesy of the Government, is going into mental health services. It will be spent carefully but well by the trust, which is efficient and well run. A Labour Government, founded the NHS in 1945 and a Labour Government rescued it in 1997. We have a lot to be proud of in the NHS. I am proud of all the work that local staff in Enfield and Haringey put in. If it were not for this Labour Government, we would have seen many more closures and a lot less funding across London and Britain nationally.
5.15 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Once upon a time, the people of Richmond had good GPs, a little hospital called the Royal hospital and social services delivered by their local council. It all seemed relatively simple and easy. If they needed secondary or tertiary care, they went to any of the many London teaching hospitals because in those days GPs could refer them anywhere.
Then the Royal hospital closed and we were told that we had to use Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton. Several hon. Members have spoken about it. It was formed into the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS trust, which was rather difficult because it meant that social workers in my borough were dealing with three different district health authorities and two area health authorities. That made for great confusion and obfuscation between hospital, community and GPs about where patient care was coming from.
After a long fight—I empathise with the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) about candlelit vigils, mock patients on trolleys and petitions to Downing street—the death sentence on Queen Mary's hospital was passed by the Conservative Government. The Labour Government, in their defence, had no option but to carry on with those plans when they came to power, unless they could have dug up a huge amount of cash from somewhere, which they were unable to do.
My constituents are now left with a hospital service which consists of an out-patient service for one part of the constituency at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, which is not in the constituency and is run by consultants who are based at Kingston hospital, which is on the borders of my constituency and relates rather more to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—I hope that we will hear from him later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you call him. As a result, there is great confusion and I should like the Minister to take that on board.
The health service has never solved the problem of medical records. Patients are seen in out-patients departments and somehow notes get lost when they then have to be in-patients, or vice versa. I have never understood why we have this problem. I worked in the NHS for 32 years before I became a Member of Parliament and notes were always getting lost. It seems to me that we have two options: either we can go in for technology in a big way and call up patients' records on screen or patients can be responsible for their own records. Why on earth can that not happen? It happens in other countries and I fail to see why we cannot have our own records with us when we go to see a consultant or our GP. They can keep records too, if they want to, but at least some notes would exist.
The other big problem is that because of the shortage of nurses in the London area, many beds at Kingston hospital remain closed, despite valiant efforts by the chief executive to recruit nurses. Hon. Members may have read in the newspapers about nurses being recruited from the Philippines, and very good nurses they are too. Despite all those efforts, beds remain closed. Because of the demography of the constituency and that of Kingston, many beds contain elderly medical patients. We now have an added problem. At Kingston hospital, surgical consultants do not have enough surgical beds because such beds are blocked by medical cases. The consultants

1161
are becoming extremely worried that, sooner or later, the royal colleges will decide that there is not enough surgery taking place at Kingston hospital and they will no longer accredit the hospital, which means that there will be no junior staff. That is how Queen Mary's hospital started to die about 10 years ago. I am extremely worried that Kingston hospital will suffer the same fate, if we do not do something urgently about funding and the nursing complement. We must ensure that the area has a comprehensive service.
In my constituency at present, patients go to Queen Mary's or Kingston for out-patient treatment and they go to Kingston, St. George's or Chelsea and Westminster hospital for in-patient treatment. The mental health services have been transferred to Kingston and the district community trust. The trust has already stated that 20 beds for the elderly mentally ill will be closed-that is exercising me a great deal. The Twickenham community health service has been hived off to the primary care group in Twickenham, which is excellent news. As the community health services in Richmond were part of Queen Mary's, Roehampton, they have been merged with the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth community trusts. If hon. Members are a little confused, they should imagine what it is like to be a district nurse, social worker or GP in my area, who is trying to work out exactly where the services have gone and where they can be accessed for patients.
That leads me to a general point: people in the health service are entirely sick of being reorganised. I hope that the Minister takes that fact on board-indeed, I know that she will do so. We have been reorganising the health service since 1974-major and minor reorganisations. Each chief executive who takes up his post undertakes a whole reorganisation of the staff under him. The staff of the health service expend all their energy, innovation and intelligence trying to cope with management changes, when they should be dealing with patient care. I make a plea for an end to further reorganisations.
In my area, luckily we have extremely good GPs. I very much welcome the formation of primary care groups; I think that they could be the answer. They could certainly be the answer to achieving that magic quality of coterminosity, which my area has failed to achieve in 25 years of health service reorganisation. Good primary care groups, running their own community health services and liaising even more closely with social and mental health services, could be the answer. Such groups are a brilliant idea; I hope that they are very successful and I congratulate the Government on introducing them.
However, I have some worries. Although NHS Direct and walk-in health shops are a good idea, I think that some GPs consider that those services might undermine GP services. I hope that, in time, the Government will try to merge NHS Direct and the walk-in health shops with the primary care groups. Perhaps the Minister could address that point in her closing remarks. GPs need and deserve to know what is happening to their patients, and who is responsible for their care. Is it the GP, the doctor in the walk-in health shop or the NHS Direct nurse at the end of the phone line? That matter must be addressed, because we need co-ordination. At this stage, money for the formation of those groups could have been much better spent on GP services.
I promised to be brief and I want to deal with two other aspects. The document setting out the goals for the modernisation of the health service in London states that
1162
London leads the way nationally in specialisms and expert care. Of course it does. However, there is a problem that I hope that the Government will address. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is no longer in the Chamber, raised the issue of a hospital that is brilliant at one service, but depends on another service for its brilliance. He asked how far one could actually separate them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's example was a good one, but I know a better one, involving a hospital very close to this place.
The hospital has a major trauma centre, but no longer has a neurosurgery unit. As the House knows, trauma centres usually take large numbers of head injuries, which often require neurosurgery, but the neurosurgery unit has been moved to another hospital several miles away. Because of that, neuroradiology-the specialty that attempts to find out what is happening inside the head and spine before the surgeons go in-has become unpopular in the hospital and the consultants have moved elsewhere. The result is a major trauma unit that cannot provide a good head injury service, and that worries me.
There are countless other examples of interrelated services, one of which is that maternity services have to be close to paediatric services-they must be in the same hospital. It is a source of concern that, as hospitals become centres of excellence and concentrate on one specific service or another, which is good in its way, we shall lose the combination of services that is essential to patient care. I hope that the Government will address that issue.
I heard yesterday from a group of senior managers that, despite the apparently magnificent extra funding that the Government are giving to the health service-I think the figure is £21 billion over three years, but I cannot be sure; it is like my own income, which is spent in several different directions at once, and I never know where it has all gone-most health authorities expect to be in a standstill position this year. That is because of pay awards and the extra money that they have been given being ring-fenced for specific projects, such as breast cancer services. Those projects are all worthy of our support, but they might not have been each health authority's priority this year. Because the health authorities will be at a standstill, we shall not see huge improvements or people rushing out into the streets saying how wonderful everything is and how they do not have to wait long for treatment any more.
We must take a serious look at what we set up in 1947, because the problems of the health service will never be solved by reorganisation or small amounts of funding. We need huge hikes in funding and we have to decide whether that will come from general taxation or some other source. The health service needs far more than what the Government are providing at the moment. The health service was created to cater for us from the cradle to the grave. Then, it had to cater for us from the womb to the tomb. It subsequently had to stretch its resources from the sperm to the worm. Now-I am glad that the Secretary of State is no longer here, because I have already told him this joke, which is far better than his-the health service has to cater for us from erection to resurrection. That cannot be done-we have to find another way.
5.28 pm
Mr. Clive Efford: In deference to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who was not present for the speech of the hon. Member for Rutland

1163
and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I should like to read out a list of hospitals that have closed in the borough since 1979. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made a great deal of closures that were set in train by the previous Administration, but took place after the election of this Labour Government.
The British Hospital for Mothers and Babies was closed, as were the St. Nicholas hospital, the Eltham and Mottingham cottage hospital and the Brook hospital; and units dealing with the cardiothoracic and neurosciences specialties were both closed-all closed when the Conservatives were in government. The decision to close the Greenwich and District hospital was also taken at that time, and the decision to close Guy's hospital was announced just as a brand new building to house important research into cancer and other illnesses had been completed. We then had the discredited Tomlinson report, which recommended that we should lose acute beds because London was over-supplied. Tomlinson justified that recommendation on the basis that top-slicing money from acute services and investing it in primary care would lead to less demand on acute services in hospitals. However, when one devotes money to health areas where access is somewhat diminished, one begins to identify greater need for acute services and secondary and tertiary health care. It was a con to recommend that money be top-sliced from acute services and ploughed back into primary care before we had the opportunity to gauge the effects or the benefits, and it cost the people of London dearly.
That is the situation that the Labour Government inherited: the national health service was definitely under seige. I pay tribute to the staff of the national health service not just for the way in which they responded to the three recent bombings in London, but for their dedication to the health service while it was under seige. While claiming to protect the NHS, the previous Government were trying to dismantle it. It is only the dedication of the doctors and the nurses that held the NHS together so that a future Government could develop it as this Government are doing.
I welcome the initiatives that have been set in train. Primary care groups will bring decision making about local health services closer to the communities. I have argued and campaigned for that move for many years. I am a former chair of a social services committee and a former member of a community health council and a district health authority. I believe that we will see further improvements in planning and in the quality of health care when people from social services sit around the table with GPs, nurses and the lay people who use those services and devise local care strategies.
I totally opposed fundholding, and I remain concerned about the changing role of the GP in relation to patients. Prior to fundholding, GPs were patient advocates. Fundholding made them the gatekeepers of the resources. GPs had a vested interest in reducing access to resources in many instances. Primary care groups must guard against making GPs fund managers rather than planners and advocates on behalf of their communities. GPs will play an important role in leading community discussions as qualified professionals, in developing health care
1164
strategies and, at times, advocating additional resources rather than cuts. Primary care will need to develop in order to provide a wide range of services.
There is another important issue regarding waiting lists and the care of patients awaiting treatment in hospital. I would like to see more transparency in terms of performances in hospitals, particularly by consultants. I talked recently to a chief executive who described the disparity between the work rate of consultants in an NHS hospital and their work rates in private practice. He also expressed concerns about the relationships between local GPs and particular consultants, and how certain consultants are favoured when GPs make referrals.
The chief executive told me that trusts and providers must act as the gatekeepers for people who are referred to consultants because there is a clear relationship between the size of consultants' private practices and the size of their NHS waiting lists. I realise that that is a generalisation, and I would not suggest that it is true of every consultant. Frankly, however, some of them are behaving like spivs. They say to patients, "I cannot treat you in the next year, but if you cross my palm with silver, I will treat you a week next Tuesday." People on NHS waiting lists are forced to pay for treatment by consultants, and they often see in private practice the same consultant whom they would have waited to see in the national health service.
There should be more transparency on that matter. We have league tables in many areas of public service, so why not for individual consultants? They earn a great deal of money out of the national health service, and there should be performance statistics that not only detail how many operations they carry out within the NHS, but account for what they are doing in the private sector, so that we know their performance rates.
I was cited an example about eye operations. In the NHS, surgeons would perform five or six operations in a session, but, in the private sector, the same consultants would perform nine, 10 or 11 operations in the same time and, in addition, carry out pre-med duties and wheel the patients into the operating theatre to increase the throughput. Incentives must be offered so that such productivity is mirrored in the national health service.
I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief. We are about to elect a mayor for London. Someone with such a high profile in a capital city has a major role to play in public health campaigns to improve health and the understanding of health issues across the city.
We need to take more action in schools. I know that we have started that process, but we need to give young people more practical education about the simple facts that we all should learn in our day-to-day lives. I refer to matters such as the storage and cross-contamination of food and the treatment of minor illnesses. The technology and information exist to allow people to take better care of themselves, and young people are certainly capable of accessing that knowledge. If people understand more about their ailments, fewer demands might be placed on the health service.
My local health authority is trying to organise an international conference on health care issues, and its endeavours have the support of the Department of Health. As the authority is responsible for the Greenwich area, it will not surprise anyone that the event will be called the

1165
millennium conference. It is designed to increase young people's awareness of health issues across the world, so that they will return to their communities and become advocates for better health care. It will also be an opportunity for young people to learn from one another about the issues that confront communities across the globe.
One of the issues that we need to address in future, of which I know the Government are aware, is the provision of better health information. Knowledge can help to reduce the demands made on the national health service because people are then able to take better care of themselves and one another, and within that process, emphasis must be placed on educating young people.
5.40 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: I normally have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) speaking about his experience as a taxi driver, so it is a very great pleasure to hear him on another subject on which he is just as fluent.
I congratulate the Government on providing this debate today. I am not one of nature's great modernisers, although I would not go so far as the Scottish judge who said that change for the better was a contradiction in terms. Such days as this, which are dies non for the larger House because of the constituency imperatives on a polling day that take Members away from here, afford so great, if so narrow an opportunity that I have a practical suggestion to make to the Modernisation Committee.
Since these days are likely to be given to geographical subjects—because some Members are away from the House—I hope that there might be a virtue in reserving them further ahead than the usual fortnight's notice, so that Members know that the debate is coming up. Today's subject is complex, as the great weight of King's Fund reports that gather on one's shelves testify. It is a problem not just to accumulate the data, but as, I fear, one or two speeches have demonstrated, to organise, distil and refine such data. If we have more time to prepare, the debate would be even better than this one.
My constituency references will be brief, but like the dodo in "Alice in Wonderland" there is a prize-giving aspect to the occasion. I shall not seek to match the Secretary of State's encomium on the recent emergencies, which he gave eloquently and wholly appositely. His praise was intensely well warranted and, in turn, a tribute to the well-rehearsed preparation of various national health service institutions.
On a longer-term basis, in 1998, we had in the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority much the lowest proportion of patients waiting for 12 months or longer of the 16 London health authorities. On the other hand, in 1997, it had the second largest proportion of single-practitioner general practices, at 56 per cent. It was thought that that figure would fall following the closure of Westminster hospital, but, if it has, it remains high and an inner-city phenomenon.
At the other end of my constituency, 11 per cent. of the 564 most deprived electoral wards in England and Wales are in the East London and The City health authority. In that context, it was warming that the Turnberg report singled out the health authority's communication strategy for special and particular praise. I am personally proud
1166
that Sir Brian Jarman, who is historically linked to St. Mary's, co-produced the Turnberg report and has done such path-finding work on bed use, should be professor of primary health care at Imperial College school of medicine.
Apart from the dodo's prize giving, I must say a word about Bart's, on which there was a mini-clash between my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and the Secretary of State during the opening overs of the debate. I am personally delighted not only at the Secretary of State's decision following the Turnberg report, but at the fact that he is riding herd on the dispositions of Bart's through the appointment of external arbiters.
The papers of yesterday's board meeting of the Royal Hospitals trust give pointers to why there continues to be local concern, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made reference. The outline business case for the new hospital at the Royal London and the redevelopment of Bart's was due to receive approval at yesterday's meeting, only to be delayed by further guidance from the regional office on the development of cancer services at Bart's. There is to be an intensive programme of work over the next few weeks to define which services are required in a centre of excellence at Bart's. I could not possibly complain about that, but the path of true love in east London does not seem to have run entirely smoothly.
Bart's leads me more smoothly to the configuration of medical schools in Greater London. Labour Members tend to be critical—I remark neutrally—in what they say about what happened in the NHS in Greater London during the first 18 of the past 20 years. In that process, they omit to pay credit to the reorganisation of London medical schools in the university of London. I should, incidentally, declare an interest as a member of the council of that university. The Flowers and Swinnerton-Dyer reports, early in my time in the House, may seem to belong to another age to those who came into the House in 1997, but they are worth revisiting to realise the scale of the revolution that has since been carried through.
As Turnberg says, 70 per cent. of all research and development expenditure allocated to medical schools by the NHS executive goes to the London schools and 42 per cent. of all medical undergraduates in England are trained in London. He also points out that there can be disadvantages for local services in such a concentration of academic excellence in medical schools.
Other colleagues have no doubt had representations from medical students about the creation of a new medical school nationally. I am making inquiries privately of the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. I am in no way making a bid for another London school, but, were there to be one nationally, it would relieve strain on the London schools. Any light that the Minister can shed on that when replying to the debate will be welcome.
I hope that the London rationalisation will continue. I can remember a conversation at Bart's 22 years ago when the Bart's element at the occasion thought that Greater London could manage with, for example, three centres of excellence in neurosciences. The fact that Turnberg reports on 11 centres in neurosciences being reduced to six is an index of how far we may still have to go.

1167
The Secretary of State alluded to the link between poverty and deprivation and the quality of health and advanced a claim that the Government were addressing the poverty and deprivation in the interests of good health. Looking round the Chamber, I cannot recall immediately whether anybody else present today was present for a recent interesting statistical analysis given by the Economic and Social Research Council in Room W 1 off Westminster Hall on the link between poverty and health. Health was measured by morbidity, whether average or below or above.
Broadly speaking, the ESRC had one table for the 1980s—the tables were calculated by current constituencie—and another for the 1990s to date. My constituency and that of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who I see in her place, came in the top 50 poorest out of the 659 by household indices of poverty. The hon. Lady's constituency came high in the list for ill health in both decades and tables. Interestingly, my constituency, which is an inner-city seat—perhaps the ultimate inner—city seat-has jumped from being in the top 100 illest in the 1980s to being in the top half for good health in the 1990s. That was so sharp an improvement that I drew it to the attention of the ESRC, which is separately conducting an investigation.
One contributory reason I have suggested to the ESRC is the arrival of asylum seekers. At the time of Turnberg, 85 per cent. of those granted refugee status had settled in London, with the majority in inner London, and there were 100,000 in London who were either refugees or awaiting confirmation of refugee status, with still larger numbers today. Those refugees are likely to be poor but, on average, they are likely to be younger than the general population they have entered.
I mention that study in the context of the Secretary of State's claim because the ESRC was not so sanguine as the Secretary of State today that the Government were concentrating resources in the poorest constituencies. As a veteran reader of the Black report, which came out at about the time I first came into the House, I was agreeably surprised when the ESRC, when making its presentation, was comparatively warm about the way in which the Conservative Government, by comparison, had targeted resources in that context.
In the same spirit, I want to talk about measurement, accounting and economic inputs. I well remember how few accountants British Telecommunications had when it was a corporation in the public sector. The national health services's accounting was similarly primitive when I first came into the House—incidentally, under a Labour Government—and, as I have said previously, that cost my constituents severely. The resource allocation working party—RAWP—was taking money out of London and the accounting system was rewarding us slowly, and less than adequately, for services that hospitals in inner London rendered to non-London residents in expensive operations where payments were calculated on the basis of average rather than actual cost. I hope that that situation has improved latterly and that the Minister can now sleep at night over the accuracy and fairness of the accounting.
I am, however, concerned about what the Turnberg report said about under-enumeration for the capitation formula; and I can personally believe in that concern.
1168
Over and above the homeless, the mentally ill and the refugees—all of whom Turnberg deals with—in my constituency mail, proportionally, I receive two letters from residents in my constituency who are not electors for every five that I receive from those who are electors. That suggests to me that there may well be under-enumeration.
Although the Secretary of State, at the beginning of the debate, sailed serenely through the brush on low pay, I shall remark anecdotally—as an occasional out-patient at a teaching hospital, where I see a specialist of high reputation, at his clinic—that the paperwork of appointments is a nightmare for both of us. I am booked for one date; hear nothing further; then am told that I have missed another date; then discover that the date I had originally been given is one on which the specialist is on holiday.
I make no complaint about that at all. I am not seeking special treatment. It is a very good way of finding out what one's constituents themselves have to experience. The specialist puts it down to what the NHS is able to afford to pay clerical assistants. However, it is not conduct that commands respect, and it must be economically inefficient for the consultant, for his patients and for the NHS as a whole.
5.51 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who entertained us greatly when we were considering the Greater London Authority Bill. Today, he has raised some interesting issues. Although it is tempting to pursue some of them, I have a specific constituency interest to deal with.
First, however, I should like to raise one other issue for the Minister to address in her reply. As she will know, some months ago, I raised it also with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
What is being done to tap London's great resource of refugee doctors? My health authority—Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority—and particularly Dr. Peter Elliott, who works for it, have introduced an innovative scheme to try to train in English and help gain accreditation for refugees with medical expertise or who have worked as the equivalent of general practitioners in hospitals in their own countries before being forced to flee to the United Kingdom. Currently, it is difficult for them to gain accreditation.
I hope that the British Medical Association and other authorities, with the Government's assistance—not only the Department of Health, but the Home Office will have to become involved—will facilitate the employment of refugee doctors, particularly in serving refugee communities where their linguistic skills and cultural understanding would be of great help.
I shall concentrate my remarks, however, on the specific issue that was dealt with at some length in the speeches of my colleagues and neighbours from Redbridge and Havering: the new hospital at Oldchurch, which was pushed for by Turnberg, and endorsed by the Secretary of State in accepting Turnberg's recommendations.
The Turnberg report was submitted to Ministers in November 1997, and the Secretary of State responded to it on 3 February 1998. On that date, I asked him for an

1169
assurance that development of the new hospital would not have a detrimental effect on the King George hospital—in Ilford, in my constituency—which is only about 3.5 to 4 miles from the proposed site of Oldchurch hospital.
The Secretary of State told me:
"I assure my hon. Friend that there will be thorough local consultation and that any decisions will take account of the possible impact of a new hospital at Oldchurch on neighbouring hospitals. I reassure him that our objective is to build up, not run down, London's hospitals."—[Official Report, 3 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 858.]
I very much welcomed that statement then, as I still do. However, some issues have not been resolved, and the Redbridge Health Care trust and the local community still have some concerns.
The King George hospital is relatively new. It was opened less than six years ago. In that time, the level of activity at the hospital has increased enormously. When it was built, it was planned that there would be 55,000 accident and emergency attendances a year. In 1998-99, there were 90,000. Elective work is double what was planned, and there has been a 49 per cent. increase in emergency work.
The hospital has also had a lot of new investment, with £7.5 million of further capital to develop essential departments and support in pathology, radiology, cardiology and sterilisation services, as well as a new computer linking system with information, advice and facilities for downloading tests for general practitioners. The hospital has put a great deal of effort into its relationships with local GPs. I am pleased to say that, in the past year, waiting lists have fallen by more than 30 per cent., which is, as they used to say in eastern Europe, over-achieving the target. The waiting list situation was not good, but there has been a significant improvement.
Three, four or five years ago, I was critical of my local hospital. At one point, I called for a public inquiry because I was getting so many complaints from constituents about how things were going at the hospital in 1994 and 1995. There has been a significant improvement at the hospital in recent years. I pay tribute to the staff—the nursing and medical staff and the ancillary staff—and to the management of the hospital for the improvement that they have brought about. I receive far fewer complaints about my local hospital than I did when I was first elected to Parliament seven years ago. Of course, there are still complaints, as there will always be with any hospital, and they have to be dealt with properly.
The trust has brought in new ways of workingday—case surgery, overnight day-case systems and opening the unit on Saturdays and Sundays—to deal with the problems. The hospital is now effective, very busy and very popular. It needs to continue the work that it is beginning to do so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out how the final decision on Oldchurch was causing uncertainty. As well as affecting the people of Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford, that uncertainty causes problems for the King George hospital in Ilford. The new investment that our hospital needs will be affected by uncertainties and delays at the new hospital. The uncertainty surrounding Oldchurch is making long-term planning more difficult.
The greater co-ordination and discussion between Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and Barking and Havering health authority have been
1170
important developments. There have also been contacts and discussions between the trusts. I welcome that. It would be absurd if trusts competed with each other rather than working together to serve the interests of the local community and patients. Turnberg called for such co-operation and opportunities for collaboration. That is all to the good, but I reiterate my initial point about the importance of there being no uncertainty about the future of the King George hospital as the new hospital at Oldchurch is developed.
There are still concerns among the local community, many of which may be unjustified, but uncertainty may lead to difficulties in future. The argument does not relate to money, egos or competition between trusts. Anyone with any knowledge of the medical profession and the way in which hospitals work will know that any institution requires a certain level of achievement to make it fully viable in terms of the number of junior doctors who are attracted to work there and the number of specialisms that it offers. Increasingly, clinical services are being developed whereby hospitals require a certain volume of patients to maintain the quality of work—doctors need to do a certain number of a particular type of operation in order to keep their hands in.
My worry, which is widely shared, is that a consultant-driven approach may be at variance with community need. We need to get the balance right. It is not just a matter of resources; there must be a balance within the service so that hospitals are viable and attractive. We do not want any one hospital to act as a magnet for the best consultants and people with career aspirations so that other hospitals are regarded as declining backwaters or as failures.
As we develop new facilities, we need to recognise the needs of the existing ones. That view is widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it needs reiterating.
Strategic planning and co-operation are very important. As the constituency Member for the King George hospital, let me say that it is vital that elective surgery is not moved away, that the new hospital at Oldchurch fulfils the requirements of its community, and that the two hospitals work together in partnership, as that will be important for the future. The new development must not compromise the future viability of the existing hospital. I am confident that it will not, but my constituents in Ilford want that assurance.
6.3 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I start by associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). With her experience of more than 30 years spent working in the health service, she analysed the problems that we have in south-west London, and particularly at Kingston hospital, very well.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who is no longer in his place. He referred to the problems at Kingston hospital and gave it his full support. Many of his constituents use it; it is a vital service for them, as it is for my constituents. I am particularly delighted that the hon. Gentleman has become convinced of the need for new investment in the accident and emergency department. However, I do not share his belief that the health authorities of Merton, Sutton and

1171
Wandsworth should merge with Kingston and Richmond. That view was not mentioned in the Turnberg report; nor was it shared by those in the local health authority whom I met.
As time is short, I shall limit my remarks on the wider modernisation agenda, save to focus on one or two technological developments in my constituency. Agora Healthcare, a local software firm—I should say for the record that I have no financial or other interests in that company—is working with a local GP practice and the Kingston hospital to see how they can use information technology to integrate primary and secondary health care to reduce waiting lists. That is a technological development in which the Government ought to be interested.
The company is running a pilot project in a local GP's practice, sending digital photographs of dermatological conditions on-line to the consultants at Kingston hospital to see if they can speed up the process and improve the medical outcomes. By the company's calculations, if the project—which is proving its efficacy—were to be rolled out across the country, it would immediately hit the Government's reduction targets for waiting lists. I commend the pilot to the Minister.
Technological solutions would help in the structural changes in south-west London. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the problem of clinical records being lost, and we are concerned about that in the secondary sector. Some consultants saw a patient at the old Queen Mary's site at Roehampton and again later at Kingston. There is a need to improve communication between the two sites and to make sure that the records can be easily accessed from both. That would improve the attractiveness of Kingston hospital as a place to work, as well as a place to be treated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park rightly referred to the problems of staff shortages at Kingston hospital. The closure of Queen Mary's has made it worse. I wish to praise the staff of Kingston hospital, who have been working flat out because of the pressure—pressure which is over and above the national pressure about which we have heard today.
The transition from Queen Mary's has been difficult. Turnberg referred to the need for local health managers to have a credible plan for the transition. In an Adjournment debate last spring, I warned about the need for that plan to ensure that we did not suffer huge bed shortages during the summer and autumn of 1998. I am pleased to say that, following those warnings and work with the Government, the bed shortage did not occur. The Roehampton wing was put up on time at the Kingston hospital site, which was good.
There have been problems in the transition, not so much with buildings, as with staff shortages. Despite the best efforts of management, a lot of the staff did not transfer from the Queen Mary's site to Kingston—as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned—partly because of the London salary weightings and the lack of creche facilities at Kingston. However, they were also fed up with and demoralised by the way in which Queen Mary's had been run down over a number of years. They felt that the last change was the straw that broke the camel's back, and they were not prepared to go along with it. Many
1172
patients and much of the health demand transferred to Kingston, but Kingston did not get a lot of the staff. That has exacerbated the staff shortages locally, and there is still a major hangover from the change.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, the management of Kingston hospital went over to the Philippines to recruit, and they recruited some excellent nurses. However, it seems absurd that they had to go to the other side of the world to find staff to work in the health service in south-west London. That raises wider issues of pay and training; and there is a feeling that, at Kingston hospital, the transition was not supported as much as it should have been.
Locally, some GPs have not felt that, in the first year of the transition, they could refer patients to Kingston hospital whom they previously referred to Queen Mary's. The statistics show that the transfer of patients has not been as large as was expected prior to the closure of Queen Mary's. That is purely to do with the staff shortages. GPs tell me that, once enough staff are in place and the investment has been made in the space, they will start referring their patients to Kingston.
Investment is urgently needed in Kingston hospital. Comparing the year before the closure of Queen Mary's, 1996–97, with the year 1998–99—the services were transferred from April 1997—we find a massive increase in the work load at Kingston hospital, with 15 per cent. more people attending accident and emergency, a 60 per cent. increase in in-patients and a 71 per cent. increase in emergency in-patient cases. That has created huge pressure, and it is vital that the management should be backed up in the effort to tackle it.
The hon. Member for Putney was right. The investment in the accident and emergency department is crucial. The Secretary of State said that £100 million was available for small improvements in London. Investing in accident and emergency at Kingston would be not only a small improvement for my constituency, but a major improvement for the whole area. I hope that the Government will give their backing to the hospital's long-term future.
There are many good developments in the health service in south-west London. The primary care groups have taken off well in Kingston and I wish them well. Many local people have been involved in campaigns to improve local GP practices and medical sites in New Malden, Surbiton and Chessington, for example. I pay tribute to Chessington councillors who, working with developers, have ensured that land is available for a new medical centre there and that the developers will provide a subsidy to link it to Kingston hospital with new public transport services.
Kingston and Richmond health authority has had below average funding increases for some time. The national average cash increase for the next financial year is 6.6 per cent., but in Kingston and Richmond it is 5.5 per cent. In real terms, the national average is 4.4 per cent., but Kingston and Richmond is getting only 2.9 per cent. Local health managers are concerned that, if that trend continues, they will be really stretched.
The Secretary of State rightly said that the Government should direct resources to where they are most needed—the Government are right to tackle inequality in health care—but sometimes Ministers, not only in the Department of Health, but in other Departments such as

1173
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, look at a place such as Kingston and dismiss its needs because it is leafy.
If Ministers came to Kingston and travelled around the constituency, they would see that many parts are not leafy at all. There are pockets of severe deprivation. Norbiton ward, for example, is one of the poorest in the whole of London. Poverty exists in the royal borough. We have below average wages for London. If resources are to be allocated to redress inequality, I hope that Ministers will consider not only the macro-picture but some of the micro-measures.
Some of the statistics that are often used do not give a fair reflection of the poverty in constituencies such as mine. The measure of free school meals is an example. Because the previous Conservative council ended the hot meals service in schools, many mothers on income support whose children would otherwise have a free meal no longer claim their entitlement, because they do not want their children to have a cold meal.
I am concerned about the suggestion by the hon. Member for Putney that Kingston and Richmond health authority could merge with Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth. I urge Ministers not to go down that road, not only for the reason so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park—that it would mean another management upheaval, another bureaucratic change—but because it would create a mega-bureaucracy, thus reducing both the flexibility of the management of local health services and the focus on the health needs of the communities that my hon. Friend and I represent.
Such a merger would prevent managers from focusing on the real priorities in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth, as well as in Kingston and Surbiton. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) talked about the merger between the Pathfinder mental health trust and the Sutton mental health trust, but I think that that was a retrograde step for the mentally ill people who were using the Sutton services. They had much more in common with the Kingston and Richmond services, in terms both of those who were delivering the services and of the types of need. That emphasises my point that pushing together bureaucracies does not necessarily achieve a focus on the needs of local communities.
There is much more that I could say, but I am conscious of the fact that several Labour Members want to speak, so I shall finish by saying that, although a lot of what the Government are doing for health in London is welcome, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if my judgment and praise are reserved until we hear the decision about investment in Kingston hospital. That investment is much needed, and it cannot come too soon.
6.16 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate the Government on a solid record of achievement in the two years since the election. We have now seen the beginnings of the dismantling of the internal market in the health service, which was so bureaucratic and divisive, set hospital against hospital and created a two-tier service in primary health care. Patients were often treated not on the basis of clinical need, but according to whether they had a GP fundholder.
We now have London's largest ever hospital building programme. The comprehensive spending review has provided not only generosity in investment in the health
1174
service, but a three-year funding package which provides security—in contrast to the squeeze-and-spurt process that characterised the years of Conservative government, when a generous pre-election investment would be followed by a tight squeeze after the election.
We have more new initiatives, which have already been well described by my hon. Friends. For example, there is the sure start programme, run with the Department for Education and Employment, and NHS Direct. I shall limit my enumeration of the Government's virtues only because time is limited and others wish to speak.
I shall make four points. First, on the subject of health inequalities, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on having so eloquently made the case about poverty and deprivation in central London. The Government, too, are to be congratulated on the commissioning and publication of the Acheson report into health inequalities, which laid out an excellent strategy for tackling many of the problems that underpin poor health.
What the Government have done stands in stark contrast to the handling of the Black report, which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster also mentioned. That was an excellent document which, had it been implemented when it was published, would have prevented many avoidable illnesses and premature deaths. Shamefully, it was suffocated at birth, which was typical of the Conservative Government.
I shall make another point about primary care, which was also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), talked about single-handed GP practices, which he, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, favoured.
Inner London has a staggeringly high proportion of single-handed practices. Although people naturally want to relate to an individual GP, and know his or her name and face—that can be a problem for group practices—single-handed practices undoubtedly do not provide the same quality of patient care, especially out-of-hours care which is so important. That is definitely one of the factors underpinning the inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments that is a feature of inner-city life.
Excellent models of co-operative working are now being developed in the primary health care sector. In St. Charles hospital, the GP co-operative has done excellent work in bringing together GPs to work co-operatively to provide 24-hour care. GPs working alone or in small practices face a heavy burden in providing out-of-hours care. The Government should be congratulated on elevating primary care to a central role in health care, as exemplified by primary care groups.
I welcome the inclusion of the development plans for St. Mary's, Paddington in the provisional three-year development programme set out in the Government's response to the Turnberg report. The hospital is situated in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but I am sure that he will appreciate that it is my local hospital, too. The plans that have been drawn up by St. Mary's for the next phase of development are exciting and positive, providing an opportunity for the reconfiguration of specialist services across west London and fitting in with the exciting Paddington regeneration scheme. I hope that those plans will be considered favourably by the Minister.

1175
I pay tribute to the leadership of the St. Mary's trust, under the still relatively new trust chairman, Trevor Campbell-Davis, who is an efficient, effective and dynamic leader. He was instrumental in turning around the St. Charles hospital in north Kensington, which was in a poor state a decade ago, but which has changed dramatically and now makes a valuable contribution to the quality of care for north Kensington residents.
I welcome the fact that the Government have published a coherent strategy for mental health care services in their response to Turnberg and in the Green Paper on mental health services. The Government have backed that up, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, with £37 million extra for health and social services psychiatric provision. How desperately we needed that money. Psychiatric provision—especially acute psychiatric provision—was woefully inadequate by the early 1990s.
One of the most awful features of London health care in the 1980s and 1990s was how often severely mentally ill people spent the night in police cells because there was no secure acute psychiatric accommodation for them. On occasion, people were driven out of the capital, away from whatever support services they needed, to secure psychiatric beds in places such as Chester, Brighton and Southampton. That situation needs to be turned round.
The Turnberg report and the mental health services Green Paper set out a strategy based on investment, improved care processes, an improved legal framework and a recognition of the inadequacy of the past implementation of community care. That strategy is coherent, thoughtful and backed with resources. However, I ask the Minister, who is fully committed to delivering on the issue, to help to ensure that other Departments and local authorities provide essential support for the strategy. The need for a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach to mental health care services remains critical, as highlighted by the recent Dixon inquiry into the murder of PC Mackay by a severely mentally ill man under the care of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. It is appropriate at this moment to pay tribute to PC Mackay, and the other police and front-line workers who so frequently put themselves at risk of attack and murder by members of the public who have severe mental health problems.
The Dixon inquiry revealed serious weaknesses in police and management that those authorities—to their credit—have embraced and are beginning to implement. Underpinning all that is the desperate need for an adequate reflection of London's problems in all the funding settlements, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster when he talked convincingly about the under-enumeration of vulnerable groups.
The incidence of psychiatric morbidity in central London is four times the national average, and schizophrenia is three times more prevalent than nationally. One third of mental health service users in central London either are homeless or have no local connections. As the Acheson report found, 45 per cent. of bed-and-breakfast occupants experience severe psychological distress, compared with 20 per cent. of the general population. As the Dixon inquiry highlighted, there are 183 severely mentally ill people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in one borough alone. That is untenable, and we must ensure that action is taken to prevent that situation from continuing.
1176
The social exclusion unit and the rough sleepers unit are doing excellent work, in partnership with Government Departments, in dealing with a lethal cocktail of mental illness, homelessness and substance abuse, after those problems had been neglected for years. However, it is early days: the need is desperate and we must do everything in our power to stop people who are severely mentally ill being put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Social housing to provide care for those people—especially for those who are single—must be fairly distributed across London. We must resist the pressure that has built up over recent years—certainly in Westminster—to create psychiatric ghettos in poor corners of the city. They can only add to a problem that is already serious, both for those who suffer from mental illness and for the wider community. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister's response.
6.26 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate London's health service. The reforms in the Health Bill—especially the abolition of fundholding, the replacement of the internal market and the emphasis on quality—are long overdue. The focus on promoting partnership across health care boundaries will also be welcomed by Londoners.
The Conservative Government's stewardship of the national health service in London had, by May 1997, produced waiting lists at record levels and an internal market that fostered competition, inefficiency and chronic under-investment in patient care.
In the very worst cases, the internal market generated a form of bureaucratic imperialism, as a few chief executives of trusts sought to gobble up the activity of neighbouring trusts to bring in new streams of income, often at the expense of quality and ignoring local concerns. The crazy merger of Watford general hospital and Mount Vernon hospital was one such example. They were very different hospitals in terms of their clinical specialties: one looked to help patients in Hertfordshire, the other served people in London.
The merger involved a highly destabilising revolving circle of senior executive staff, and an increasing loss of transparency and local accountability in the trust's finances. Ultimately, it led to the loss of Mount Vernon' s status as a district general hospital and the closure of its accident and emergency unit. Those two decisions have had a disastrous consequences for the remaining services on site, as other hon. Members have noted.
Divisive and destabilising competition was the product of the structure that we inherited, but quality must be the motor of the new structure for London's health service. Quality cannot somehow be imposed. We cannot magic it into hospital processes: it is not the concern only of the royal colleges or of those hospitals where poor standards of care have been identified.
A commitment to quality is, first, a state of mind—a determination to do better. Excellence has to be rooted in every aspect of a trust's operations. For example, quality must be the guiding force in every new service change.
The new duty of quality that the Health Bill imposes on London's health providers is, therefore, essential. Effective quality improvement processes must be in place in every hospital. Even where standards are good, we must

1177
encourage management to ask how they can be improved further. We cannot have the management of even one London hospital looking at events in Bristol or Kent and saying, "They could never happen here, so we can just go on as we are."
In 1995, the National Audit Office first highlighted variations in NHS trusts' commitment to clinical audits, one form of quality control. In May last year, the medical press highlighted the continuing variations in that commitment. So it is clear that there is a need for a comprehensive quality programme to reinforce the new duty. The Commission for Health Improvement, able to monitor local clinical governance issues and the implementation of national health service frameworks across London, and to tackle persistent problems will help to drive forward such a quality programme.
Those measures are coupled with London's share of the £21 billion of new investment, and I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for providing £780,000 to modernise Northwick Park hospital's accident and emergency unit. All this will help to restore the belief of patients and carers that quality of care, not the financial bottom line, is the true raison d' etre of London's health service.
The merger of Northwick Park hospital with the Central Middlesex is an example of the new rationale. Two acute hospitals will continue their current levels of activity while merging into a single trust to release money from administration for patient care. Crucially, they will also bring together clinical teams to improve services and drive up standards of care.
London's health service has many near neighbours who, at different times, are better positioned to deliver health gain. Securing true partnership with the many arms of local authorities and with other statutory bodies whose primary purposes are, say, crime and disorder or poverty has been the aim of many health care reformers for 20 to 30 years. Only when the Health Bill becomes law will that wish begin to be fulfilled.
Together with the establishment of a Greater London Authority, a London development agency and the creation of a single London NHS region, important new opportunities are opening up for strategic health partnerships across London to tackle the health concerns of Londoners. London needs a health strategy to which the boroughs and other pan-London statutory bodies and stakeholders are committed. I welcome the NHS executive event that is planned soon to begin shaping the vision behind a London health strategy.
In my borough, a new spirit of partnership across the health care divide has begun to flower. Where once local hospital chief executives and council leaders would prowl warily around one another between routine confrontations about each proposed change in health care arrangements, the health White Paper and the granting of pilot status for best value to Harrow council have released wasted energy for more creative and innovative attempts to build genuine partnership, trust and understanding of the constraints and opportunities that confront local service providers and purchasers.
It would be wrong to suggest that everything in Harrow is sweetness and light, or that it will be so when the Health Bill becomes law. There is sustained enthusiasm, but there are questions too. General practitioners who felt ignored by
1178
the local health authority and hospital managers who felt dragooned into fundholding have reservations about yet more change in their ways of working.
Hospital doctors, used to the destabilising change that was brought year after year by the perversities of the internal market, point to considerable challenges facing the health service. Even the most sceptical are engaging with and being engaged by other health and social care stakeholders, partly through the Harrow partnership, the vehicle for the council's best value pilot. Elections to the primary care group were strongly contested, and the west London NHS Direct bid was enthusiastically supported. Local hospitals are beginning to explore more effective ways of communicating with all GPs.
In Harrow, there is a sense of a service changing for the better, establishing effective partnerships and focusing on how best to allow existing excellence among local NHS and social care staff to develop. London needs more imaginative arrangements for providing and integrating services to raise the quality of care received by patients and their carers who, not surprisingly, are more concerned with totality of service than with whether part of a service is provided by an NHS trust or a local council.
London's health service learned important lessons about integrated care from the way in which winter pressures money had to be used. That money forced a much more rigorous approach to joint working around the discharge and rehabilitation planning for elderly people. We must continue that approach in the health improvement programmes, locking in local providers of London's health and social care to shared and accountable agendas for local health priorities.
When the Health Bill becomes law, the excuse for lack of proper joint working between health service and social services staff in London will be removed. The opportunity to blame legislation, or its interpretation by finance staff, will simply no longer exist.
The Health Bill, London's share of the £21 billion investment and the creation of a Greater London Authority mark the end of a new beginning for London's health service. The challenge will be to maintain the momentum.
6.34 pm
Mr. Tony McNulty: I shall be brief, much to the pleasure of Opposition Front-Bench Members, not least the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) who is now on his third party, I believe, in terms of representation in the House. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is not here. As he has done before, he called for a grown-up, serious, mature debate and then promptly descended into a childish, petulant, right-wing rant, which was of no value to anyone. He did the House a disservice by suggesting anything other than fact, which is that Edgware A and E facility stopped as a blue light function on 1 April 1997, not afterwards. I have the records and I can send him clear evidence that the health authority started the wind-down at the behest of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), or Loughborough as it then was, in February 1997, while his hon. Friends the then Members for Harrow, East, Mr. Dykes, and for Hendon, North, Sir John Gorst, were rallying round threatening to bring down the Government—and then, what a surprise, did not bother. It is a shame that the unique, innovative consultation process that followed, which included over 200 organisations and

1179
gave the local community what they wanted in terms of a community hospital, is also pooh-poohed by Opposition Members.
I want to touch briefly on those issues that are not in Turnberg. A specific local one concerns the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. It is the international orthopaedic facility in the world. It awaits still, some 10 years on in terms of the grinding wheels of health bureaucracy, a decision following the musculo-skeletal review in the area. I fully support the refurbishment and modernisation of this key international facility on the Stanmore site.
The one comment that I would endorse from the sixth form representative of Kingston—and on and on—and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is that there are significant pockets of deep deprivation, which we miss at our peril, throughout outer London and suburban areas which often get overlooked because of the notion that, somehow, areas such as Harrow and Uxbridge are seas of affluence. We need to pick that up.
I am not one who indulges in luvvie behaviour. I do not subscribe to the school report that says that, no matter what they have done during their time in power since 1948, at heart, deep down the Conservatives really like the NHS. I do not believe that for a moment. I would not associate the hon. Member or right hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I am not sure which—with this remark.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member.
Mr. McNulty: It should be right hon. Member, not least for the real service he did in the House as a strong, independent Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. He is to be fully applauded for that; he deserves a gong for it if for nothing else. He certainly deserves one for the exceptional way in which he chaired the Greater London Authority Bill. At the risk of being mildly offensive, I would say that at best he is a semi-detached member, certainly of the last Government, if not of the Conservative party.
The luvvie behaviour stops here because the economic spokespersons for the Conservatives cannot say, as they have done, that they will freeze duty on fuel and tobacco. That impacts on London's NHS; the cash register rings £6 billion straight away. That is roughly a year's worth of the total £21 billion that we are putting into the health service. Where is that money going to come from? The Conservatives cannot, as some of them do, say that they now subscribe to the £40 billion, yet, at the same time, make all these other commitments elsewhere. They cannot do that and be credible to the public.
The Conservative Opposition are all over the place when it comes to the health service and, as ever, the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant. Unless hon. Members stand up and say that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is wrong to suggest charging people to visit GPs and to go to hospital, and to suggest getting more and more public money to subsidise further private medicine, they will be damned for ever as the enemies, not the friends, of the NHS—with the occasional honourable exception.
6.39 pm
Mr. John Horam: For once, I am grateful to the Secretary of State because he has spared the House what Conservative Members call the Dobson rant: that is
1180
a wholly partial diatribe about the mystical or mythical behaviour of the Conservatives during the past 30 years or so, buttressed by some partial facts and colourful epithets. On this occasion, he actually talked about the subject in hand, unlike his introduction of the Health Bill, when he barely considered the Bill. Today, he was rather more positive, although he gave us a rather partial and highly complacent view of the national health service in London.
It is my job to introduce a little reality to the debate. Although there are always some worthwhile things going on in the health service in London—I have no doubt about that—there is much that is not good from the point of view of our constituents and of patients. There is much that is actually deteriorating—for example, in relation to waiting lists. As we all know, waiting lists are one of the Government's central targets. However, formal waiting lists have gone up since the general election and have only now gone back to what they were at that time. In my area, Bromley has a most efficient national health service trust which does a good job for its patients—in referring to that I am being extremely fair to the Secretary of State-but even there the number of people on the waiting list is still more than 6,000, as it was at the general election.
That change is nothing like the 30 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for his area; in fact, the change is less than 4 per cent. since the general election. The problem is that the number of people on the waiting list for the waiting list has increased; it has gone up by about 250,000 countrywide and has certainly increased substantially in Bromley. Furthermore, more operations are cancelled than previously; five operations a day have been routinely cancelled during the past few weeks. One day, more than 50 per cent. of operations were cancelled. Bromley used to take great pride in its operations service; it can no longer do so—not, of course, as a result of the actions of the consultants, the nurses and so on, who do the best they can, but because of the situation created by the Government.
The problem is not only the waiting times per se for ordinary surgery, but the fact that the waiting time for admission to a bed via the accident and emergency department is now the longest ever recorded in Bromley. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out, in his notably fair-minded and humorous speech, that is one of the tests that we must consider—the number of people on the waiting list and the time it takes for them to be seen.
Last winter, the accident and emergency service was a disaster in Bromley; on 44 per cent. of days in December, January and February restrictions were placed on admissions to the A and E department. There were delays in admitting patients to the department on 80 per cent. of the days. I am sure that Labour Members are well aware that, in their own constituencies, there were figures similar to those for that efficient NHS service in Bromley.
There were some distressing cases; for example, an 87-year-old lady with cardiovascular problems had to wait more than 20 hours. I will not refer to such examples at length, because we are all familiar with such events. However, they should not occur; even the Bromley community health council—our local health watchdog—stated that such cases should not happen. However, last winter they happened in the NHS in London. Why did they happen? Some reasons are not under the control of the Government. I accept that winters vary in their

1181
severity, and, accordingly, the demand on services is greater or less, and that last winter was not a particularly good one.
However, some things are under the Government's control—one of which is how they handle the money that they allocate to the NHS to deal with winter emergencies. For example, in the case of Bromley, the problem was made much worse because the money to deal with those winter pressures did not arrive until December. I ask hon. Members to imagine that. When does the Secretary of State think that winter starts? As a result, there was no possibility of real planning for the winter emergencies. How could one expect to recruit staff at a moment's notice to deal with acute problems when one did not know until December how much money would be received?
Those are the sort of problems that we had to face. The fact is that the Government were incompetent in the way that they handed out the money—never mind the amount, although that was too small, as the chairman of the health authority pointed out.
The subject of the London ambulance service was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and I hope that the Minister will mention it when she winds up the debate. The great breakthrough in improving efficiency and performance and achieving targets came when ambulance services throughout the country achieved trust status. As a consequence of that, many ambulance services—Staffordshire, Essex and Kent, to name but a few—became excellent services, performing extremely well and meeting all their eight and 14-minute targets.
The London ambulance service has lagged behind, but, as a consequence of measures that the Conservative Government put in hand, its performance had been steadily improving, year after year. However, it has now collapsed all over again, and we read in the Evening Standard that only two out of five ambulances arrive within eight minutes—the target is being only 40 per cent. achieved. Why is that?
Mr. Dobson: It was 50 per cent., not 100 per cent., before.
Mr. Horam: Exactly—it was 50 per cent., but it has now gone down to 40 per cent., which is a deterioration of 10 per cent. under the Labour Government. Because of simple incompetence, the situation has deteriorated since Labour got into power. The story is the same in the London police service, and we now have fewer police in London. The fact is that, since Labour got into power, things have got worse in accident and emergency units, on waiting lists and in the ambulance service.
As London Members of Parliament, we all know how important primary care is and how dependent on it we are. Hon. Members on both sides will admit that the Conservative Government did a great deal to improve the quality and quantity of primary care in London. We disagree on the question of GP fundholding, but the right way to deal with what the Government perceive to be the problems arising from GP fundholding—that it may, in certain circumstances, increase the number of tiers in the health service or affect the way in which patients whose GPs are not fundholders are treated—is to make every GP a fundholder, not to level down and create large collectives that lead to increased bureaucracy. The
1182
£150 million that the Government have spent creating that extra bureaucracy would have been far better spent on the front line of GP fundholding in London.
If we are honest, we have to acknowledge that there is much wrong in the health service in London. Some worthwhile things are happening, but the Government can only say of many of them that they were inherited from the Conservatives. The Labour Government inherited NHS Direct—a very good thing which we were working on before the general election. They inherited the private finance initiative—as has been pointed out, 31 of the 35 new hospitals being built are financed through the PFI.
The Labour Government have reaped where the Conservatives sowed—they had no ideas about the health service when they were in opposition, and they have none now. All too many of their ideas were started by the Conservatives and inherited by Labour, and there are fundamental problems that the Government are not tackling—they cannot even manage within existing constraints without displaying the sort of incompetence seen in Bromley last December. The only possible thing to say to someone who is ill is, "Do not be poor, do not be old, do not need expensive drugs, and do not live in London."
6.48 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): That is one of the more extraordinary speeches that we have heard from the Opposition Benches—perhaps it was caused by a bout of pre-election fever afflicting the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam).
Let me try to get back to the purpose of the debate, which is to give us an opportunity to set out the ways in which the Government have been setting about the process of modernising the national health service in London. Modernisation is about rebuilding the national health service: integrating health and social care, driving up standards of care, making the NHS more accessible, tackling health inequality and tackling the root causes of ill health.
We need to do that because London is a capital divided—a city of great extremes containing some of the richest and some of the poorest parts of the country. In my own inner-London constituency, one can pass from one area into another where life expectancy is up to eight years less, simply by crossing two roads, so short is the walk from affluence to poverty. The City—the financial centre of Europe—deals with billions of pounds every day. However, Newham in the east end of London, is the second most-deprived local authority in Britain. In fact, 13 of the poorest local authority areas in the country are in London.
London has more high earners earning —750 a week or more and more low earners earning —100 a week or less than anywhere else in the country. London is a city of contrasts. Inequality is the overarching theme that we considered in tackling London's health. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commissioned the report by Sir Donald Acheson on inequality in health. That is why a centrepiece of our forthcoming health White Paper will be detailing the way in which we will meet our aim of improving the health of the poorest people in London and the rest of the country faster than we improve the health of the population overall. That will not be easy.
The chances of dying before the age of 75 are almost twice as high in some areas of east and south London—such as Newham, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and

1183
Lambeth—as in the least-deprived parts of the capital, such as the City of London, Bromley and Kingston upon Thames. Infant mortality rates in inner-city London are some of the worst in Europe. Even some of the healthiest parts of London have higher infant mortality rates than the worst parts of Stockholm.
Those facts tell their own story. Hon. Members will be aware of other risk factors—for example, London has some of the lowest rates of immunisation and screening take-up. Those factors dictate our course of action in improving the health of Londoners, which is the purpose of modernising London's health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and several of my other hon. Friends referred to the importance of investing in primary care, particularly in order to reduce the number of isolated, single-handed practices. We must also address the problem of unequal access to care and the extent to which, for too many people, access does not necessarily match the need for care.
Modernisation means tackling those issues. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, we are doing that by establishing health action zones, education action zones and sure start—which has been given the go-ahead in Camden, Haringey and Southwark, with much more of London to be covered in later announcements. They are the practical ways in which we will begin to remove the obstacles to the improved delivery of health care and improved health for Londoners.
If we look back at the previous Government's record, we will see that nothing crystallises their folly more than what they did to London's hospitals—particularly their mad claim, which proved to be disastrously wrong, that London had too many acute beds. The Turnberg report compared the situation in London with that in the rest of the country and concluded that London did not have more beds than it needed. We are determined that the number of beds should be based on a rational assessment of need, which is why, last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a national bed inquiry to ensure that in London, as well as the rest of the country, the national health service is equipped with the resources and beds to meet the demands of patient care.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Jowell: No. I am very short of time and I have cut short the winding-up speech so that I can respond to the debate.
This debate is an opportunity to report on progress in implementing the Turnberg recommendations, all of which we accepted, which will take 10 years. The report calls for action and investment in primary care, mental health, intermediate care and community services. In the judgment of the Turnberg panel, none of those services was up to the standard that the people of London had a right to expect. My hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford), for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) all expressed concerns about that.
I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who asked about action on delayed discharge, that we shall consult in the summer on guidance for the approach to that problem, so that we can take practical measures to tackle it.
1184
The Turnberg panel did a remarkable job and we are grateful to it. However, we must be clear that putting those recommendations into practice will take the next 10 years.
Modernisation of capital investment in London is critical. At least 50 primary care premises will be improved this year, benefiting around 100,000 patients. In the biggest hospital building programme in London, £billion will be spent on new and improved modern hospitals. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), for Upminster and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) referred to the Oldchurch hospital, which is being considered by Ministers.
Modernisation schemes are planned or under way at 32 of London's accident and emergency departments, and improvements include new ventilators, cardiac monitors and anaesthetic units at the Royal Free hospital, a new X-ray room at Kingston hospital and an admissions ward at Epsom general. Whipps Cross hospital, which had problems last winter, had some of the most rundown facilities, and the trust is to be allocated £695,000 from the capital modernisation fund to enable it to make improvements in the flow of patients through the accident and emergency department by redesigning ambulance arrivals and resuscitation areas.
Several hon. Members expressed concern about the London ambulance service. Of course we share their concern about its performance. The service's problems have been exacerbated by absenteeism and staff shortages, but it is responding to more calls than ever. The London regional office will be working closely with the London ambulance service to ensure that its standards are those that have been promised.
We have made fantastic progress in tackling waiting lists. To hear the Opposition try to rewrite the facts is, frankly, extraordinary. The creation of a Greater London Authority and a mayor for London gives us the opportunity to charge the mayor with the major responsibility of safeguarding Londoners' health.
We have heard the usual litany from the Opposition today—they have talked down the national health service and its sustainability. They are a party in desperate search of a policy.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

London's Health Service

  MEMBERS' TRAVEL (NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS)
  Motion made,
  That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that
  (1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

  (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the

  1185
  three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and

  (b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and

  (2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Trainee Obstetricians
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
7 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: We are heading towards making redundant a number of ready-to-be consultants, which the national health service desperately needs and who have cost the country a fortune to train. I shall set out the figures involved, then describe the demand for consultants and consider some of the problems meeting that demand and some of the potential solutions to both the immediate crisis and long-term work force planning problems.
In a written answer from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), which I received today, I was told that there are 117 specialist registrars in obstetrics and gynaecology who hold national training numbers, NTNs, and are therefore eligible to take up consultant posts and who have obtained their certificate of completion of specialist training, CCST, but for whom there are no consultant posts available. Of those 117, 86 had been in that position for more than six months.
Similarly, it was reported in January that 112 specialist registrars holding NTNs and with CCSTs had no consultant posts to go to, of whom 23 completed their training 18 months earlier. It was envisaged then that 82 more people would be in such a position by March 1999, of whom only a few would be mopped up by newly established consultant posts and the filling of consultant vacancies from retirement and death.
The number of new CCST holders who will complete specialist training in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 has been estimated to be 188 and 122 respectively. Similarly, Department of Health figures for the next three calendar years, are 137, 185 and 100 respectively. Either way, that makes for about 500 trainees with NTNs who are eligible to be consultants and waiting for posts, on whom this country has spent a great deal of money. At the current rate of consultant vacancies and establishment of new posts, such people will mostly have to be made redundant or find other sources of income. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
According to another written answer, it costs £160,000 just to put a medical student through medical school. The cost of training a doctor up to CCST level in obstetrics and gynaecology can be estimated by adding up the element of their salary that is paid for annually through the medical and dental education levy—generally half the basic salary, except in the house officer year, when it is 100 per cent. of the basic salary. Even a quick calculation suggests that an average general and specialist training period of about 10 years costs at least another —150,000—making a grand total of about one third of a million pounds per doctor, for many of whom there will be no consultant post.
It has already been made clear to me by individuals that they will not be hanging around waiting to be sacked when the 18-month stay of execution runs out on those with certificates of completion of specialist training. They will be moving abroad or into other jobs. I have heard of one trainee who plans to become an air hostess because she cannot bear waiting around with no likely career progression.

1187
There is a desperate need for more consultant posts in this country. Let me make clear the current planned rate of expansion. The Department of Health has indicated that about 50 consultant appointments were made in the past year. My understanding is that about half those were vacancies through retirement and other causes and about half were newly established posts. At that rate, about 350 of the 500 trainees with CCSTs who will be eligible to become consultants over the next three years will have no posts to go to. It is a problem of degree of magnitude, not something that can be improved quickly or without the radical action that I will be urging on the Government.
This country is in desperate need of additional consultants, particularly in our obstetric units. The fourth and fifth reports of the confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy have indicated that about 80 per cent. of intra-partum deaths—deaths during labour—that were identified for the study, were criticised for sub-optimal care because alternative management would reasonably have been expected to make a difference to the outcome in about half the cases and might have helped in another quarter.
The confidential inquiry into maternal deaths from 1991 to 1993 raised concerns even then about a possible lack of senior obstetric consultant input into the care of critically ill women. It drew attention to inappropriate standards of care due to inappropriate delegation of responsibility for clinical management to relatively inexperienced junior doctors. The evidence from confidential inquiries shows that we are letting down the women of this country in the quality of service we are providing.
In addition, the confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths, which impacts on gynaecological emergencies as well as operative obstetric emergencies, indicated that direct consultant involvement in emergency surgery, particularly out of hours, may have led to an improved outcome for many patients. That is now accepted wisdom and best practice in the health service.
The Minister will be aware of the cost to the health service of clinical negligence in obstetrics. It dwarfs the cost of clinical negligence and litigation in other specialties. The clinical negligence scheme for trusts has identified the importance of consultant input in the labour ward and suggested that a standard of at least 40 hours of consultant sessions on the labour ward during the working week is desirable. That was backed recently by the joint report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives which, for the first time, have come together to endorse clear recommendations for consultant expansion, among a range of other suggestions.
There is a need to expand the number of consultants to improve the quality of care for women and to reduce the enormous costs of litigation as a result of inappropriate care, perhaps because of inappropriate levels of experience among the doctors concerned.
According to figures I have seen, which are not disputed, only 28 new posts were established in 1998, as opposed to vacancies, of which only a similar number were filled. Yet there were 37 appointments of non-consultant career grade doctors in 1998 alone. There is no way that the Government will be able to direct the
1188
consultant expansion we need while there is a free-for-all in medical work force planning. Answers that the Government have given to me show that they accept that it is still a free-for-all for trusts. They say that it is for NHS trusts to decide the number and grades of staff they need. That is a free market in staff. It does not allow the Government easily, if at all, to implement their policies in terms of quality and of reducing litigation costs to trusts which are, for better or worse, concerned with making the books balance in the short term.
We have an immediate problem, and various solutions have been proposed. One solution is for those doctors to continue occupying specialist registrar posts; but that will not do. They would either block slots for new trainees, or impose an extra cost on the national health service as their slots were filled by newer trainees. Therefore, additional money should not be spent on prolonging their tenure in those posts, and any available money should be invested in ensuring quality and in solving the problem once and for all. Regardless, keeping those doctors on in those posts for much longer would continue to deprive future consultants of those training opportunities.
Another proposal is to do nothing or to fiddle about with pilot schemes, which—judging by a letter of 28 April from Mr. Hugh Taylor, the NHS director of personnel—the Department of Health currently seems to favour. The letter quite accurately describes the current stark situation, and makes no bones about the crisis engulfing medical work force planning. It is not satisfactory to wait. Staff will leave, and quality and care will not improve without direct investment in consultant posts. Regardless, it simply will not be possible to remove junior doctors, as envisaged in the letter.
The letter proposes that temporary non-consultant posts should be created for a further 12 months. Therefore, by definition, the posts—unless they are a continuation of training posts, in which case one wonders from where the funding will come—will be non-consultant career grade. It would not be possible for the health service to remove doctor posts, at either senior house officer or specialist level, by entirely eliminating slots or by not filling specialist registrar slots with visiting trainees, who are critically necessary to cover out-of-hours work rotas. Without them, the junior doctors hours initiative—which, this week, has featured so prominently in the media—will be under further pressure.
Perhaps the Government intend that the proposed 12-month extensions for doctors—who are ready to be consultants—should involve on-call duties with junior doctors filling the posts they are seeking to leave. I have heard a rumour, from the Trent region, that a doctor was promised a post in which he would receive 50 per cent. pay—the standard on-call overtime rate—but would not be paid for daytime work. Doctors would therefore be allowed to use NHS research facilities, but would not be able to make their mortgage payments.
The Government's proposals that I have seen would not be effective. Perhaps the Government are seriously considering trying to tempt trainees into some type of non-consultant career grade post—such as the 12-month temporary extension—but such a post would clearly be a blight on a trainee's curriculum vitae. They would not be a popular option. It is also not clear how the posts would be paid for. If no extra money is provided, and training slots are left as they are, the new posts will impose an extra cost. It would also not be satisfactory to seek to

1189
remove medical and dental education levy funding to pay for posts in other specialties. However, if extensions are required but there is no additional Government funding, that funding will have to be used.
None of those solutions is a real option. The only solution is a centrally funded expansion of consultant posts. It would cater, in waiting list initiative cases, for improved training, supervision and service; for increased cover on obstetrics wards; for decreased litigation and litigation costs; and, by investing in adequate senior medical cover, for insuring against problems in recruiting senior nurses and midwives. That is the solution, and it would be true modernisation of the health service. If the Government would only use some of their funds to fund those posts, it would solve all the problems that I have described. Moreover, it is the action that has been called for by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The joint report which I referred to earlier called for 24-hour consultant cover on big obstetric units and 40-hour a week consultant cover with no other clinical duties on obstetric wards during the working day. That implies an increase of around 300 in the number of consultants. That is the number needed to deal with the problem in the short term.
However, there are also longer-term issues. We must try to prevent the problem from arising again and secure the consultant expansion that the health service needs to provide a consultant-based service. The solution is clearly to restore manpower controls and end the free-for-all. There should be a limit to staff grade appointments back to 10 per cent. of the consultant work force, which would give incentives for trusts to expand their numbers of consultants rather than the non-consultant career grades. Associate specialists should once again become personal appointments, not advertised as additional non-consultant career grade posts. We should create paths back to training for those in non-consultant career grades who have been lured into those posts for lack of consultant opportunities.
We should ban the creation of illegal SHOs with no staffing or training approval. It is outrageous that doctors are led into applying for those posts when they hold no training or staffing approval because there is inadequate training in the posts. We should ban the use of non-standardised posts, which lead to poor-quality care and confuse patients. If a patient sees the word "specialist", they assume that the person is a consultant. That is the European term and the term that the Government use. Instead, trusts have created trust specialists and trust grade doctors willy-nilly as a short-term, cheap, expedient way of getting through service work of a lower quality than that which consultants offer.
I accept that planning is difficult. Having too many junior doctors causes this sort of problem, while having too few can hold back the consultant expansion that could develop the specialty. The answer is clearly to have more central control of manpower resources. I speak from experience, having served on the central manpower committee, which is a joint committee of the profession, and having worked in the area for three years.
The final aspect of my solution is to give 100 per cent. of the basic salary of trainees to deans to use within the medical and dental education levy. That would be a
1190
powerful tool for ensuring that trusts were rewarded for consultant expansion by attracting new specialist registrar slots and would give some protection of training for juniors against the exigencies of the service. I sincerely ask the Minister to take action to solve the acute immediate problem and to take on responsibility for the long-term solution. We have a duty to women and we must not scrimp in quality care. We have a duty to trainees and we must not waste doctors.
7.18 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I have listened with great interest to the points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). He is right to say that there is a serious mismatch between the number of fully trained specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology and the number of consultant jobs available. We are rightly concerned about that.
I should like to set out the background. By the end of April, there were 117 doctors who had completed their specialist training in obstetrics and gynaecology but had not found suitable posts. We expect that, over the next three years, the number of specialists completing their training will be 137, 185 and 100 respectively. Between 1992 and 1997, consultant expansion in the specialty grew by around 4.5 per cent. a year. To absorb all those doctors completing their training into consultant posts over the next three years the consultant expansion will have to increase to approximately 10 per cent. a year.
This difficult and complex situation needs to be handled sensitively and carefully. There has clearly been a failure to appreciate fully the supply and demand position for the specialty and in particular the pace of change in relation to consultant expansion.
We have already acknowledged the need to look more closely at work force planning processes—locally, regionally and nationally—so as to ensure a better match in the future between those trained and the jobs available in all specialties and professions. We will be undertaking work over the next few months with that in mind.
In the short term, we accept the need to deal with the immediate problem of career prospects for those currently training in obstetrics and gynaecology, including the current surplus of fully trained higher specialists. For that reason, we set up a small working group last autumn including representatives from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the joint consultants committee, the junior doctors committee and NHS management. The group reviewed the position and proposed a way forward.
The working group recognised that there were strong arguments on quality grounds—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for balancing an increased emphasis on midwifery-led services with access to the best-quality medical advice and expertise to deal with emergencies and difficulties. It noted that, in practice, the ratio of consultants to juniors was lower in obstetrics than in most other specialties. It also expressed concern about the numbers of appointments that were continuing to be made to non-consultant career grade posts.
The working group noted the joint report from the RCOG and RCM, "Setting Standards for improving Women's Health; Safer Childbirth", which dealt specifically with staffing and organisational issues. The

1191
report recommended greater consultant cover on labour wards in all but the smallest obstetric units. The RCOG has sent a copy to all NHS chief executives. The group also considered another report from the joint consultants committee which discussed issues about consultants' job plans in obstetrics and gynaecology. The JCC proposed changes to consultants' working patterns in future to provide for a consultant-based service.
The working group agreed that a combination of short, medium and long-term action was needed to address the situation. In the short term, it was agreed that it was imperative to engage the NHS in discussions about staffing and grade mix in obstetrics and gynaecology.
My officials have taken action to ensure that that happens quickly. A series of workshops is about to be arranged by each regional office to address that specific issue. They will not only look at the urgent and immediate problems of current surplus specialists without appointments, but address issues connected with those currently in specialist training and their career prospects. It is important not only to look at our current problems, but to consider the numbers in training.
We want two main outcomes from the workshops: first, to discover ways to find employment quickly for current surplus holders of the certificate of completion of specialist training, and in so doing improve the quality of current obstetric services, and secondly, to secure agreement from a number of trusts to act as pilot sites to evaluate different ways of working and staffing profiles which have less reliance on juniors and more input from qualified staff—midwives and fully qualified specialists.
My officials met representatives of each regional office at the end of April, and workshops are now being set up. We expect the first one to take place in July, probably in the west midlands. In the workshops, we will be working jointly with the profession, as was agreed by the working group.
Dr. Harris: The Minister is hinting at consultant-only units with no junior doctors; something that has been suggested in other specialties, including by researchers in my area in Oxford. However, that will cost money, as it will take a lot of consultants to give that on-call cover. Will there be new funding as part of the short-term and long-term solution?
Ms Jowell: I am setting out the stages by which we intend to address the problem. The first stage is to engage in joint discussions with the colleges, the working group and the NHS to address the short-term problem in the context of the need for clarity about the long-term position.
In the meantime, there will be continuing local action aimed at discussion with the postgraduate medical deans, who are continuing to extend the training period of all newly qualified specialists for as long as 18 months to give them time to secure a post. They will also continue to offer advice and help to all specialist trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology, and give particular support to CCST holders experiencing difficulties in securing a post.
Postgraduate deans will also explore ideas and opportunities aimed at improving the career prospects of all specialist trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology, including the feasibility of switching to another specialty where career prospects are better. I understand that the
1192
RCOG is having discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons to consider the feasibility of whether specialist trainees could, at an early stage of training, switch to a surgical specialty. Similar discussions with the Royal College of General Practitioners will also be held. We are fully supportive of the RCOG in its efforts to find solutions in this way. We want to work with the college and support it.
We are encouraging regional directors—through local workshops, and action by deans, consortiums or local medical work force advisory groups—to persuade trusts to offer temporary appointments of 12 months to CCST holders on fixed-term contracts. Such posts would be distinct from career-grade posts, and would be open to competition. Essentially, these would be developmental posts, with particular emphasis on new ways of working; possibly in the context of the pilot studies that I have already mentioned.
As I have said, the problem of surplus specialists in this specialty is multi-factorial and complex. Equally, solutions likely to improve the career prospects of those currently engaged in specialist training, or those who have recently completed training, are likely to vary. Such solutions will be thoroughly explored with local NHS management, by the profession and by my officials, as appropriate.
We have already taken steps this year to reduce higher specialist training opportunities in this specialty to ease the situation. In the light of advice from the specialist work force advisory group, which considers future investment in training across all medical specialties, we have reduced training opportunities by 76 places during this year. This will have the effect of restricting entry to the specialty to 65 places nationally. This decision was taken to avoid the detrimental effect of closing entry to the specialty altogether, given the knock-on effect that that would have on senior house officers and their career intentions.
Dr. Harris: Before she finishes, can the Minister guarantee that none of these doctors—who have cost us at least £300,000 to train—will be made redundant this year? Will she address the question of bringing back manpower controls?
Ms Jowell: Every possible effort will be made to ensure that those 117 people are found jobs. That cannot be a guarantee, but I have set out the steps that the Department intends to take to address a completely unacceptable situation. The remedy lies in immediate action—which we are taking—and a sustained, long-term assessment of the need for consultant posts and the deployment of consultant posts in the specialty.
The issues throw into sharp relief the difficulties associated with work force planning. In some respects, there have been improvements in recent years—for example, in addressing shortages in specialities such as anaesthetics and accident and emergency—but minimising shortages or over-supply remains a difficult balancing act. We must look carefully at our approach to planning—
The motion having been made at 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 half-past Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the President of the Council what arrangements have been agreed for financial assistance to opposition parties. [83392]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in October 1998 that financial assistance to opposition parties (known as "Short money") should be reviewed with a view to increasing it substantially, perhaps by as much as three times. Such assistance has been provided to opposition parties since 1975 to enable them more effectively to perform their parliamentary duties. It is claimed in respect of parties' parliamentary business and is largely spent on research assistance for opposition spokesmen, assistance in the opposition parties' Whips' offices and staff for the Leader of the Opposition.

  It has now been agreed that basic Short money will be increased by a factor of 2.7. This means that the opposition parties will receive £10,732.69 for every seat won and £ 21.44 for every 200 votes cast in their favour at the last general election. The travel fund for party spokesmen will be increased in line with inflation. The Neill Committee also recommended a specific allocation for the Leader of the Opposition's Office and this has now been set at £500,000 a year.

  The maximum sums each party will receive in the 1999-2000 financial year are set out as follows:

  £

  Conservative

  3,377,973.27

  Liberal Democrat

  1,085,009.82

  Scottish Nationalist Party

  134,643.44

  Plaid Cymru

  61,859.17

  Ulster Unionist

  138,749.97

  Democratic Unionist

  33,871.20

  SDLP

  54,111.99

  Select Committees (Overseas Travel)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much funding has been allocated to each select committee for overseas travel since May 1997. [82937]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission approves an annual figure for Select Committee travel; allocation to individual Committees is made, on its behalf, by the Liaison Committee. The figures for the total budget for the last three financial years are as follows:428

  £

  1997–98

  695,000

  1998–99

  949,975

  1999–2000

  975,600

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Organophosphates (Aircraft)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects on airline flight crews of organophosphate air pollution on board aircraft. [82322]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An organic phosphate compound Tricresylphosphate (TCP) is used as a load carrying additive for lubricants in aircraft jet engines. While TCP is toxic, it is not comparable to the organophosphates used in pesticides. While an aircraft is in flight, fresh air is taken in through air conditioning packs using compressed air supplied by the engines. These are designed to ensure that fumes from the engines do not enter the aircraft. However, in the very rare event of the failure of an engine seal, fumes could enter the air conditioning system and therefore the aircraft cabin. If this happens, the air conditioning unit can be isolated or the engine shut down, minimising any exposure to fumes.

  We have no evidence to suggest that fumes from aircraft engines have lead to long term health problems for aircraft crew or passengers. However, we are aware that this issue is being investigated in other countries and will review the situation once those investigations are completed.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish London Transport's report "The Future of London Underground". [82739]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Neither we nor LT intend to publish this document, which was produced to assist our consideration of the options for London Underground in 1997.

  All the key points relating to the Government's announcement of their chosen London Underground Public Private Partnership option were covered in the document "London Underground Public Private Partnership — Fact and Analysis", copies of which were deposited in the Library on 20 March 1998.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82870]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 410.
  429
  My Department's policy is to keep the matter under review and to ask caterers to set out their policy and charges for the use of fair trade products. It is then for local managers to decide on the scope to use fair trade products, having regard to value for money. Fair trade products have recently been introduced in vending machines in our London Headquarters buildings.

  British Rail Land
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much British Rail land was sold to private companies in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [83005]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Total sales of land by the British Railways Board for each financial year are as follows:

  1996 –97: 518 sales for £65.6 million

  1997 –98: 800 sales for £76.3 million

  1998 –99: 222 sales for £33.0 million.

  Information on which sales were to private companies, private individuals (who may be buying for use by a private company) or public bodies is not held in a readily available form and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Board.

  Accidents (Local Authority Compensation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collates on payments by local authorities in compensation to people injured as a result of an accident arising from an inadequately maintained pavement or highway. [83469]

  Mr. Meale
  This information is not
  centrally available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Early Release (Prisoners)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legal costs were incurred in respect of the processing of applications from prisoners for early release under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [82333]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total paid up to and including 23 April 1999 by way of legal aid direction by the Commissioners is £36,034.

  With regard to other legal costs incurred by the Secretary of State, the information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 477, on Special Advisers, if she will give the total travel cost of each occasion when advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82415]
  430
  Marjorie Mowlam
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999, Special Advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on 5 occasions. The costs are shown in the table.

  All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Date/Place visited

  Cost1 (£)

  12 November 1997

  New York/Washington/Boston/San Francisco

  5,397.70

  14 March 1998

  Boston/Washington/New York

  5,324.60

  19 July 1998

  Boston/Washington/New York

  2,386.50

  6 October 1998

  New York

  3,261.95

  15 March 1999

  Washington/New York

  3,360.40

  1The cost refers to flights only

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 24 April the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups; [82740]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 24 April the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [82741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 18 April to 24 April 1999 are shown in the table.

  Number

  Shootings

  2

  Bombings

  1

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  1

  Shootings

  1

  1

  Total

  2

  2

  Note

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendments.

  2. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to grouping.

  Traffic Lights (Newtownards)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to return the
  431
  sequencing of the traffic lights at the junction of Mill Street and Circular Road, Newtownards, County Down, to their original setting. [82742]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 30 April 1999 The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about the sequencing of the traffic signals at the junction of Mill Street and Circular Road in Newtownards.
  By way of background, I should explain that, in order to accommodate the laying of a watermain in July and August last year, a one-way traffic system was introduced on South Street. As a result, traffic was diverted along Circular Road and the traffic signals at the junction in question were altered to deal with this additional flow.
  On completion of these works, we carried out a detailed assessment of traffic flow at this junction. We concluded that the original traffic light phasing contained conflicting traffic movements which reduced the operational efficiency of the junction. In addition, there was evidence that drivers were using the Scrabo estate as a "rat run" to avoid the junction, particularly during morning peak times. By removing these conflicting movements, the new phasing has improved road safety, increased the junction's capacity and reduced the benefits of using Scrabo Estate as a "rat run". Whilst the length of the queues on some approaches to the junction may have increased during peak times, adjustments have been carried out to increase the number of vehicles passing through the junction.
  In the circumstances, Roads Service has no plans to revert to the old phasing. There may, however, be some isolated off-peak periods that could benefit from further timing alterations. We will continue, therefore, to monitor the junction and amend the timings as and when necessary.
  I hope this helps clarify the situation.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Offices of the Regions
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made on the review of the future of Government Offices of the Regions of England. [83181]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out a study of the role of central Government at regional and local level in England. This includes considering the role of Government Offices in the Regions. A consultation document was circulated to interested parties in March, seeking responses by 1 June. The study is due to be completed by the end of the summer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Hotels
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which organisation will in future be responsible for monitoring hotel bed occupancy rates. [83034]
  432
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The English Tourist Board is currently responsible for monitoring hotel bed occupancy rates through data collected as part of the UK Occupancy Survey (UKOS). The ETB runs the UKOS in partnership with the national tourist boards of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The English Tourism Council, in partnership with the national tourist boards, will retain responsibility for commissioning the UKOS.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those matters currently solely within Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for which by virtue of the treaty of Amsterdam responsibility will be jointly held with an institution of the EU on the coming into force of that treaty. [83280]

  Ms Quin
  The treaty of Amsterdam broadens the competence of the Community institutions mainly in areas where they already share responsibility with the member states. Such areas include the environment, social policy, employment policy, non-discrimination, public health and consumer protection.

  It also introduces new Community competence over policies on the free movement of persons in new Title IV of the EC Treaty. However, the UK will not be bound by any measures adopted under this Title unless it chooses to be so.

  Kosovo
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to ensure that the Serbian population is informed of Nato's action relating to the crisis in Kosovo. [83141]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are using a variety of means to get the truth into Yugoslavia. The BBC World Service has increased its Serbian programming by almost half. It is now broadcasting 3 more 15 minute news bulletins. We are working with the BBC to find ways of getting our medium wave and FM footprint into Serbia as well so that the BBC's impartial reporting can be heard.

  We are also using the Foreign Office's own media facilities to get our message across to the Serbian people. The London Radio Service has more than doubled its bulletins and has set up a Serbian language service now used by 3 stations in Montenegro. British Satellite News also offers a 7 day service and is used by 43 television stations in the Balkans, Ukraine and Russia.

  We have used the internet to send a message to the Serbian people over the head of President Milosevic. Our Kosovo website gets 25,000 hits a day. We have translated it into Serbian and over 1,200 hits a day come from Yugoslavia.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he
  433
  has held with his German counterpart on the amount of storage space for spent nuclear fuel (a) currently available and (b) under construction in Germany. [82945]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]I have, to date, had no such discussions with my German counterpart. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry (82944).

  Arms Export Licences
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many arms export licence applications his Department has(a) examined and (b) advised against granting since September 1997. [83092]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  From 1 October 1997 to 31 March 1999, 12,073 Standard Individual Export Licence applications, covering arms and other goods the export of which is controlled for strategic reasons, were circulated to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the Department for Trade and Industry for advice, in accordance with the FCO's requirements. In the same period, 924 Open Individual Export Licence applications were also circulated to the FCO, although this figure does not reflect subsequent requests for alterations to either the goods or the consignee schedules of these licences.

  The Government's first Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which marks a new level of transparency in relation to the Government's export licensing policy, gives details of all licence applications refused in the period 2 May to 31 December 1997, broken down by country and equipment category. Details of licences refused in 1998 will be given in the next Annual Report.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff were employed in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit of his Department on 31 March; what the budget was of that unit in 1998 –99; and what budget has been set for the unit in 1999 –2000. [82015]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: The number of staff employed in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit on 31 March was 148. The budget for the Unit in 1998 –99 was £4.8 million; the budget for 1999 –2000 is £5.9 million. A significant part of the increase in the budget is due to the transfer of four teams covering specialist schools in September 1999. The complement of staff in the SEU is drawn mainly from existing Civil Servants together with a small number of external practitioners, including heads and inspectors, appointed to bring the benefit of their experience to the Department.

  School Furniture
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment his Department has made of the state of repair of school furniture. [82908]
  434
  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. Schools are responsible for the maintenance of their furniture, and for utilising their delegated budgets for this purpose as necessary. The Government have supported schools by increasing recurrent provision for local authority education services by £1.1 billion for 1999 –2000.

  School Swimming Lessons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will rank local education authorities in England by the amount of swimming time and instruction offered to schools; and if he will make a statement. [83238]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the Government believe it is extremely important that young people should learn to swim. Swimming is therefore a compulsory element of the PE curriculum in all primary schools.

  PE (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the quality of physical education in primary schools. [83247]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Government believe that PE and sport are essential to a rounded education. We have therefore committed £400 million of Lottery money through the New Opportunities Fund to after-school learning, including PE, sports, games and outdoor activities.

  The review of the National Curriculum for the year 2000 is looking at all areas of the school curriculum, including physical education in primary schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be consulting widely on draft proposals for a revised National Curriculum during the summer, before final decisions are taken.

  The Government will also be publishing a sports strategy paper later this year that will include the promotion of physical and sporting opportunities for young people as one of its principal aims. The Government also fund Sport England, whose Active Schools programme ensures quality sports provision in schools through a variety of initiatives, including BT TOP Sport, Sportsmark and Sportsmark Gold awards, Coaching for Teachers and the Sporting Ambassadors scheme. Sport England have committed £3.1m to Active Schools this year, in addition to Lottery funding of £7.75m towards TOP Play and BT Top Sport.

  School Funding (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a breakdown of capital allocations to schools in Amber Valley since May 1997. [83158]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The
  information requested by my hon. Friend is shown in the following table.
  435

  Capital allocations for the Amber Valley since May 1997

  school name

  New Deal for Schools

  Seed Challenge Fund

  Disability and Access Initiative

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Voluntary Rationing Scheme

  Grant Maintained Schools

  Horsley Woodhouse

  70,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Swanwick Primary

  205,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pottery Primary

  225,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heague Primary

  240,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  John Flamsteed

  669,163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heanor Gate School

  —

  150,000

  24,748

  —

  —

  97,382

  Ridings Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morley Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mapperley CE Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stanley Common

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Denby Free

  —

  —

  —

  6,675

  —

  —

  Mill Hill

  —

  —

  30,630

  —

  —

  —

  Church Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ripley St. John

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Langley Mill C of E

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Christ the King RC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,752

  —

  Fritchley C of E

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,202

  —

  Mortimer School

  —

  —

  —

  175,000

  —

  —

  Little Eaton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ACG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,409,163

  150,000

  55,378

  181,675

  5,954

  97,382

  School name

  Special Education Needs

  Outside Toilets Initiative

  Named Minor Capital Works

  Class Size Initiative

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  Grand Total

  Horsley Woodhouse —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Swanwick Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pottery Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heague Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  John Flamsteed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heanor Gate School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ridings Junior

  —

  40,250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morley Primary

  —

  35,190

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mapperley CE Primary

  —

  44,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stanley Common

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Denby Free

  —

  —

  80,842

  —

  —

  —

  Mill Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Church Infant

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ripley St. John

  1,000

  —

  —

  80,000

  —

  —

  Langley Mill C of E

  10,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Christ the King RC

  10,500

  —

  —

  2,938

  —

  —

  Fritchley C of E

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mortimer School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Little Eaton

  —

  —

  —

  80,000

  —

  —

  ACG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  107,271

  Total

  23,000

  169,440

  80,842

  162,938

  107,271

  2,443,043

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital allocation to schools in Amber Valley since May 1997. [83157]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The resources allocated since May 1997 for capital purposes to schools in the Amber Valley amount to £2,443,043.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the expenditure per pupil at 1998 –99 prices from aggregate schools budgets in(a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools in
  436
  (i) 1996 –97, (ii) 1997 –98 and (iii) 1998 –99, giving the average percentage change from (1) 1996 –97 to 1997 –98 and (2) from 1997 –98 to 1998 –99. [81648]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 April 1999, c. 181]: Unfortunately the table which was provided in the reply contained errors. A revised table has been placed in the Library today.

  Environment Task Force
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal trainees were in post on the Environment Task Force in each region of the United Kingdom at the most recent date for which figures are available. [83149]
  437
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information set out in the following table shows the number of young people who were on the New Deal Environment Task Force option at the end of February 1999. The figures have been drawn from the latest Government Statistical Service report and are shown by each of the Employment Service Regions in Great Britain.

  ES region

  Participants on ETF option

  East Midlands and Eastern

  510

  London and South East

  980

  Northern

  610

  North West

  1,080

  South West

  330

  West Midlands

  540

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  960

  Office for Wales

  730

  Office for Scotland

  840

  Great Britain total

  6,590

  Note

  Regional figures are rounded and do not, therefore, sum to the total

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase Environment Task Force placements under the New Deal. [83148]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service continues to work closely with its partners and Environment Task Force providers in each of its Regions to build up new placements and maintain current placements for the Environment Task Force option. The Employment Service has no evidence that an increased number of placements is required over and above those already contracted for.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Knowledge-based Enterprise
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's work to increase the number of high-productivity and knowledge-based enterprises. [82358]

  Mr. Wills
  The Competitiveness White Paper, published in December last year, included a range of measures designed to help business meet the challenge of the knowledge driven economy. Publication of the Implementation Plan, in March of this year, demonstrated the Department's determination to carry through the commitments contained in the White Paper.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to support policies on environmental sustainability for manufacturing industry. [82380]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are determined to help business meet the challenge and seize the opportunities of sustainability. In just the last month, I have announced new funding of around £8 million for a new Sustainable Technologies Initiative, £12 million to kick start a £60 million high tech drive to develop cleaner coal technologies, and the latest phase of the Foresight Vehicle 438
  programme which is supporting over £25 million of innovative research to develop the technologies needed for the next generation of more sustainable vehicles.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage since its introduction. [82381]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is early days; the national minimum wage has been in operation for only 5 weeks. However, recent independent research shows not only that most employers (almost 90 per cent.) support the principle of the minimum wage but that 40 per cent. had adjusted their pay structures prior to its introduction. There is no evidence of higher costs feeding into higher prices and there were few signs of any demand for the restoration of pay differentials. There was little evidence of significant job losses; in fact, staff levels among smaller firms have increased by 11 per cent. over the past year —staff turnover had fallen in traditionally low paying industries.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the national minimum wage since its introduction. [82361]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The national minimum wage, since its introduction in April, has benefited some two million of the lowest paid workers in the country, and their families. The principle of a minimum wage is supported by the vast majority of companies in this country.

  The Inland Revenue are enforcing the national minimum wage, and they supply my Department with data on all matters relating to compliance on a regular basis. Early indications are that awareness of the law is high, and so is compliance. Only in relatively few cases have we had reports of deliberate underpayment. These are being actively pursued.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the national minimum wage. [82384]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage with particular reference to the effects on pay, employment and competitiveness. The Commission has been asked to report its findings by December.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of people who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [82357]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government estimate that nearly 2 million workers have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. Recent research commissioned by Reed Personnel Services shows that almost 9 out of 10 companies surveyed support the minimum wage in principle and that 4 out of 10 had already adjusted their pay scales ahead of the introduction of the minimum wage on 1 April.
  439
  Adjusted data from official statistics, available in October, will give some indication of the extent of the shift in workers' earnings resulting from the national minimum wage.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the implementation of the national minimum wage. [82372]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department has received a number of representations about the implementation of the national minimum wage legislation. In addition, the Inland Revenue, which is enforcing the minimum wage, has received some 500 reports of underpayment of the minimum wage and is approaching employers to resolve the complaints.

  Overseas Trade Fairs
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on overseas trade fairs to promote British exports in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available. [82382]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department spent £20.2 million in 1996 –97, £20.5 million in 1997 –98 and £18.6 million in 1998 –99, including the Commercial Excellence scheme, on overseas trade fairs to promote British exports.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that small businesses have access to finance for development. [82385]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are concerned to ensure that small businesses have access to sources of finance which are appropriate to their needs. The private sector is primarily responsible for designing and delivering finance products to small business and successfully meets their needs in the vast majority of cases. I am aware, however, that some small businesses have faced difficulties in raising the right finance. In particular, there can be problems in securing debt finance where a business has no track record or available security and in raising venture capital in small amounts. We therefore announced, in the Competitiveness White Paper (Cmd 4176), the creation of the Enterprise Fund. As well as continuing to fund the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme, this Fund will also act to stimulate the availability of venture capital for smaller, growing businesses.

  In addition, we are working with the key players in the informal investment or "business angel" markets to stimulate the availability of venture capital from individual investors.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his decision on Milk Marque following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. [82386]

  Mr. Byers
  I am aware that many members and their constituents in the dairy industry have a keen interest in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk. I will publish it as soon as is practicable.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of people who have become entitled to annual leave as a result of the working time directive. [82387]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  At the time of the Regulations coming into force on 1 October 1998 it was anticipated that 2.5m workers would benefit from the entitlement to paid annual leave. A Regulatory Impact Assessment on the costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of the Working Time Regulations was made, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent measures his Department is taking to support British companies in respect of export promotion; and if he will make a statement. [82389]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 399 –400, the Government's response to the Cabinet Secretary's Review of Export Promotion, the core of which is that all trade promotion and development activities of the DTI and FCO should be unified in a new joint operation, British Trade International, with a single Chief Executive. The organisation will give Britain a sharper edge in export markets. Once implemented, the provisions of the Review will allow us to provide a more coherent service which is readily accessible to UK businesses wherever they are located. Copies of the report have been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions he attached to the launch aid awarded to Rolls-Royce to help with the development of the Trent engine. [82391]

  Mr. Battle
  When I announced the public-private partnership with Rolls-Royce on 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 626 –27, providing for up to £200 million of public investment in further development of the Trent aeroengine, my Department had signed a detailed contract with Rolls-Royce plc in relation to this partnership. The main conditions contained were that the company should continue its successful development of the Trent aeroengines involved, and that this should secure considerable benefit for the company, its suppliers and the wider economy.

  E-commerce
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest consultations with industry on E-commerce. [82393]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to say that we have received over 240 responses to Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce —A Consultation Document. I have arranged for a list of respondents —except those who asked for their response to be kept confidential—to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The responses are currently
  441
  being carefully analysed. A summary will be published in due course. The Electronic Commerce Bill will be introduced into Parliament later this session.

  Employment Relations Bill
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to advise business of the opportunities and implications of the Employment Relations Bill. [82394]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other ministerial colleagues and I speak frequently to a wide range of audiences about the advantages of the partnership approach embodied in the Employment Relations Bill. Information about the progress of the Bill is on the DTI website. We will publish full guidance for all concerned before the Bill's provisions come into force.

  Wind Generation
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of new wind turbines which will be installed by 2002. [83319]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The number of new wind turbines likely to be installed in 2002 depends largely on the size of machines which generators choose to employ. For example, a growth in generation of 300 GWh would require about 220 machines if their average size was 0.6 MW or about 130 machines if their average size was 1 MW.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total subsidy provided by the Government to the wind generation industry to date. [83323]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: I expect the average premium price paid to fall as wind energy capacity contracted, under the Order which I made last September for the fifth Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation at an average price of 2.88 p/kWh, is commissioned. The charge to the Fossil Fuel Levy of providing premium prices for electricity from wind turbines was £200 million to February 1999.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the average costs per kilowatt hours of wind-generated energy. [83324]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: In England and Wales the average premium price of electricity generated in February 1999 by wind turbines contracted under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation arrangements was 5.2 p/kWh compared to the average price for generation from conventional sources of 3.0 p/kWh over the same period.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received of instances of wind turbines having thrown broken blades to the ground.[83318]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: I have received no reports of instances of these machines' broken blades falling to the ground.
  442
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new wind turbines will be required to meet the Government's targets on renewable energy. [83327]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: The number of new wind turbines required to contribute towards this target depends on the range and mix of renewable technologies employed, such as biomass, offshore wind, wave, landfill gas and energy from waste, and the contribution that each one makes.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the cost to date to public funds of failed applications to establish wind farms. [83321]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: There is no cost to public funds of failed applications to develop wind farms; the premium price is paid only when the wind turbines generate electricity.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received opposing the establishment of new wind farms. [83322]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999)I have recently published "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century" and have invited views on a wide range of issues concerning the greater deployment of a range of renewable sources of energy, including wind energy, by 28 May. The representations made so far have been positive, constructive and encouraging.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the East Midlands. [83163]

  Mr. Wills
  There are many initiatives, arising from the December 1998 Competitiveness White Paper, which are intended to increase support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These initiatives will benefit SMEs in all regions, including the East Midlands.

  On 10 March 1999, Official Report, columns 367 –79, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out a detailed implementation plan for each of the commitments in the Competitiveness White Paper. A copy of the Competitiveness White Paper implementation plan has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  My right hon. Friend's announcement also included details of the Small Business Service. This service will directly address the needs of small businesses by making improvements in the quality and coherence of the delivery of services to small businesses both at local level and, where appropriate, nationally. The department will be publishing a consultation document in the near future on the specific role and functions of the Small Business Service. I will be welcoming views from all interested parties.

  On 12 March 1999, Official Report, columns 399 –400, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, announced the creation of British Trade International, a unified DTI/FCO operation which will lead the Government's activities on international trade promotion. This new organisation will

  443
  improve the level of service which is provided to those SMEs currently exporting and those who wish to export. Sir David Wright took up post as Chief Executive of British Trade International on Tuesday 4 May.

  E-envoy
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the Government's proposed e-Envoy will(a) be appointed and (b) commence work; and what his salary will be. [83313]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: No final decisions have yet been taken. The Government plan to make an announcement on the e-Envoy shortly.

  Electronic Signatures
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library details of the common position which was recorded at the EU Telecoms Council in Luxembourg on 22 April on the European Directive on electronic signatures. [83312]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: The formal common position text of the European Directive on electronic signatures will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it has been to Jurists/Linguists.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the material recovered from reprocessing of German spent nuclear fuel has a commercial value in the United Kingdom. [82893]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: The uranium and plutonium contained in spent nuclear fuel can be used in the manufacture of fresh fuel and therefore, once separated through reprocessing, have a commercial value. The separated waste recovered from the reprocessed spent fuel has no commercial value. All the materials recovered from reprocessing German spent fuel in the UK remain the property of the German utility concerned and must be returned to Germany.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for onward sale outside the UK of the material recovered from the processing of German spent nuclear fuel. [82892]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: None. Spent nuclear fuel imported into the UK for reprocessing and the products which are recovered from that fuel (uranium, plutonium and waste) remain, at all times, the property of the overseas customer. It remains the firm policy of the UK Government that these materials be returned to the country of origin.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with his German counterpart on the amount of storage space for spent nuclear fuel(a) currently available and (b) under construction in Germany. [82944]
  444
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: None. Requirements for spent fuel storage facilities in Germany are a matter for the owners of the spent fuel and the relevant German regulatory authorities.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the companies of which the directors of British Nuclear Fuels Limited are directors [82508]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is provided in BNFL's annual return to the Registrar of Companies. I have, however, asked BNFL's Company Secretary to write to my hon. Friend direct, and will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current ECGD exposure on exports to Indonesia. [82390]

  Mr. Byers
  ECGD's exposure on Indonesia is £1,541 million, of which £48 million is in respect of unrecovered claims.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. [82374]

  Mr. Byers
  The decisive action we have taken to promote economic stability, coupled with the measures announced in our Competitiveness White Paper, will help improve the long-term competitiveness of the manufacturing sector.

  Mobile Communications Networks
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards issuing licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act for operators of third-generation mobile communications networks. [83794]

  Mr. Wills
  Following extensive consultation and careful consideration the Government have decided to offer five third-generation licences by means of auction. The licences will comprise three of (2x10)+5MHz, one of 2x15MHz and one of (2x15)+5MHz. The largest will be reserved for a new entrant. It believes that this will most effectively allow the benefits of third-generation to the UK economy and consumers to be realised. In particular, it is convinced that these benefits are most likely to be maximised by encouraging market entry and competition.

  The Director General of Telecommunications will shortly issue for statutory consultation draft amendments to existing public mobile operators' Telecommunications Act licences which are intended to provide any new entrants with the right to roam onto at least one second generation mobile network.

  The Government continue to expect that, subject to market and other developments and to final decisions nearer the time, the auction will take place in the second half of the financial year 1999 –2000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 338, what independent evidence he has assessed to support the statement attributed to Dr. Dobruna and Professor Kelmendi that 45 per cent. of Kosovan villages had been destroyed by the Serbs by February; and what information he received on the backgrounds of Dr. Dobruna and Professor Kelmendi prior to 28 April. [83174]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: Reports from many sources, including members of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission prior to their withdrawal from Kosovo in March this year, indicated that a large number of villages in Kosovo had been substantially damaged or destroyed. I received no specific information on the backgrounds of Dr. Dobruna and Professor Kelmendi.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 334, what is the result of NATO's study of the best way to implement the embargo; and what is the name of the village near Djakovica to which he referred. [83177]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: Options for implementation of an oil embargo are currently being considered and a decision is expected shortly.

  The name of the village near Djakovica is Mej.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), of 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 1080, on which public interest grounds under paragraph 1 section (IV) of the ministerial code the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give the information requested by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in his question answered on 19 March 1999, Official Report, column 857. [80580]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: The answers which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave the hon. Member on 30 March 1999, Official Report, column 667, and 13 April 1999, Official Report, columns 122–23, explained that he had provided a detailed account of the position in his reply of 16 March 1999, Official Report, columns 641–42.

  Planning
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) with which companies, not at present trading in the UK, he has discussed planning issues during the past year; [83160]

  (2) with which retail businesses he has discussed planning issues during the past year; [83162]

  (3) when he last met representatives of Wal-Mark; what subjects were discussed; and who was present. [83161]
  446
  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with business leaders from the United Kingdom and overseas and others, including consumer and environmental groups, on a wide range of subjects, and will continue to do so. As with previous Governments, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions. However, as has already been stated publicly, I met the President of Wal-Mark International about a month ago. The meeting was a short courtesy call at his request.

  All planning applications are made to the local planning authority and decisions are made in accordance with the development plan. The Government's Response to the Fourth Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on Shopping Centres published in July 1997 (Cmnd 3729) reaffirmed the policy set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6), which seeks to focus development, especially retail development, within existing town centres.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 342, concerning flights between Chile and the Falkland Islands, on what date the representations were made; and what form they took. [83232]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on 28 April 1999, Official Report, column 180.

TREASURY

  Road Hauliers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many road hauliers' jobs have been lost since 1 May 1997. [82191]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 6 May 1999 As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on road hauliers' job losses.
  Information is available for the net change in the number of jobs, and not for the number of jobs created or lost. The most up-to-date number of Employee jobs in freight transport by road in Great Britain is derived from the Annual Employment Survey (AES). At September 1997, latest available date, there were 227,800 employed in freight transport by road in Great Britain. The corresponding figure for September 1996 was 204,600.

  Civil Registration System
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to improve the civil registration system. [82924]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 7 December 1998,Official Report,

  447
  columns 27–28. I have asked the Registrar General for England and Wales to carry out a review of the civil registration system with the aim of producing a public consultation document this summer. The review, which is underway, will consider the existing operational framework and set out options for the future development of the service.

  Risk Management Systems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage financial institutions to improve their risk management systems. [83243]

  Ms Hewitt
  Improving risk management is a priority both domestically and internationally. The G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors have encouraged the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision to finalise its work on revising the Basle Capital Accord so that it better reflects risk. More specifically, following the near-failure of the LTCM hedge fund, the Basle Committee published a sound practices paper setting out ways in which financial institutions could improve their risk management processes. Other international bodies are also looking at issues relating to hedge funds and their work will be coordinated by a working group of the newly established Financial Stability Forum. The Financial Services Authority are working closely with the institutions they supervise to ensure that their risk management processes follow good practice.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a decision will be announced on the review of options for the future of the Royal Mint undertaken by his Department.[83186]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor and I are currently considering the options that have been examined. A decision will be announced in the near future.

  Bereavement Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of widows who will(a) lose bereavement tax credit in the 1999 –2000 budget and (b) be eligible for the new benefits which replace the tax credit.[79089]

  Number of lone parents on benefit and the number of those receiving maintenance since November 1995

  Lone parents on benefits (thousand)

  Those receiving maintenance (thousand)

  Percentage receiving maintenance

  Average weekly maintenance (£ per week)

  November 1995

  1,337

  217

  16

  29.69

  November 1996

  1,338

  232

  17

  30.62

  November 1997

  1,334

  248

  19

  31.53

  November 1998

  1,326

  269

  20

  31.62

  Notes:

  1. Figures derived using ASDI's 5 per cent. scans of the Income Support (IS), Family Credit (FC) and Child Support Agency (CSA) systems.

  2. Lone parents on benefit comprises lone parents receiving IS or FC. For technical reasons it is not possible to add Incapacity Benefit data to the analysis, although it is thought that the additional lone parents this would identify is negligible

  3. Lone parents receiving maintenance comprises:

  (a) CSA parents with care (PWCs) where the Non-Resident Parent (NRP) is paying child maintenance via the CSA collection service (ie is fully or partially compliant);

  (b) CSA PWCs where payment is direct between the NRP and the PWC; CSA PWCs where the NRP is making a contribution to maintenance from their IS and income-based JSA;

  (d) Non-CSA IS and FC lone parents recorded as being in receipt of maintenance. This will include lone parents receiving maintenance other than child maintenance.

  448
  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The widows' bereavement allowance will not be abolished for existing claimants, but there will be no new claims to the allowance for deaths occurring after 5 April 2000.

  As a result of the reforms of widows' benefits it is estimated that, in the first full year of implementation:
  around 40,000 widows and 20,000 widowers will be entitled to the Bereavement Payment;
  around 10,000 new widows and 20,000 widowers will be entitled to Widowed Parent's Allowance; and
  around 10,000 widows and 10,000 widowers will be entitled to Bereavement Allowance.

  Note Figures have been supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue implications in 1999 –2000 and 2000 –01 of the abolition of bereavement tax credit for widows and its replacement by benefits. [79090]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Widows' Bereavement Allowance will not be abolished for existing claimants, but there will be no new claims to the allowance for deaths occurring after 5 April 2000. The revenue effect of this change is estimated to be a saving of £15 million in 2000 –01. The new bereavement benefits, which are unlikely to be implemented before April 2001, are estimated to cost around £140 million in the first year of implementation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single Parents (Benefits)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parents were receiving benefits; what proportion of them were known to be receiving maintenance payments; and what was the average maintenance payment, in each of the last 30 years. [83185]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  449
  Information for the period before November 1995 takes no account of CSA records and is not directly comparable and is set out in the table.

  Lone parents receiving Supplementary Benefit/Income Support or Family Income Supplement/Family Credit, 1968–94

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  Family Income Supplement/Family Credit

  Year

  Number of claimants (thousand)

  Percentage with maintenance

  Average (£ per week)

  Number of claimants (thousand)

  Percentage with maintenance

  Average (£per week)

  1968

  157

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1969

  177

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1970

  191

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1971

  213

  58.5

  1—

  15

  1—

  1—

  1972

  227

  59.2

  1—

  33

  1—

  1—

  1973

  228

  1—

  1—

  41

  1—

  1—

  1974

  245

  58.7

  1—

  39

  1—

  1—

  1975

  233

  65.2

  1—

  30

  1—

  1—

  1976

  303

  56.4

  1—

  31

  1—

  1—

  1977

  309

  55.6

  1—

  37

  1—

  1—

  1978

  322

  53.2

  1—

  41

  1—

  1—

  1979

  306

  51.5

  1—

  38

  1—

  1—

  1980

  316

  48.4

  1—

  50

  1—

  1—

  1981

  369

  46.3

  1—

  59

  1—

  1—

  1982

  415

  41.3

  1—

  66

  1—

  1—

  1983

  449

  36.9

  1—

  79

  1—

  1—

  1984

  492

  32.0

  1—

  81

  1—

  1—

  1985

  1—

  1—

  1—

  82

  1—

  1—

  1986

  575

  28.4

  1—

  84

  1—

  1—

  1987

  629

  25.5

  1—

  92

  1—

  1—

  1988

  694

  22.1

  1—

  94

  1—

  1—

  1989

  756

  22.2

  1—

  114

  27.2

  17.82

  1990

  793

  20.4

  18.88

  122

  25.5

  18.64

  1991

  871

  20.9

  20.12

  132

  26.0

  20.22

  1992

  957

  19.4

  22.41

  160

  26.5

  23.07

  1993

  1,013

  17.5

  22.32

  208

  28.2

  25.04

  1994

  1,039

  14.3

  25.43

  236

  30.0

  26.50

  1— Denotes information not available

  Notes

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand, percentages to one decimal point.

  2. Numbers are given at a point in time. From Supplementary Benefit/Income Support from 1969 to 1974 and 1977 to 1979 the month was November. For 1975, 1976 and 1980 to 1984 the month was December. In 1986 and 1996 the month was February and from 1987 –94 the month was May. For Family Income Supplement 1971 figures are for August and all other figures represent May.

  3. Proportion receiving maintenance may be subject to a degree of double counting of around 1 per cent. around quoted figures prior to 1990.

  4. Family Credit replaced Family Income Supplement in April 1988.

  5. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in April 1988.

  6. Supplementary Benefit/Income Support single parents from 1988 onwards are defined as single people with dependants not receiving a disability or pensioner premium. The equivalent statistical group has been used prior to 1988.

  7. Supplementary Benefit/Income Support figures are based on a sample size of 1 in 40 between 1969 and 1976, 1 in 50 between 1977 and 1987, 1 in 100 between 1988 and 1993 and 5 per cent. thereafter. Family Income Supplement/Family Credit figures are based on a 20 per cent. sample up to 1973, a 10 per cent. sample from 1974 to 1988 and a 5 per cent. sample from 1989.

  8. Supplementary Benefit/Income Support cases with maintenance are based on maintenance received by either the claimant or the Department as either a Court Order or a voluntary payment.

  9. Figures are not available in 1985 due to industrial action.

  Sources

  1. Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiries 1969 –87.

  2. Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1988 –93.

  3. Social Security Statistics 1972, 1976, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  4. Family Credit Statistics 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82865]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 410.

  Income Support (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason older pensioners receive higher rates of income support than younger pensioners. [82706]
  450
  Mr. Timms
  The higher premium rate for older pensioners was proposed in the 1985 Green Paper "Reform of Social Security Programme for Change" for those most likely to have continuing health problems or to be frail and in need of special support in maintaining themselves in the community. The Green Paper proposed two routes to the premium, one age related, the other for younger pensioners receiving benefits related to disability or continuing incapacity.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) 1996 –97 and (b) 1997 –98 the numbers of new claimants to incapacity benefit who

  451
  have been unemployed for a minimum of two years prior to their claims and are receiving (i) occupational benefit and (ii) industrial disablement benefit for (1) the United Kingdom, (2) regional Benefits Agency areas and (3) North Staffordshire, indicating in each case the average age of the new claimant. [82681]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the form requested because the data collected on new claims do not include the length of time a person was unemployed prior to claiming Incapacity Benefit or whether they are receiving Occupational Pension. Such information as is available is set out below.

  Records show that at 31 March 1997, 49 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit recipients had previously been unemployed. It is estimated that around a third of Incapacity Benefit recipients have an Occupational Pension.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1999,Official Report, columns 165 –66, on pensioner incomes, what would be the difference in income between a single man of 65 with no savings or resources and the income of a single man of 65 who has resources of at least £16,000 but no additional pension from SERPS; and what amount of money would be required to purchase an annuity to fund this difference. [83178]

  Mr. Timms
  The amounts of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit that a person receives depends on local factors as well as personal circumstances. As an illustrative example, a hypothetical 65-year-old man with no savings or resources who receives the average Housing Benefit and average Council Tax Benefit received by those on Income Support aged 60 or over would receive £127 a week in Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  The amount is £60 more than the full basic pension and, at February 1999 annuity rates, a lump sum of £43,000 would be required to fund this difference.

  It is, however, extremely unlikely that a person would receive the full basic pension and have £16,000 in savings without having any second-tier pension as any employee who earns over the Lower Earnings Limit for National Insurance contributions automatically builds up rights to a second-tier pension. Furthermore, information from the 1996 General Household Survey suggests that half of those who are self-employed are currently contributing to a personal pension and a further 10 per cent. have contributed in the past.

  Notes

  1. Weekly income figures are rounded to the nearest pound and the lump sum figure is rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  2. The latest available data are used for average levels of benefit receipt, the level of Income Support and annuity rates:

  Income support and basic State pension level—1999 –2000 figures;
  Average Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit received —May 1997 data expressed in February 1999 figures;
  Annuity rates —February 1999 figure.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of defined benefit occupational pension schemes operate clawback of more than the level of the basic state pension. [83274]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this information.

DEFENCE

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the last Jaguar aircraft to be taken out of active service. [82518]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans, the last Jaguar aircraft will be taken out of active service in the later part of the next decade.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further expenditure on Jaguar aircraft before they are taken out of service. [82519]

  Mr. Spellar
  We plan to spend only what is necessary to ensure that the Jaguar fleet is able to meet its operational commitments, and achieve safely its remaining service life.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for the financial year 1999 –2000. [83763]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for the financial year 1999 –2000. The targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 April 1997 and are as follows:

  1. Pay, allowances and pensions payments
  Whilst making 100 per cent. of payments of pay, allowances and pensions by the due date, the number of errors per 1,000 payments not to exceed 2.5 for pay and allowances and 2.5 for pensions.

  2. Accuracy of personnel records and liabilities data
  Initiate a plan with customers by June 1999 to improve the completeness and accuracy of the record of service, to assist in the further development of unit based systems.

  3. Currency of personnel records and liabilities data
  Update all personnel records and liabilities data within 2 days of valid input.

  4. Responsiveness
  Resolve 91 per cent. of inquiries, written or through official help desks, within 10 working days, across all services, where information and/or authority is within AFPAA's control.

  5. Efficiency
  To reduce the average unit costs to deliver AFPAA services by 3 per cent. this year.

WALES

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates special advisers from his Department travelled abroad on official business since 2 May 1997; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the special advisers who travelled abroad on each occasion. [82254]

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 726, on special advisers, if he will give (a) the total travel cost of each occasion when a departmental special adviser has travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and (b) the place visited. [82433]

  Mr. Michael
  In February 1998 (10 to 12) Mr. Huw Roberts travelled to Brussels, Belgium at a cost, including travel and subsistence costs, of £175 to The Welsh Office.

  In March 1998 (20 to 22) Mr. Huw Roberts travelled to Dublin, Republic of Ireland at a cost, including travel and subsistence costs, of £150 to The Welsh Office.

  All travel complies with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  National Assembly (Pensions)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the directions setting out the pension scheme for members of the National Assembly for Wales. [83725]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today put copies of The National Assembly for Wales (Assembly Members) (Pension Scheme) Direction 1999 in the Libraries of the House.

  Talgarth Relief Road
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters and representations he has received from the Brecon Beacons National Park concerning the Talgarth Relief Road (Southern Section); and how many were(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the scheme. [83332]

  Mr. Hain
  Prior to the Public Inquiry the Welsh Office Highways Directorate received one letter from the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority in support of its published proposals for a Talgarth Bypass. Following publication of the Inspector's Report, which recommended against proceeding with the published scheme, no further representations have been received.
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Service (Fuel Costs)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of the increases in fuel duty since 1997 on the fuel bill of ambulance services in England. [81796]
  454
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: We estimate the costs of the increase in fuel duty since 1996 –97 to be about £3.73 million. This amounts to less than 0.075 per cent. of hospital and community health services spending over the two years since 1997.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the benefits of providing financial assistance schemes for people who contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood products as a result of NHS treatment. [82860]

  Mr. Hutton
  We carried out a thorough assessment in 1998 of whether it would be right to introduce a special payment scheme for people infected with hepatitis C through National Health Service treatment. We concluded that this would not be appropriate and that such patients should continue to obtain support through the benefits system in the same way as other NHS patients who have suffered non negligent harm.

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to(a) ensure that NHS trusts create more consultant posts in obstetrics and gynaecology and (b) restrict the creation by NHS trusts of non-consultant career-grade posts in obstetrics and gynaecology; [83270]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the lack of consultant numbers in the NHS hospital obstetrics service; and if he will make a statement on the level of consultant cover on labour wards. [83271]

  Mr. Denham
  holding answer 5 May 1999]: It is for National Health Service trusts, who are accountable for the quality of services they provide, to decide the number and grade of staff they need. Only they can judge exactly what is required to deliver quality services in their location.

  In view of the availability of trained specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology, National Health Service Executive Regional Offices are being asked to arrange workshops and seminars, involving their health authorities, NHS trusts and local professional representatives. The aim is to encourage local managers to review the staffing and grade mix in large obstetric units and consider how services might be improved by creating further consultant posts in obstetrics and gynaecology.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS and HEFCE of training specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology from entrance into medical school, through three years of general professional services and through a complete full-time specialist (CCST) training scheme. [83268]

  Mr. Denham
  holding answer 5 May 1999]: The cost to the National Health Service and the Higher Education Funding Council for England of a five year undergraduate medical course is around £160,000.

  The Health Service makes a significant investment in postgraduate medical education. Doctors in postgraduate training follow an apprenticeship model where their training is inextricably bound up with the service they provide. Even within specialties the length and type of training will vary according to the particular career path

  455
  an individual chooses and their rate of progress. For these reasons, it is not possible to put a meaningful figure to the cost of training individuals to Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training level.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of obstetricians and gynaecologists who have obtained their Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training and who(a) face redundancy this year due to lack of consultant posts and (b) are still in training posts six months after obtaining their CCST. [83269]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 May 1999)On 1 April 1999, there were 117 obstetricians and gynaecologists who had obtained their Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training (CCST) and who had not found a consultant appointment. Of these, 86 had been in training posts for six months or more, after obtaining their CCST. We expect that some of these will obtain consultant posts this year, but it is not possible to say how many at this stage. We are considering a range of options for tackling this situation.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the funding for obstetrics and gynaecology to implement the proposals of the NHSE voting groups to improve standards of care given to women and babies. [83276]

  Mr. Denham
  The working group has proposed that National Health Service trusts should be encouraged to review staffing in obstetric and gynaecology services.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the contracts of those(a) specialist registrars and (b) senior registrars in obstetrics and gynaecology who have obtained their CCST but who have not found consultant posts. [83275]

  Mr. Denham
  Under current regulations, all holders of Certificates of Completion of Specialist Training (CCST) may be given an extension to their contracts of up to 6 months in order to secure a job. Because of the difficulties being experienced by CCST holders in obstetrics and gynaecology, it has been agreed that they may have their contracts extended for a further period of up to 12 months, making a total of 18 months in all.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of beta interferon on prescription for people with the progressive type of multiple sclerosis. [82881]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department will shortly be consulting with interested parties on a draft health service circular on the prescribing of beta-interferon for people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Civil Society Unit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the remit of the civil society unit in her Department. [83079]
  456
  Mr. Foulkes
  The civil society unit, which was formerly called the NGO Unit, will continue to administer the Joint Funding Scheme, and will administer its successor, the new Civil Society Challenge Fund, and new Partnership Programme Agreements. The Civil Society Challenge Fund will have a focused approach to strengthening civil society in developing countries and will be open to a wide range of UK civil society groups. Partnership Programme Agreements will set out shared objectives with organisations engaged in a range of the Department for International Development's strategic concerns and will provide strategic funding links with the Department. More generally, the Unit will seek to widen our relationships with civil society organisations in the UK who share our objectives of the elimination of world poverty.

  AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what were the levels of expenditure on the international AIDS vaccine initiative in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [83081]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Britain provided £ 200,000 to support the work of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) in 1998-99. We made no contribution in 1997 –98.

  We are currently developing a longer term and more substantial programme of support with the IAVI, which will begin in 1999 –2000.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of that aid given in connection with the Balkans conflict is currently being given directly to support Albanian families housing Kosovan refugees. [83082]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Red Cross movement has the lead role in distributing food and other relief supplies to host families and refugees outside the camps. Details of the proportion of aid going to support host families are not available.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to the development of a website to help Kosovar refugees. [83091]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The International Committee of the Red Cross are playing a major role in tracing and reunification. They are already making use of the Internet as one tool in these efforts. The Department for International Development has given £2.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross, part of which is being used for family tracing.

  Birth Certificates
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those purposes for which her Department and its executive agencies
  457
  require a birth certificate to be furnished by (i) employees, (ii) contractors, (iii) those applying for employment or contracts and (iv) other persons. [83083]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development may ask to see a birth certificate as a proof of identity when recruiting staff directly. On retirement from service, and prior to payment of pension, a member of staff may be requested to produce a copy of their birth certificate as a double check on age.

  We require proof of date of birth before determining eligibility for a colonial pension. However, in almost every case the claimant's birth certificate had been seen many years earlier by the relevant employer and/or pension authority. The requirement to produce a birth certificate in support of such a claim is therefore very rare.

  While we do not require birth certificates from contractors or consultants, we ask to see birth certificates for the children of staff working overseas to assess eligibility for various allowances including education allowances and holiday visit passages.

  The DFID has no executive agencies.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the seed and tools packages provided by the United Kingdom have arrived in southern Sudan in time for spring planting. [83086]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Yes.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for primary education to form part of the humanitarian aid for southern Sudan. [83087]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are prepared to consider realistic and viable proposals to provide basic education services in southern Sudan. But sustainable services will be possible only when peace is secured.
  Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what data she has collated on current food supplies in southern Sudan. [83089]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The situation is much better than last year. People are in better condition and prospects for the 1999 cereal crop look good. However, southern Sudan is a food deficit area. The UN World Food Programme estimates that in 1999 there will be a 10 per cent. deficit between local food availability and total anticipated needs. This is estimated at 90,000 tonnes of food which includes 20,000 tonnes to support the most vulnerable.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to ensure a supply of fishing tackle to the people of southern Sudan before the floods begin at the end of the year. [83090]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Fish is an important element of the diets of vulnerable people in southern Sudan. We are willing to consider supporting, at the appropriate time of the year, well constructed and viable proposals for the provision of fishing tackle.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed level of registration charges for immigration advisers. [82536]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received no representations about the proposed level of registration charges for immigration advisers. We have received a number of inquiries about the basis on which charges were estimated for illustrative purposes in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of each case in which information was supplied under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session. [83273]

  Mr. Straw
  Information is not collated either centrally, or in Departments, on the average cost of supplying information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  In most cases, requests under the Code are for information which it is necessary for the public to have as part of the fair and accountable performance of the functions of Government. Such requests are dealt with in the same way as general correspondence and separate accounting is not systematically undertaken.

  In order to provide a range of estimates for the cost of meeting requests for information under the proposed Freedom of Information Bill, a low cost estimated of £62 (the average cost of replying to a Parliamentary Question) and a high cost estimate of £350 (reflecting additional work needed to collate an extensive range of information) was used. These are typical costs of responding to Code requests, but are not average costs.

  Where information is provided in order to meet a specific individual request, which is not in the course of a Department's normal day-to-day business, a charge may be made to help defray the costs. Where charges are made, Departments are required to strike a balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the taxpayer. Individual Departments decide how best to apply this principle to their particular circumstances, and charges will not necessarily reflect the actual cost to the Department of supplying the information.

  The charging schemes for each Department are set out at Appendix 5 of the 1997 Report on the Code of Practice, a copy of which is available in the Library. In that year charges were levied in 242 cases out of 3,772 requests logged as Code requests (6.4 per cent.).

  I hope to be able to publish the 1998 Code Report in the next few weeks.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 April 1999,Official Report, column 257, which Minister in his

  459
  Department will oversee the work of the Interdepartmental Working Group on the status of transsexual people. [83045]

  Mr. Straw
  The right hon. Lord Williams of Mostyn.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police forces which have implemented guidelines for officers dealing with transsexual and trans-gendered people; and what recommendation his Department makes to police forces regarding treatment of transsexual and trans-gendered people. [83021]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office makes no specific recommendations to the police service about the treatment of transsexual and trans-gendered people. However, advice on dealing with transvestites and transsexual people was issued to all forces in the Spring of 1998 by the Association of Chief Police Officers Race and Community Relations sub-committee. I am placing a copy in the Library. Information is not held centrally on details of forces which have implemented these guidelines.

  Bids received

  Bids successful

  Subject

  £ million

  Number

  £million

  Number

  Grants to voluntary organisations

  5.075

  103

  1.828

  34

  Targeted Policing

  31.5

  73

  15.2

  111

  Burglary Initiative

  not costed

  125

  1.8

  30

  Close Circuit Television bids

  13.989

  283

  1.537

  32

  1This is a provisional figure as firm decisions will not be made until early June 1999

  Non-governmental organisations may also bid for funds under the Invest to Save and Capital Modernisation programmes. These are administered by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the types of products which are required to be tested on animals; and what assessment he has made of alternative procedures. [83329]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 do not require types of product to be tested. The purpose of the 1986 Act is to regulate any experimental or other scientific procedure applied to a protected animal which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The safety of products, and the types of test required to assess safety, are the responsibility of other Government Departments.

  Section 5(5) of the 1986 Act requires that a project licence shall be granted only if:

  (a) the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence cannot be achieved satisfactorily by any other reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of protected animals; and

  (b) the regulated procedures to be used are those which use the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, and are most likely to produce satisfactory results.

  Kosovan Asylum Seekers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovan asylum seekers are currently in detention in the United Kingdom. [82689]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have instructed that all known Kosovan asylum seekers are released from detention. I am satisfied therefore that there are no asylum seekers whom we accept to be Kosovan currently detained under Immigration Act powers. There are, however, some detainees who are believed to be Albanian nationals.

  Competitive Bidding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the bids by regional non-Governmental organisations that have been(a) received and (b) successful in each of the competitive bidding processes launched and managed by his Department since May 1997. [82462]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 28 April 1999]: The available information is as follows:

  These embody the principles of the 3Rs —replacing animal use, reducing the number of animals used in a particular procedure and refining procedures to minimise adverse effects.

  Home Office inspectors (who are all highly qualified and experienced in either medicine or veterinary science) assess licence applications to ensure that such alternatives are used wherever possible.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of the normal mortality rate of cat litters for the purpose of comparison with those used in animal experiments.[83330]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No specific study has been made. However, I had been advised by the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate that a pre-weaning mortality rate of 10 per cent. in an establishment designated under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 would be comparable to that in commercial catteries which breed kittens for the pet trade. Inspectors hold qualifications in both medical and veterinary science.

  I understand that the breeding records of the designated establishment have been examined by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' own professional veterinary staff who consider that they do not reveal evidence of mistreatment.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies in the United Kingdom have current licences for experiments on animals. [83182]
  461
  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 375.

  Animal Breeding Establishments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought against animal breeding establishments for breaches of breeding regulations during each of the last five years. [83331]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During the last five years, there have been no breaches of the breeding regulations under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for which prosecution was necessary.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the powers of the Animal Procedures Committee; what is its current membership; how members are selected; and what plans he has to change the(a) membership and (b) membership structure. [83328]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The role of the Animal Procedures Committee is advisory, not regulatory or executive. It advises the Secretary of State on matters concerned with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and his functions under it. Under sections 20 of that Act, it must advise him on any question connected with the Act which he has referred to and may also offer him advice on any other such question if it chooses to do so.

  The current membership of the Committee is: Professor Michael Banner (Chairman), Professor Ronald Anderson, Professor Christopher Atterwill, Mr. Mike Baker, Professor Donald Broom, Professor Grahame Bulfield, Dr. David Clark, Professor Stephen Clark, Professor Robin Dunbar, Professor Paul Flecknell, Mr. John Gregory, Mr. Alan Holland, Dr. Maggy Jennings, Professor Colin Johnston, Dr. Gill Langley, Professor John Martin, Professor Alan McNeilly, Professor lain Purchase, Professor Genevra Richardson, Dr. Jacqueline Southee, Dr. Anthony Suckling, Professor John Turner and Mr. Les Ward.

  Members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary of State, taking into account the advice of a panel consisting of a senior Home Office official, the Chair of the Committee, and an independent member. The panel seeks nominations from a wide range of scientific, industrial, commercial and animal welfare organisations. The aim is to maintain a breadth of relevant expertise on the Committee. Members of the Committee are appointed as individuals. They do not act as representatives or delegates of any other organisation.

  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, members of the Committee can serve for a maximum of two terms, each of up to four years. At least two-thirds of the members, other than the Chair, must hold registration as a medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon or hold qualifications or experience in an approved biological subject. The Committee must also include at least one member who is a barrister, solicitor or advocate.

  We last made new appointments to the Animal Procedures Committee in December 1998 and have no immediate plans to appoint further new members or to change the membership structure.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the discussion at the meeting of the Cleveland Police Authority on 8 February regarding the 999 call from the house of the former Deputy Chief Constable on 20 January and his application for early retirement. [82687]

  Mr. Boateng
  Chief Police officers who have completed 30 years' service are entitled to retire at any time, provided they give three months' notice. Where an officer wishes to retire immediately, without giving the required notice, then he must ask the permission of the Police Authority.

  Mr. Turnbull, having completed over 30 years' service, was entitled to retire. He was appointed on a fixed term appointment, not a contract, and remained entitled to retire on completion of his pensionable service, even if this was before the end of the fixed term appointment.

  The meeting of Cleveland Police Authority on 8 February discussed the request from the then Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Turnbull, that he be allowed to retire without completing the statutory three months' notice required under Police Regulations.

  The police authority considered the application in open session but certain associated matters of a confidential nature were brought to their attention by the Clerk of the Police Authority. The Authority continued the debate in private session in accordance with Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  The Authority returned to open session to make their final decision having determined the issues discussed in private did not affect their consideration of the actual application. The application for early retirement was then approved.

  Kosovan Refugees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to assist Kosovan refugees. [83066]

  Mr. Straw
  As I told the House in my statement on 5 May 1999,Official Report, columns 943-52, we have always made it clear that the United Kingdom stands ready to receive some thousands of Kosovan refugees. The next two flights are expected to arrive in Scotland at the weekend. We are planning to build up to taking about a thousand people a week within the next few weeks. Evacuations will be based on criteria agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) whose aim is to relieve pressure on the camps and to give priority to the most vulnerable and those with family links in the United Kingdom.

  We will be sending the first team of Home Office officials to Macedonia in the next few days to work with the agencies on the ground to speed up the registration of refugees for potential evacuation. Priority will be given to medical cases, the vulnerable to family reunions.

  Evacuees arriving in the United Kingdom under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme will be granted permission to enter in line with close family members already settled in the United Kingdom or given exceptional leave to remain for twelve months to provide

  463
  for their protection as requested by UNHCR. This status provides a passport into the benefits system and the right to work. Other refugees arriving independently will be eligible to apply for asylum in the usual way.

  Fire Safety Commission
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on the establishment of a Fire Safety Commission. [83245]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Fire Brigades Union discussion document, Safety in Partnership, which sets out proposals for a strategic forum to consider fire safety matters will be considered by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its meeting on 18 May. I have already made it clear that the concepts of developing policies around shared goals, making sure those policies are inclusive, involving those outside government and becoming more forward and outward looking are absolutely right. This approach also ties in with the Better Regulation Task Force's recent review of enforcement, which suggested that fire safety initiatives should be coordinated by a national forum representing government regulators and stakeholders.

  Crimestoppers
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends taking to increase public confidence in, and awareness of, the Crimestoppers system of reporting suspected criminals; and if he will publish a copy of his reply to the Director of the Crimestoppers Trust in response to the Trust's offer to help any Government initiative to raise the profile of Crimestoppers. [82888]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government fully recognise the great value of Crimestoppers. Ministers attend Crimestoppers Trust events to support its work as other commitments allow. I have recently written to the Director of Crimestoppers Trust to outline my support for exploring further the idea that the Home Office and Crimestoppers Trust might work together to raise the profile of Crimestoppers Trust to encourage the use of Crimestoppers by members of the public. Officials will shortly be meeting the Director of Crimestoppers to take matters forward.

  The text of the letter was:
  "Dear Mr. Carter
  Thank you for your letter of 2 March outlining your idea that Crimestoppers and the Home Office might work together on a campaign to encourage people, particularly from minority ethnic communities, to report crime anonymously using the Crimestoppers telephone number.
  Clearly, we want to do all we can to involve minority ethnic communities in the fight against crime. I know that was the reasoning behind the lunch that I attended last October to promote Crimestoppers to the Asian community. I would be interested in looking in more detail at how such a campaign might work. I have asked officials to contact you to discuss the idea further.
  Once again I would like to reiterate my support for the work that Crimestoppers does throughout Britain to help in the fight against crime and I look forward to hearing how this idea develops.
  The Home Secretary."
  464
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was allocated by the Government to fund Crimestoppers in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[82887]

  Mr. Straw
  Crimestoppers has not sought core Government funding and none has been allocated to it by the Government.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested in each of the last five years for which figures are available as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers.[82886]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand from Crimestoppers Trust that the number of people arrested and charged for each of the last five years as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers was as follows:

  Year

  Arrested and charged

  1994

  2,943

  1995

  3,355

  1996

  4,347

  1997

  4,726

  1998

  5,169

  These figures can be broken down into the following categories for 1998:

  Crime

  Total arrested and charged

  Murder

  30

  Attempted murder

  12

  Rape

  14

  Robbery

  206

  Assault

  135

  Burglary

  396

  Firearms

  53

  Drugs

  2,400

  Arson

  22

  Theft

  430

  Vehicle Crime

  505

  Sexual Assault

  14

  Fraud

  179

  Other crimes

  570

  Total

  5,169

  The total number of people arrested and charged as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers for the period 1 January 1999–end March 1999 is 1,211.

SCOTLAND

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a)meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82864]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 410.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that 1 am to open the new BPP Law School at Lincoln's inn tomorrow, Friday, 7th May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Millennium Dome Site: Housing
Lord Luke Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans English Partnerships have for residential developments on the Greenwich peninsula.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Greenwich peninsula as a whole enjoys outline planning consent for 3,000 homes. The first will be built in the new Millennium Village. By 2005, nearly 1,400 new homes will be occupied. Construction works for the first phase of 90 units should begin very shortly. Subject to further planning consent, work on the next phase will start in the late summer.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that one of the most attractive uses of the Dome site would be to promote business tourism by means of, let us say, a convention centre or similar project. If so, will the Government make sure that the appropriate infrastructure is provided—high class hotels, possibly a marina, a shopping mall, and proper provision for parking?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the future use of the Dome is currently subject to competition and initial views are due in shortly. Indeed, expressions of interest are due next week. If noble Lords have any creative ideas, we should very much welcome them. The full applications then have to be considered over the next year. They may well include the uses to which the noble Lord refers. As to infrastructure, a hotel is being built on the site and there will be provision for shopping. The remaining infrastructure referred to should be there. The issue of parking is complex. It will have to be tackled in peninsula traffic plans.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the infrastructure contain schools and pubs, both of which are necessary if the homes to which the noble Lord referred are to be occupied?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my understanding is that there will eventually be a school on the site. There is
784
quite a handy pub there called "The Pilot". I used to know the landlord. I believe it will remain; it is not actually on-site. There will also be a community hall. So there will be a social infrastructure.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that money will not be wasted on buildings that are wrongly sited and that decisions will he made with a view to what is to happen to the Dome when it is finished with in its present form?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as is possible, I can assure the noble Lord that that is the case. Certainly, whatever final mix emerges in regard to use of the peninsula, there will be a substantial residential element. The houses in the Millennium Village will be built to a very high standard. It will be a message for future development as regards the ecological, environmental and social use of this brownfield site. All other aspects of mixed housing and mixed use will he taken into consideration in regard to what is an important site.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, addressing the issue of a complete spectrum of provision, will there be provision both for worship and for exercise in the form of sport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will be a park area for certain forms of sport. There is also of course the river for many other forms of sport, and there are other facilities not too far away. I understand that the community hall will be available for worship in the present circumstances. No new church is currently planned, but that may well come later.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us visited the millennium site yesterday? It seemed to me that facilities were provided for almost everything. There are a great many refreshment areas and plenty of space for sport. I cannot think of anything that is not provided for. One of the zones is called "Faith".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend refers to the Dome itself, which subject I have carefully avoided at this stage. I am very happy that those who visited the Dome site were impressed by it and the range of facilities there. I also believe that the longer term will be catered for in the same way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the Dome at Greenwich will last as long as the dome of St. Sophia in Constantinople or the dome of St. Peter's in Rome? If not, will it not be rather cheapskate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I doubt it. However, in the period during which the Dome is present I believe that it will provide a great deal of entertainment and information to a large number of people—probably more than those who attended these other places in their

785
early years. I believe that the Dome is a magnificent achievement for British architecture and we should stop mocking it.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, no Question about the Dome and Greenwich can be complete without reference to the Jubilee Line. Can my noble friend give the House the latest information about the likely opening date of the line?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I repeat what I said not long ago. The date for completion of the final phase of the Jubilee Line is late autumn. We are confident that it will be open in good time for the opening of the Dome itself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will any of the 3,000 homes referred to be available for letting at low rents?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision is for mixed housing, approximately 25 per cent. of which will be for social housing at affordable rents.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when we visited the Dome yesterday we received very strong indications of how poor the area of east Greenwich is? Is it envisaged that the rich around the Dome will move to these new houses, and will the east part of Greenwich remain the poor part?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention is that the peninsula will provide a very substantial mix of housing for all kinds of people. It is only part of the development process for Greenwich and the riverside as a whole, but the village itself will undoubtedly provide homes for such people.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the social and religious composition of the community that eventually lives in the 3,000 houses is yet to be known. Can the noble Lord be more reassuring about provision for their spiritual needs other than saying that there will be a hall available for worship? Does the planning envelope provide for permanent places of worship for the spiritual needs of whatever denominations settle there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not at present. The community hall to be provided will be available for community worship to whatever faith requires it. It is not very far from other existing places of worship. Certainly, it is not the intention to exclude from any plan provision for worship.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will there be a nice burial ground for people when they have done their turn there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that that is one facility that is not available either for the noble Earl or anyone else who may want to live on the Greenwich peninsula. However, everything in life will be provided.

Department for International Development: Security Sector Reform
3.16 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they define "security" in the new programme of the Department for International Development for "security sector reform"; what will be the budget for such reform in the next financial year; and what proportion this expenditure will represent of the total aid budget for that year.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in our new policy paper on plans to help developing countries reform their security sections, we define the security sector as those who are responsible, or should be responsible, for protecting the state. The Department for International Development does not plan to set specific targets for spending on security sector reform activities. Actual spending will be determined in the country and regional context and will reflect needs over a particular year.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, can she assure the House that in the Government's approach to relief and reconstruction in Kosovo and the adjacent states this new policy will be taken seriously? Can she also assure the House that in the long term in the wider world we shall continue to recognise that stability and security are best achieved by the right mix of development, environmental, trade and economic policies right across the spectrum?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the new policy will be taken very seriously. One of the reasons why the Department for International Development was created as a separate body was to ensure that all the linkages between trade, security sector reform and development were looked at in the context of sustainability and the long-term economic viability of developing countries.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, bearing in mind the cost if conflict prevention fails, will the Minister give consideration to increasing the budget for defence diplomacy initiatives? Such initiatives have been extremely successful in the past.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we consider conflict prevention and resolution key to successful development. Defence diplomacy is delivered by the Ministry of Defence, and the Department for International Development works in close co-operation with the FCO and the MoD on these matters.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that as part of the security sector reform proper training and equipment for police and armed forces in developing countries are highlighted to ensure that such security forces come under democratic control?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our policy on security sector reform does not include the police. The police are

787
included in our other programmes relating to governance. We have a range of policies which cover that area. We have had considerable experience in working to reform police services to ensure that they work in a more appropriate way to meet the needs of a democratic society.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I believe that that is a commendable initiative, but is it recognised that the majority of developing nations have sufficient military and civilian equipment but that it is unusable through not having been serviced or properly maintained over the years? Would it not be better for the Government to concentrate on providing expert technicians and trainers to ensure the good running of that equipment and infrastructure?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we take an integrated approach to these matters. Therefore we are considering a number of different aspects. We supply technical experts as well as trainers. Upgrading equipment can be more expensive in the longer term than new equipment.
As regards security sector matters, we take into account the ability of a country to afford the equipment that it wishes to procure. Those criteria are considered when looking at export trade licences.
Lord McNair: My Lords, since the armaments industry is one of this country's major export earners, does the Minister see a conflict in the new policy between her department and the Department of Trade and Industry?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is no conflict between the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry. These matters are considered in a cross-departmental working group. The DfID considers clear criteria in making representations to the DTI which the DTI then takes on board.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what proportion of the humanitarian work carried out by our Armed Forces in Macedonia—I am sure that we all applaud it—is carried by the Ministry of Defence? Can that proportion be maintained?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have the exact figures. However, we see no problem in maintaining the humanitarian effort by those forces.

Romania and Bulgaria: Effect of Yugoslav Conflict
3.22 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, together with other European Union member states, to provide support to Romania and Bulgaria to offset the continuing damage to their economies and societies caused by the conflict in former Yugoslavia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are working actively with the governments of Romania and
788
Bulgaria in consultation with the European Commission, European Union member states and the international financial institutions to support the economic reform efforts in those countries and to help them to deal with the additional impact of the Kosovo crisis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, did the Minister note carefully the textual detail of the Blair doctrine speech of 22nd April in Chicago in which the Prime Minister said:
"We will need a new Marshall Plan for Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and Serbia",
adding, more weakly,
"We need a new framework for the security of the whole of the Balkans"?
Does the Minister accept that progress towards economic recovery in Romania and Bulgaria is closely linked to consolidating weak democracies in those countries? If we are to take responsibility economically and politically for the whole of south-eastern Europe, a much greater effort needs to be given to looking after the interests of Romania and Bulgaria which have been affected adversely, first, by the Bosnian conflict, and now by the Kosovar conflict.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we recognise that the crisis will have an enormous and lingering impact on the economies of Bulgaria, Romania and neighbouring countries. There are the initial consequences of a large influx of refugees. There are also the effects of the contraction of regional trade, damage to the infrastructure, environmental damage and possible political instability. We are committed to ensuring that in the long term those matters are considered not just in terms of our own support for those countries but also within the European Union. We are also having conversations with the international financial institutions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, after any essential short-term aid, is not trade the most helpful thing which the EU can offer these countries in the longer term; in other words, to open up its market to their products?
In that respect, is it not very misguided to expect Bulgaria, Romania and the other CEEC countries first to gain full membership of the EU, which would mean weighing down their economies with the 300,000 pages of EU social and labour legislation, known in the jargon as the acquis communautaire?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been in extensive consultation with Romania and Bulgaria as regards the best means of assisting those countries in the long term. Since 1991, we have provided £30 million in terms of bilateral assistance to Romania. We have introduced a range of projects, including development management training centres and assistance for the decentralisation and reform of child welfare services. We are currently preparing a country strategy paper to enable Romania successfully to transfer to a pluralist democracy with well regulated markets.

789
As regards Bulgaria, we published earlier this year a country strategy paper in which we expressed a strong commitment to the reformist policies of the current government elected in 1997. We continue to work with both those countries to ensure that their economic and political priorities will enable them to join the EU at an appropriate time.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, so far as concerns the countries of central Europe, are there not provisions to gain access to European markets? Secondly, will the Minister indicate whether discussions are taking place within the Council and Commission to ensure that there is an uplift so far as concerns the PHARE programme in relation to the central European states? Are there any discussions concerning the TACIS programme?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are discussions in the context of the PHARE programme in terms of improving the amount given to those countries. We are concerned that countries seeking to enter the European Union have institutions which guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. In addition, we are looking at their economic and trade relationships.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Romania and Bulgaria have a long way to go in the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities before they can comply with the standards and principles of the European Union? Will the noble Baroness consider the recently passed broadcasting Act in Bulgaria which is in conflict with the advice we gave that country at its own request?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I confirm that there have been concerns about the treatment of minorities, in particular in Romania. I shall have to look into the specific point on Bulgaria and come back to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister answer the question on trade posed by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch? Is the noble Baroness aware that when Bulgaria asked for an increase in trade there was an argument over half-a-lorry-load of raspberry juice, and that when Hungary suggested that it produce more foie gras the French kicked up a fuss? EU trade relations and trade agreements make it more difficult for eastern Europe to trade in the produce which it finds easiest to produce. We should surely help those countries with trade not aid. The noble Baroness failed totally to answer the question about trade. She went on about democratic institutions—and all the rest of it. It was not good enough.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I believe that everyone in this House should be concerned about democratic institutions. Secondly, we are addressing the long-term sustainability of those countries. I do not accept that in discussing these issues in the context of
790
the European Union we are over-regulating. We are putting mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery of those economies.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, are we monitoring the pollution levels in the Danube in Romania or Bulgaria to ensure that the bombing of petrochemical plants and refineries on the Yugoslav borders is not causing severe pollution? Will the Minister undertake to examine the position with regard to nuclear power stations in Bulgaria and Romania which take water from the Danube because if the water becomes polluted there will be serious problems in "iffy" nuclear power stations? Finally, will she confirm that the populations of Bulgaria and Romania have been forbidden to eat fish caught in the Danube?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, possible pollution of the Danube is being investigated. When further information is available, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, are the Government aware that the blocking of the Danube by the destruction of bridges is causing great difficulties economically to all the countries of eastern Europe, including Romania and Bulgaria?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in answer to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we are concerned about the possible economic impact on all the surrounding countries. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development hosted a meeting of a number of donor nations on 22nd April. They examined the way in which Britain and other concerned nations, as well as the international financial institutions, could put forward a long-term strategy to improve the position of those countries.

The Royal Tournament
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the future of the Royal Tournament.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on 7th October last year, my noble friend Lord Hoyle informed the House that the current form of the Royal Tournament would end on a high note this year, but a flagship event would continue. As part of the Services' contribution to the millennium celebrations, the Royal Military Tattoo 2000 will be staged on Horse Guards Parade from 10th to 15th July 2000. The format, location and timing of events after that remain the subject of further planning.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather disappointing Answer. Would it not be more honest to say right from the beginning that this will be the last Royal Tournament; that next year it

791
will not be the event we know because there will be no field guns? Why does not the MoD underwrite the £500,000 needed to keep this self-financing and very enjoyable pageant going?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Royal Tournament has served us well for a great many years. However, as we approach the new millennium, it is appropriate to take a fresh look at the event. In its current form, the tournament sends only a limited message about the role of the Armed Forces in the modern world and therefore needs to be reviewed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for years the Royal Tournament has been not only marvellous entertainment and a great tourist attraction, but has also helped the Armed Forces with much needed recruitment? Is it not short-sighted and narrow-minded to let it come to an end like this?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question and agree that the Royal Tournament has served this country well. We can all be proud of the event and its success over the years. However, it is clear that with the change that is taking place and the fact that attendance has fallen from 300,000 to 200,000 we must look at the event again.
Furthermore, while recruitment generally in the Armed Forces is buoyant this year, there are reservations about whether the Royal Tournament targets the right area for recruitment. That was one of the main reasons why the position needs to be reviewed.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it has been known that the Royal Tournament has been in a bad way financially for some years. There has been no payment from the tournament to the services' charities. However, they have received a considerable amount of money from a lottery connected with the tournament. Can the Minister assure the House that those charities will be compensated for the losses they will suffer as a result of the closure of the tournament?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point. In recent years, we have seen a steady decline in the finances of the tournament. Between 1991 and 1997 it made an overall loss of £600,000. During that period, donations were made to the various charities, in particular those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I cannot give assurances about those charities, but I am sure that the committee and the MoD will be examining the changes which need to take place in the tournament and their future effects on charities.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that the Royal Tournament should cease to take place because it has little relationship to what happens in the 20th or 21st centuries. Can he assure the House that such absurd scrutiny will not apply to the Trooping of the Colour?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, at this point in time, I do not wash to comment on that. However, I appreciate the noble Earl's point. The effects of the revised tournament
792
arrangements or its format will be subject to further study. If the noble Earl and other noble Lords wish to make recommendations and proposals, or to give advice to the department concerned, I am assured that they will be taken on board.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the new venue will retain the best traditions of the Royal Tournament, its setting will allow the services to be better represented and will have a wider appeal to the population?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it might be that my noble friend knows a little more than I do in relation to future events. However, for 2001 and beyond a further study will consider a replacement for the current event which will provide the opportunity to put across the message of the armed services in a fashion better than we are able to do at the moment. We want to send the general public a message about the services and their future role in a changed world. However, as regards the future beyond 2000, nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out.

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce arrangements which have been agreed by the usual channels for the handling of the Weatherill amendment to the House of Lords Bill.
It has been agreed that it will make for a better debate on the Weatherill amendment if the principal amendment could be debated and decided upon on Tuesday without any debate on the 22 amendments which have been tabled to it. In order to achieve that, it has been agreed that should the Weatherill amendment be agreed to on Tuesday the Bill will, at the conclusion of its Committee stage, be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House only in respect of what would then be a new clause which gives effect to the Weatherill amendment. Noble Lords who have tabled amendments to the Weatherill amendment are therefore asked to withdraw them from the Marshalled List for next Tuesday. Noble Lords concerned should contact the Public Bill Office if possible by 4 p.m. tomorrow.
If the Weatherill amendment is accepted on Tuesday, amendments to the new clause can then be tabled for debate when the clause is recommitted. All noble Lords who have tabled amendments to the Weatherill amendment will agree with that approach. It would lead to a better managed and clearer debate on the principles which the noble Lords will wish to probe in Committee. It will also allow the House to decide on the Weatherill amendment in principle before it moves to consider its details. The House will agree that it would be a waste of time if the House were to spend a long time discussing the detailed amendments to the Weatherill amendment and then decided to reject it.
Procedurally, the scheme that I have outlined is the only way round this problem. It will certainly make for a better and clearer debate on a very important

793
amendment. Therefore, the Weatherill amendment itself will Still be taken in Committee next Tuesday, 11th May, as previously announced. It will, however, be possible also to make some further progress with the Bill in Committee on that day. The recommittal will take place early in the week that the House rises for the Whitsun Recess. I hope that this arrangement is both clear and satisfactory to your Lordships.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for making that statement and agreeing to the request from the Official Opposition to take the business in that way. I give an assurance to the noble Lord that I shall do my best to make sure that all my noble friends who have tabled amendments to that particular amendment will withdraw them. However, I ask for some reassurance from the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that the time he suggests of 4 p.m. tomorrow is not an absolute limit and that those whom I find it slightly more difficult to contact may, if necessary, withdraw their amendments on Monday.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I, too, welcome what the Government Chief Whip has announced. I am sure he will recognise that my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and I have already expressed some serious concerns about the Weatherill amendment and that we have agreed to this proposal by the Government, notwithstanding our views on the principle of the matter.
I believe that proceeding in the way the Government Chief Whip has suggested will avoid an extremely untidy debate on the 22 amendments at the same time as discussing the Weatherill amendment itself.
First, on recommittal, I am sure the noble Lord will be able to guarantee that all the amendments can then be decided upon one-by-one and that thereafter the Weatherill amendment (possibly amended) will be put to the House and the House will make a decision on the matter. Given the fact that what will take place next Tuesday will in reality be a Second Reading debate on Weatherill, I think that many of us would very much welcome a list of speakers.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, although I cannot speak for all my Cross-Bench colleagues, I personally thank the Chief Whip for his constructive suggestion today. I think we all agree that this will lead to a more ordered debate. I suspect that many, if not most, of my Cross-Bench colleagues will agree that this is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as one of the Back-Benchers who has an amendment, I first would like to congratulate my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and the usual channels on improving our procedure on this matter, for which some of us have asked, as he well knows, in the past week or two. I speak as someone who has tabled an amendment which is regarded as rather unhelpful. I seem also to have pulled off the amazing trick of uniting the Government, the Official Opposition and the Cross-Benchers against me!
794
Speaking for myself and my noble friend Lord Barnett, in the interests of good procedure in this House we shall certainly withdraw our amendment. I fervently hope that all the others—I did not realise that there are now as many as 24—will withdraw their amendments so that we can have a clean debate on the principles of the Weatherill amendment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, points out, then look at the detail, which seems to me to be the rational way of doing things.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having an interest in this amendment, which I am minded to oppose, I accept wholly the spirit in which the proposals have been made, but not that there should be a list of speakers. That was never the suggestion of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, and I formally object to it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on the first point about the removal of the amendments by 4 p.m. tomorrow, of course they can also be withdrawn on Monday. However, it would be helpful if it could be done by 4 p.m. tomorrow because it would enable us to issue the Marshalled List and the draft grouping on Monday.
When we come to recommittal, the amendments will no doubt be tabled, grouped and debated in the usual way, but as amendments to a clause in a Bill and not amendments to an amendment, which of course will be easier to handle. At the end of the debate, the House will have a chance to confirm the Weatherill clause, as it will then be, either with or without amendment.
I believe that it would be difficult to prepare a list of speakers. We are in Committee and we know the way in which we work in Committee. The whole idea of the recommittal, of course, is to allow the House to operate on a Committee basis. I therefore think it would not be possible to have a list of speakers on Tuesday. If my noble friend Lord Peston wishes to claim credit for this, he is, of course, perfectly entitled to do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Peston, I thank the noble Lord. It is so much more logical to work in this way and it is very nice to see sensible people agreeing with sensible proposals. It does not always happen; let us hope it continues. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we now have the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, claiming the credit for this. Are there any more takers?

Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make it an offence to drive while using a hand-held mobile telephone. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Kosovo
3.48 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, it might help if I were to put the present situation in Kosovo into some form of proportion by reminding your Lordships that what we are dealing with here is a piece of real estate no bigger than the size of Northern Ireland—in fact, not very much bigger than the area inside the M.25.
We have been engaged exclusively in an air campaign now lasting just over six weeks. Your Lordships would expect me to give you some indication of how the campaign is going. What I can tell your Lordships is that over 15,000 missions have been flown by NATO forces; some 5,000 of them have been strike missions, in the new sense of the word; we have lost merely four or five aircraft; and of the two aircraft which went down in Serb territory, both crews were recovered uninjured.
I believe that this is a quite remarkable piece of evidence of, first, the brilliant planning that has gone into this campaign and, secondly, the professionalism of the air crews that have been executing it.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the other day General Naumann said that we did not start off this campaign as he would have liked us to have done. Frankly, I do not believe that many people in the British Ministry of Defence would disagree with General Naurnann's remarks. It was very difficult, starting a campaign with 16 countries (becoming 19 with the three new member states) to get political agreement on targets to be attacked and the kind of weapons to be used, and to get total unanimity, which is a NATO requirement. We have succeeded in doing that. I submit to your Lordships that it is a tribute to the very good sense of the political leadership in all the countries within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I remind those of your Lordships who felt uncomfortable when you read what General Naumann said that he has also said that he sees no need whatever to change the present NATO strategy.
As a result of the weather, we have suffered a severe reduction in the number of sortie raids that we would like to have flown. As I may have said to your Lordships before, it has been frustrating at the morning briefings at the Ministry of Defence to read the number of missions that have been flown and then to see in the final column that the number of targets attacked were only a fraction of that number of missions, and were very often nil, because of the weather and because our troops and airmen either could not see the target because of cloud or because the target was obscured by smoke from a previous attack.
However, even the weather does not inhibit the most sophisticated modern precision guided missiles. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be glad to know that NATO has been pressing home its attacks with certain types of air assets, virtually whatever the weather conditions have been.
We have done serious damage to Serbian lines of communication, to their aircraft numbers, to their telephone communications, their radio relay stations, their radars and we have knocked out many of their surface-to-air missiles. Battle damage assessment is always very risky and in a few moments I shall come on to what I can usefully tell your Lordships about the state of Serb military capability as we know it today.
I have been asked many questions privately in the Lobbies of your Lordships' House and on other occasions about when it will all end. The answer is that nobody knows when it will end. Anybody who gives your Lordships a date is, in my judgment, very unwise.
We are asked whether it will be over by the winter. I certainly hope it will be over by then, but we can never give any firm undertaking that it will be. I am asked whether we are planning for it to be over by the winter. I assure your Lordships that we are planning for the possibility of our troops having to be in either Macedonia or Kosovo right through this winter and possibly several more after that. I am asked whether we shall have to send ground troops. I am always surprised by that question. Of course we intend to send ground troops and have always intended to do so. That is why we have the first battle group already in Macedonia and the second battle group almost completing its deployment there. There has been no change whatever in either NATO policy or in the United Kingdom policy in that respect.
But then I am asked whether we shall send ground troops even if Mr. Milosevic refuses to agree to our terms. The answer to that question is that we do not know what position Mr. Milosevic will be in. It is quite possible that there will be a military coup in Yugoslavia. We do not know whether Mr. Milosevic will be alive in a few weeks' time. We all know that he has a very unfortunate family history in that respect. Will people still be taking Mr. Milosevic's orders in a few weeks' time? We do not know the answer to that question. Will he have forces of which to dispose in a few weeks' time. We do not know the answer to that question either.
But even if we go in in what we hope will be a permissive environment, as the phrase is these days, it will never be a wholly risk-free environment because any peacekeeping force going into Kosovo must face landmines laid, probably, indiscriminately throughout the countryside, booby traps in the villages and the possibility of snipers who will disobey any orders that the Serb authorities might have given to desist from hostile action towards NATO forces.
All those matters are unknown and cannot be known until we finally confront the political decision which will be taken on military advice as to when we should move forces into Kosovo. For that reason, I cannot tell your Lordships how many troops we expect to send in. But I assure your Lordships that those matters are matters of active discussion between us and our leading allies, both bilaterally and within NATO. Just because

797
I cannot give your Lordships any figures does not mean that preparations are not being made, as they are at the moment with respect to a whole range of possible contingencies.
The last question which I cannot answer is how much it will all cost, and I cannot answer it for the same reason as I could not answer the other questions to which I have referred in the past few minutes. There is total agreement on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the resources required will be made available for whatever operations are necessary in and around Kosovo.
On the last occasion that I was at this Dispatch Box talking about Kosovo, I gave the House full and comprehensive details of our military dispositions at that time. I do not propose to repeat them today. Your Lordships may wish to know that in addition to what I was able to tell the House on that occasion, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the past day or so, has authorised the additional deployment of four more Harrier GR7s to Gioia del Colle, four more Tornado GR1s and one additional Tristar refuelling aircraft. I believe I am right to say that the GR7s are deploying at this time.
As I said, a second battle group is almost entirely in place. As your Lordships will be aware, we have had some difficulties at the port of Thessalonika and we have had some additional difficulties deploying into Macedonia, but I am glad to say that that task is almost entirely completed. In addition to the extra aircraft which I have just mentioned, since I last spoke in your Lordships' House, we have deployed a second nuclear submarine on a I and W patrol.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that to date the Royal Air Force has flown over 500 attack sorties which represent about 10 per cent of all NATO attack sorties, and the Royal Air Force tankers have provided fuel to more than 600 aircraft of 16 different aircraft types from six different nations. I am glad to be able to emphasise that because so often one gains the impression from discussions in this country about what is happening in Kosovo and Serbia that it is almost exclusively a British or Anglo/American operation. We have no fewer than 13 NATO air forces involved regularly in the air campaign. That is a great tribute to the resolution of our allies.
I said that I would say one or two things about Serbia's military capability, as we see it. I want to emphasise again what I said a few moments ago. I am sure that I carry all your Lordships with me who have experience of these matters when I say that battle-damage assessment is extremely imprecise. I do not propose to deal in figures of the number of oil bowlers that we have hit or the number of tanks that we have hit because I should not wish to rely on the figures which I have.
However, we are slowly, inexorably, tightening a stranglehold on Serbia's POL—petrol, oil and lubricants—capability without which no army and no air
798
force could move. The shipments up the Danube have come to an end. The Croatian pipeline has been closed and very little is proceeding through the port of Bar.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before he leaves that matter, will the Minister say whether there are any plans to attempt an oil embargo?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I was coming to just that point. If the noble Earl will be patient, I shall certainly deal with it.
As regards an integrated air defence, it is fair to say that the Serbs still have elements of an integrated air defence. One reason for that is that they have used it so infrequently. The people manning their radars have been extremely reluctant to switch them on except for very short periods of time. As a consequence our strike aircraft, because they have been so brilliantly escorted by air defence aircraft capable of what is called SEAD, suppression of enemy air defence, have been able to roam the skies above Serbia and Kosovo with almost total impunity.
However, we recognise that the Serbs have a very considerable and dangerous capability in manned portable surface-to-air systems which could be very dangerous to our aircraft if they were to engage in the sort of low-flying tactics that have been recommended to us by some people who, frankly, do not understand some of these matters.
I said that I would not deal in statistics, but I will say that at least nine of the military airfields in Serbia and Kosovo have been damaged, most of them severely. At least 10 surface-to-air missile sites have been destroyed and many bridges have been damaged or destroyed. Your Lordships will have seen vivid testimony to that on your television screens and in the newspapers from time to time.
The other military issue that I wanted to touch on—and I come immediately to the point that the noble Earl raised—is the question of stop and search. This is still being debated in the North Atlantic Council, and no decision has yet been taken, but I can say that very little in the way of petrol, oil or lubricants is getting through Montenegro into Serbia now, or, to the best of our information, has done so at any time over the past six weeks. We have an active programme of attacking the bridges outside Montenegro on the roads leading from Montenegro into Serbia and into Kosovo.
We have, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, been extremely sensitive to the vulnerability of Montenegro, which has an entire Yugoslav army camped in its territory. There are frictions between the police force in Montenegro and the Serb 2nd Army, and of course we fully realise that Mr. Milosevic thinks that it might very well be in his interest to try to destabilise the government of Mr. Djukanovic. However, Mr. Djukanovic has so far survived, I am glad to say. He is, I know, extremely anxious that we do not attack the port of Bar, and so far there have been no NATO attacks on any installations there. The only installations that I am aware of that we have attacked on any regular basis in Montenegro have been some

799
radio relay stations, Podgorica airfield, which has suffered severe repeated attacks, and some radar installations. I was invited recently to approve a radar target right on the coast of Montenegro, but we eventually did not attack it, for tactical reasons.
The next matter that I should like to discuss is the state of Serbian morale, a matter in which we in the Ministry of Defence are extremely interested. Of course, it is a subject on which it is very difficult to get absolutely unambiguous and non-contradictory evidence.
When we are considering the state of morale of the Serbs, we have to start with Mr. Milosevic himself. It is very difficult for us to assess the state of his morale, because on any normal basis that we would understand the man is behaving totally irrationally. It is possible that he thought that we were not going to attack, or that we would not sustain our attacks, but how he can possibly sit in his hunker and contemplate the damage that is being done to his country, from one end to the other, and think that the game is still worth the candle, completely defeats me. One of the matters that concern us for the future is whether or not he will try to lay waste to Kosovo, if he is forced out of there, in the same way as Saddam Hussein laid waste to Kuwait.
Moving on from Mr. Milosevic to the business men and politicians who are close to him, I have to say that I think their morale is showing considerable signs of cracking. Certainly, the business men who see factory after factory destroyed are very unhappy about what is going on. Your Lordships will have seen remarks in the media by Serb politicians who have demurred from Mr. Milosevic's policies in only the last few days or so.
The citizens of Belgrade and other cities have suddenly realised that, as Mr. Jamie Shea, the NATO spokesman, has said, we can turn the switch on and off in their cities at will at any time. That must be demoralising. We have reports that food rationing has been introduced. We have reports that cigarettes are in extremely short supply, which is a matter of no small importance to citizens of that country. I do not know whether they are yet starting to blame Mr. Milosevic for their condition, but I would be very surprised if, as the NATO campaign progresses, they did not come to do so.
But most interesting of all is the state of morale of the army. Here I think we need to divide our assessment into three parts, starting with the generals.
The generals know how much damage is being done. The generals know that they are impotent to do anything about: it. The generals are quite amazed at the precision of our attacks. And the generals, above all else, are startled at the quality of our intelligence, which enables us to go into a huge barracks area or an airfield and bomb precisely the buildings that matter to them. This must be a cause of increasing concern for them as the weeks go by and they see no let-up in a campaign which they never thought would go on so long.
The middle-ranking officers must be even more concerned. They are the men who thought they had a career in the Serbian Armed Forces. They thought they were important representatives of the state, part of the cement that held the state together. They now see the
800
assets which they were going to command being relentlessly destroyed, day after day, night after night—and not only being destroyed; these officers know perfectly well that they will never get them back again, because Serbia's economy is now back to that of 1945, at the very best, and there will be no money at all for rebuilding barracks, getting new fast jets, getting new surface-to-air missiles. These middle-ranking officers, whose careers depended on the welfare of their Armed Forces, must be feeling very sick indeed.
As regards the troops on the ground, I have no figures for the number of casualties that they have suffered so far. It is quite possible that their morale is being maintained if they believe what their authorities tell them is the number of NATO aircraft shot down. They are told that Serbia has shot down over 70 NATO aircraft. Your Lordships know perfectly well that it would not be possible for NATO to conceal the loss of seven aircraft, let alone 70. It is quite possible that stories of this sort are having an invigorating effect on the troops in the field. But when we move to that stage of the campaign when the weather gets better and better, and more and more often are we able to bomb in daylight, when we attack Serb assembly areas and concentrations of Serb troops in woods, and they realise there is nothing whatever they can do about it, their morale will also inevitably suffer before very long.
I am sure that your Lordships appreciate that we in NATO owe a very great deal in the current circumstances to the assistance of non-NATO states, particularly in south-eastern Europe. In many cases the governments of these countries are being extremely brave in supporting our activities, against political opposition, and obviously with a population which is suffering severely from the effects of NATO activities, the kind of matters referred to in the amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. They have lost a great deal of their export markets. They have lost the use of the Danube. They have lost their tourist trade and yet they have been extremely helpful to us. Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria have been staunch friends in the present circumstances.
I believe that your Lordships will agree, echoing what the Prime Minister has been saying recently, that all of us in the West must appreciate the need to assimilate the countries of south eastern Europe, including the Serbs, into our wider European family as soon as possible so that we can put these terrible events behind US.
Lastly, I want to touch on the question of the refugees. As your Lordships know, the numbers are quite horrific. The figures that I have, as of yesterday, from DfID is that 400,000 have entered Albania; another 200,000 or more into Macedonia; 62,000 into Montenegro; and 48,000 into Bosnia. We have no reliable estimates of the numbers moving around, homeless, inside Kosovo. I am reluctant to give the estimates as they vary so widely. The figure varies around half a million.
It behoves those of us who live in a fairly comfortable country to recognise the scale of such a movement of people, first, on the host governments. People have been

801
critical of the Government of Macedonia. In a very few weeks they have had to accept an increase in their population of over 10 per cent. That is the equivalent of 5.5 million people coming into this country. Not only is Macedonia a poor country, but the refugees affect the racial balance of the country to which the Macedonian people are very sensitive. Macedonia has been a tolerant country. There have been no problems with racial matters in Macedonia. We should salute them. It is not only in our interests, but it is our duty to see that we make things as easy as we can for them. I am very proud of the contribution that British troops have already made to the setting up of the refugee camps in Macedonia.
One can easily be numbed by the numbers of refugees. My research shows that some 400,000 people have entered Albania. That is roughly the equivalent, I am told, of the population of Manchester, Bristol or Edinburgh; 200,000 people into Macedonia is roughly the equivalent of the population of Swansea; 48,000 into Bosnia is roughly the size of the city of Antrim.
The nature of the evil that is being carried out in that part of the world comes home to us more vividly if one considers the impact on one family. So many terrible stories have been told to our troops, to British Ministers and to visiting parliamentarians. Consider what it means when a man comes into your house and points a gun at you and tells you to get out immediately. Your first instinct is to pick up those things most valuable to you, things that you treasure the most, and you put them in a little bag and walk out and the man with the gun steals them from you. He takes your wedding photographs; he takes them because they have silver frames. You offer him money. He takes the money, but he still kicks you out.
What is taking place in Kosovo is not just a piece of obscene political dogma; they are the most vulgar criminal activities that one can imagine. Most of all, I think of the children who have lost their toys, their pets, their friends and who are in a strange country. They may be separated from their parents; they may have lost fathers; they may have lost uncles; they may have lost brothers. They have very little hope. In fact, they are seriously traumatised. Occasionally, it is wonderful to see how life returns to them when somebody gives them new toys to play with.
The events in Kosovo are terrible. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, feels strongly about the effects that NATO forces have had on Serbia my noble friend Lady Symons will talk about his amendment at the end of the debate. I hope that the noble Earl will not find it necessary, having registered his view, to press his opinions to the vote. However, he is perfectly entitled to do so if he chooses. I also hope that noble Lords will not follow the noble Earl in his lonely position and that noble Lords will support the Government in the Lobby, not least to demonstrate our support for our brave young men and women out there, to let them know that we are proud of them and to make it clear to them that we are confident that their cause is just and that it will prevail.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, sits down, as I have not wanted to
802
add to the length of the debate by putting my name down to speak, can I ask him if he or his colleagues can give us some information about the propaganda war, if any, against Yugoslavia? Are we dropping leaflets, as we were in the last war against the Germans?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I deliberately did not discuss such matters with your Lordships. I am happy to tell the House that the last time I enquired into that matter, something like 13 million leaflets had been dropped. There is a PSYOPS campaign taking place. We have an internet site at the Ministry of Defence. We are also making special broadcasts into Serbia. Yes, a psychological campaign is taking place. I commend the Motion to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in Kosovo. —(Lord Gilbert.)
4.16 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for opening the debate and setting out the Government's current policies.
As we speak, the Foreign Ministers of the G7 countries have gathered to meet the Russian Foreign Minister in Bonn. There is little doubt that the outcome of that meeting will have great consequences for the prospects of peace—or otherwise—in Serbia and the negotiation of a political solution for Kosovo.
The meeting in Bonn comes at a critical time for the crisis in Kosovo, in a week when NATO has apparently adopted a twin-track approach in pursuit of the intensification of the air campaign on the one hand, while participating in a flurry of shuttle diplomacy by the Russian peace envoy, former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, between Moscow, Belgrade and Washington, on the other. There is a glimmer of hope, albeit very faint, that the chinks referred to by the Minister are beginning to appear in President Milosevic's hitherto apparently impenetrable armour of defiance.
In this House, there is a wholehearted consensus that, together with our NATO allies, we must break through the political deadlock which doomed the Rambouillet negotiations and which threatens to prolong indefinitely NATO's bombing campaign, which is now in its sixth week.
In that context, I want to take this opportunity to join the Minister in saluting the courage and dedication of our servicemen and women. I want to assure them of the unwavering support and gratitude from these Benches for the task that they are undertaking.
Noble Lords on these Benches have continued and will continue to support the Government while they maintain clear and consistent objectives. We share the Government's view that now that we have embarked on the NATO operation in Kosovo, it is critical to the people of Kosovo, and to the future of NATO, that the operation succeeds. Yet, six weeks after the NATO air operation commenced, as the number of civilian casualties rises and, excepting the outcome of today's G8 meeting, the campaign shows no sign of a

803
breakthrough, I believe that a more sombre mood of uncertainty now prevails in this House and the country as a whole.
For that reason, we seek assurances that both military and political tactics have been thought through in depth by the Government, in unity with our NATO allies, with fully fleshed-out strategies in place. kept constantly under review, for every conceivable contingency.
Despite the Minister's repeated assurances that NATO has consistent and quantifiable objectives, lingering doubts remain that NATO governments have clear, agreed, united political and military objectives. Those lingering doubts have been fuelled by the repeated intensification of the air operation, suggesting both an initial miscalculation of the military capability required to degrade Serbia's military capacity and, equally worrying, the development of "mission creep" which, if left unchecked, could lead us into a ground war by stealth.
On a number of fundamental issues since the NATO operation began, confusion and uncertainty (rather than the "brilliant planning" referred to just now by the Minister) have prevailed, obscuring the Government's objectives and calling into question the unity of NATO over the means by which those objectives may be achieved. The use of ground troops, a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for the refugee crisis, the planning for an EU and a NATO oil embargo, the issue of the removal of President Milosevic from power, even whether or not NATO is at war with Serbia, have all been the subjects of prevarications, retractions and sadly, on occasion, even U-turns, leaving the impression of the lack of an agreed strategic plan.
During the course of the campaign, the Government's aim s have seemingly shifted from averting a humanitarian disaster to the suggestion made by both President Clinton and the Prime Minister that President Milosevic should be removed from power—a suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, last week rejected in stark contrast to President Clinton's words in the Sunday Times that Serbia needed a democratic transition,
"for the region cannot be secure with a belligerent tyrant in its midst".
The Government have rightly presented President Milosevic as a dangerous and evil war criminal, a "belligerent tyrant" in pursuit of a fascist ideology of ethnic intolerance and racial genocide, who must be brought to justice and from whose malign influence Serbians must be encouraged to break free. Paradoxically, however, he is also Serbia's elected leader, with whom NATO countries are prepared to conclude a settlement. When summing up, can the Minister confirm what she said on Monday 26th April,
"that it is not an aim of this war to see Mr. Milosevic fall from power"?—[Official Report, 26/4/99; col.38.]
Can she confirm also that this Government will negotiate with him if he fulfils NATO's five demands? In short, can she confirm that it is NATO's objective to negotiate with President Milosevic, not to oust him as President Clinton and the Prime Minister seemed to indicate?
804
Rightly, the Minister has repeatedly stated that the Government's objectives are those five objectives which were set out at the meeting on 12th April by the NATO Foreign Ministers, and that they are "basic and unalterable demands" which will not be compromised. However, the "clear" objective referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on 24th March, when he said,
"NATO's position is clear… We seek to bring an end to the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement", —[Official Report, 24/3/99; col.1388.]
does not appear within NATO's current set of objectives. Indeed, six weeks later, no one would deny that a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented proportions in Europe in the past 50 years has taken place; nor should anyone doubt that the responsibility for this lies entirely on the shoulders of President Milosevic, or that atrocities and ethnic cleansing were clearly under way and clearly planned before the bombing started. However, it remains the case that NATO's initial primary objective—to avert a humanitarian catastrophe—has far from been achieved.
I shall attempt briefly to assess NATO's objectives one by one. The first of NATO's demands, quite rightly, is that there should be an immediate cease-fire. However, that raises the question, not as the Minister said, of the eventual use of ground troops, but of the circumstances in which ground troops might be deployed given that the Foreign Secretary, while ruling out an armed invasion of Kosovo, referred to the possible provision of ground troops to ". secure" a cease-fire. "Securing" a peace is very different from "maintaining" a peace.
At the beginning of the campaign, the Government appeared to rule out the deployment of ground troops in any kind of war situation. It is certainly true that military situations develop and, as the noble Baroness herself put it, the situation is not now as it was when we began the military encounter. But to what extent does the Minister—indeed, the Government—consider that the apparent ruling out of ground troops at the outset of the campaign, other than in a peace-keeping role, diminish the NATO threat in President Milosevic's eyes? To what extent does the Minister believe that it has now been made clear to him that,
"Nothing is ruled out in terms of ground troops"?—[Official Report, 26/4/99; col.43.]
The Prime Minister appeared to give a clear indication that he was prepared to consider the introduction of ground troops into Kosovo when Serb troops have been sufficiently degraded. The Prime Minister's words, combined with his strong line in Washington at the NATO summit on 23rd to 25th April, described by many as "hawkish", led to much speculation on whether the Government had changed policy away from the use of ground troops only as a peace-keeping force in a permissive environment. Given that no mention was made of the possible use of ground troops in the statement on Kosovo issued at the summit, to what extent has the "review of all options", to which the Prime Minister referred on 21st April, been agreed by our NATO allies, in particular the United States?

805
In that context, and of the greatest importance, can the Minister give an assurance that we are not in a situation where the Prime Minister thinks that we should use ground troops, in circumstances which are far from clear, but was unable to secure the support of our allies, particularly the United States, and therefore the Government are not pursuing their preferred strategy? The noble Baroness has rightly said that no option should be ruled out. Given that military experience so far has suggested that an air campaign has never won a war, can the Minister clarify the Government's position on the deployment of ground troops other than as a peace-keeping force in Kosovo?
I turn to the second objective; the removal of Serbian troops from Kosovo. On the demand that President Milosevic must withdraw his troops and paramilitaries on a verifiable basis, can the Minister confirm that that relates to all his troops and paramilitaries, unlike the Holbrooke October package which sought to have them return to pre-March 1998 levels in the province, as referred to by the Prime Minister on 23rd March when he said that, in order to avoid NATO action,
"Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed"?—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/99; col.162.]
Thirdly, there is NATO's demand that an international military force must be deployed, likewise to ensure that the refugees have the confidence to return home. However, the NATO statement merely said that President Milosevic must accept the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence. Yet again, yesterday Serbia's Foreign Ministry insisted that it would not be prepared to admit anything other than an unarmed UN force. Can the Minister provide more information on the nature of the force that will ultimately monitor and police the situation in Kosovo? Is it still the Government's position that any future peace-keeping force must be NATO-led, or does the Minister agree with the French Defence Minister who has said that it is possible that,
"a future peacekeeping force for Kosovo may not he under NATO's direct control"?
Indeed, does the Minster agree with the US State Department spokesman, James Rubin, that in such a force the command and control responsibilities would have to be such that NATO had the lead command and control of any American forces that participate and that,
"it is NATO and only NATO, with American participation … that can achieve the objective"?
Do the Government therefore rule out a dual key decision-making process with the UN, for example, in such a force, or with a bolt-on Russian command structure?
I should like to turn to the issue of Kosovo Albanian refugees whose return to their homeland in peace and security is NATO's fourth demand. One million people have been forced to leave their homes while mass deportation has caused over 600,000 people to take refuge in countries beyond their native border of Kosovo in the past six weeks. Estimated figures from yesterday
806
indicated that over 400,000 people have fled to Albania; over 48,000 to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and over 211,000 to the former Republic of Macedonia.
On the subject of Macedonia, it is surely vitally important to recognise that that country is on a knife-edge of instability and in need of substantial and urgent financial support to a level considerably greater than that currently proposed.
It is the Government's policy to secure the return of all refugees to Kosovo. We should consider the lead that the Government have taken, together with our NATO allies and European Union partners, to draw up a comprehensive plan of assistance for the Kosovo refugees, with the ultimate aim of their safe return to Kosovo. We need an assurance, which we have yet to hear, that the Government have a detailed strategy by which to achieve that.
The precedent of previous wars in the former Yugoslavia is that few of the displaced return home. In Croatia, several hundred thousand ethnic Serbs were forced out in 1995, and the majority have not gone back. The Bosnian war caused a vast exodus of Moslems to the West and to Turkey; 350,000 went to Germany alone. Many have resisted repatriation. Does the Minister agree that if the thousands of Kosovo Albanians currently in the camps in Macedonia and Albania are forced to spend the winter as refugees, many will never return to their homes?
I turn to the fifth objective set out at the meeting of NATO's Foreign Ministers on 12th April: a credible assurance of willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords in the establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo, in conformity with international law and the charter of the United Nations. Does that objective remain the same, in the light of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on Monday 19th April in another place? He referred to the need for the international administration of Kosovo, which was in direct contradiction to the Leader of the House who told noble Lords only one week before, on 13th April, that the Rambouillet accords must remain our touchstone for further discussion about the future Kosovo, and that the idea of any further developments—that is, beyond the arrangements for the autonomy agreed at Rambouillet—is not being considered at the moment.
From these Benches, we have repeated and consistently emphasised the critical importance of Russian involvement in finding a solution to the crisis. On occasion we have had fears that the Government have under-estimated the extent to which the Russians may prove to hold the diplomatic key to unlocking a settlement in the humanitarian tragedy in the Balkans. The Prime Minister has said that Russian efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis are welcome. From these Benches, we believe that they are not just welcome, but essential.
My final point concerns the long-term stability of all the Balkan states. The issue of the economic future of the Balkan countries and the need for a post-war reconstruction plan has been raised by a number of noble Lords from all sides. The noble Baroness the

807
Leader of the House has said that some wider rebuilding of the region on an economic basis, akin to the Marshall Plan, was something that the whole of the western alliance and others would need to consider in a peaceful situation. It is the contention of these Benches that it should be considered now.
The current IMF estimates for the reconstruction of the region stand at approximately 30 billion dollars. The region is being destroyed economically, as growth and prosperity are maimed by the conflict. The region will be safe, transformed from the continent's primary source of instability into an integral part of the European mainstream, with a solid foundation for a new generation of peace, only when poverty is addressed, when people are rehoused and when the economy has recovered.
If history has taught us anything, it is that, post-conflict, the vanquished must be made viable. An economically depressed, bankrupt Serbia spells untold future disruption for the region. Now is the time to ensure that in this confrontation between barbaric tyranny and necessary force, between vicious intolerance and respect for human rights, between tyranny and democracy, the values of NATO must prevail.
We support the Government in them vigorous pursuit of a diplomatic solution, while maintaining military pressure on President Milosevic.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for introducing the debate and for the details that he provided, not least about the actions that our forces are taking with regard to Kosovo. I should like to add our great praise for our troops, not only for their military action but also for the remarkable work they have done in helping the refugees, in building camps and in arranging for humanitarian aid to be delivered. We cannot put on record too strongly our thanks to them for that activity as well as for their normal professional duties.
I also emphasise, as strongly as I can, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that we on these Benches believe that the Government were absolutely right to insist upon intervening against what President Milosevic was attempting to do in Kosovo.
It is important to remind noble Lords that the attempted ethnic cleansing of Kosovo began a very long time before the NATO intervention. It is worth putting again on record that President Milosevic's behaviour goes right back to events in Croatia in 1990; it was repeated in Bosnia two years later; it was repeated with the terrible massacres at Srebrenica three years later; and that many voices as long ago as 1995 and 1996 repeated over and over again the warning that this behaviour might be copied yet again in Kosovo.
I hope that any noble Lords who consider supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, will think very hard indeed about this repeated record of behaviour that simply cannot be accepted in Europe at the end of this millennium.
808
I think that we will see the difficult but painful birth of a new legal and moral order in Europe in which we begin to recognise at last that the rights of individuals to their own lives, freedom and responsibilities, must be recognised by any country that wishes to be a full member of the European region and of the European institutions that are being created. President Milosevic's behaviour is incompatible with any such emergence of a legal and moral order.
Having said that as strongly as I can—and I believe I speak for everybody on these Benches—I must now be more critical. I believe that there was almost certainly too hubristic and optimistic an estimate of how quickly the massive and sophisticated force of NATO could break the resistance of President Milosevic. It is always a mistake to underestimate the capacity of the Serb people to endure, which they, too, have shown over and over again through the centuries. In some ways, I believe, NATO was not a wholly appropriate organ to bring about this kind of intervention, relying as it did so heavily on massive air power.
We on these Benches believe that it was a grave strategic mistake for NATO to indicate al the very beginning of its intervention that there was no possibility of the intervention of ground troops. We are not saying that there should not have been such an intervention; that is a matter that must be decided in the light of political and military events. We do say, however, that to rule out that option completely from the very beginning gave President Milosevic the opportunity to turn round and loose his troops and the still more fearsome troops of the Interior Ministry, the MUP, on the hapless civilians of Kosovo
With hindsight, we now know that it will take much longer than many people expected or hoped to bring about a victory in Kosovo. I have no doubt—the Minister would rightly interrupt me if I had—that, at the end of the day, NATO is certain to be victorious. But the phrase is "the end of the day", for this whole war will be much more prolonged than some of us might have hoped at the beginning. That means tremendous pressure on what military people call the "rear theatre"—that is to say, the in-depth defence. In using that phrase, I am of course referring to the very heavy dependence of the whole NATO structure on two fragile pillars. One of those is Macedonia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, and the other is Albania.
I shall not repeat what the Minister said—indeed, it would try the patience of the House—but already there are 210,000 refugees in Macedonia and 410,000, or a figure very close to that, in Albania. I shall only say that, even now, the balance of those coming in far exceeds the balance of those going out. On 4th May, nearly 8,000 additional refugees either attempted to enter or did enter Macedonia, while a few hundred left the country. The balance is still one that is putting greater and greater strain on a country that can hardly sustain it and whose Prime Minister, Mr. Georgievski, has time and again warned us in the West that his country cannot sustain it.
I share the respect of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for the Government of Macedonia, and even more for the Government of Albania which, as the poorest

809
country in Europe, has now absorbed nearly 400,000 refugees, more than half of them being housed in ordinary and often very impoverished homes. It is an amazing story. It is a story of courage and determination which ought to be widely recognised and applauded.
However, there is a limit. In the case of Macedonia, it is estimated that what was expected to be a growth rate of 5 per cent in 1999 will now be a reduction of 4 per cent. It is expected in Macedonia that the sum of money made available by the World Bank will go only a quarter of the way towards meeting the new deficit on its budget. I repeat: this is a poor country.
I am concerned—I shall put this strongly; supporter of the Government's action though I am—that it is simply not enough to believe that the Department for International Development can redivert some of its not very large budget to humanitarian needs in the Balkans. That will simply be insufficient. This is an international crisis which needs a national government response. I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, but I have to say that I do not believe she was the right person to answer the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire about the effects of what is happening on the fragile economies of these Balkan countries. Even the Prime Minister's £40 million would only sustain 40,000 refugees to the extent of £1,000 each for a few months. That is 6 per cent of the current estimated number of refugees. It is not enough.
However, perhaps more encouragingly, I should like to say that the long-term plan that has been proposed—again, we should give credit here to the German Government who originally put it forward as president of the European Union—is both far-reaching and visionary. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has described it as a "Marshall Plan". It holds out the hope of actually pulling the Balkans out of their position on the margins of Europe into the full mainstream of ultimate European Union membership.
In my view, and in that of my colleagues on these Benches, the hope of bringing the Balkans back into that mainstream—that is, the mainstream of democracy, of plural economies and of a decent and independent system of courts—is the lantern that shines in the current darkness of south-eastern Europe; in other words, the one hope of actually bringing from this terrible crisis a greater and better outcome.
I wish I could stop at that point, but I have one more set of observations to make briefly. They echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have seen the communiqué from the G8 this afternoon. It leaves a great many questions unanswered. Perhaps I may simply mention one or two of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the communiqué refers to the deployment in Kosovo of effective international civil and security presences. References to either NATO leadership or NATO corps have disappeared from that language. That may not be significant, but let us consider the situation if you were a member of a Kosovar family, driven out of your home by Serb police or military. How could you be expected to go back, unless you had the absolute certainty that
810
you could trust the forces that will oversee your return and provide an absolute guarantee of safety? No one will risk their children twice—that is to say, no decent man or woman. Therefore, if I may say so, this is frighteningly ambiguous language.
The other piece of frighteningly ambiguous language is the reference to the,
"principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".
Most of us accept that Yugoslavia has the right to its sovereignty, but I thought that we had talked for a long time about an international protectorate in the case of Kosovo, which, to say the least, is a pretty qualified form of sovereignty; and, indeed, ought to be so.
I have to say that I, at least, found profoundly distressing the fact that the brave resolution of Senator McCain in the US Congress was rejected by a substantial majority. That resolution called upon the President to have all necessary powers to bring the war in Kosovo to a satisfactory end. Even more depressing was the fact that the White House lobbied strongly against a vote in favour of that resolution.
I conclude with a small story. Nine years ago, in the summer of 1990 at Aspen in Colorado, I heard the news of the invasion of Kuwait by President Hussein. Shortly after that news came through, I saw, at a lunch in Aspen, the then British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher (now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher,) walk across the room and say in a voice loud enough for people like myself who were merely guests to hear, "Don't wobble, George". He did not wobble; he then entered into the successful Gulf War. We do not have to say that today to our own Prime Minister, but perhaps we should say, "Don't wobble, Bill". For, if he wobbles, what I believe has been a brave and, in many ways, principled intervention in the affairs of Kosovo will turn into a shabby compromise. I, for one, very much hope that that will not happen.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, noble Lords will note that I am speaking from a sound foundation, with a firm military base sitting on either side of me. I fully accept the argument that it would have been wrong for Europe to ignore what had happened on its own doorstep, and what was likely to happen, in Kosovo, with its sinister echoes of over half a century ago. Certainly, now that NATO's aerial war over that unhappy country and the plight of its people, is in full cry, there can be no going back. The penalty for failure would be considerable all round, so the conflict must be won or negotiated through to a successful conclusion.
Only time will tell, as was made abundantly clear by the Minister, whether bombing alone will achieve all NATO's strong demands. Historical experience might suggest that it will not; but after a slow start the Serbs are becoming increasingly isolated and they have had, as we have heard, massive damage done to their whole infrastructure, their oil supplies, their air fields and now their electricity supply—I must say that bomb is a completely new one on me—and therefore indirectly to their war machine, now declared to be the aim of the

811
six weeks' bombardment. The pressure on the civilian population from the relentless and unnerving accuracy of high technology weapons must be immense, while the Apache helicopters with their formidable low-level performance have still to make themselves felt.
Who knows therefore whether al: some moment, perhaps unexpectedly, suddenly, Milosevic, or someone in his place, under pressure from the people or from the army, might not sue for peace unconditionally. We can only fervently hope that this will be so because it would clearly be the quickest, perhaps the only quick, way to re-establish sanity and humanity on all sides.
One thing, however, is absolutely certain and that is that ground forces, including a significant contribution from ourselves—since our Government have taken much of the lead in all this—will, if our aims are to be met, be required in the area in considerable strength and for a considerable time. They may, in some shape or form, have to be engaged more actively and dangerously than they have been so far, either around the edges of the conflict or even in parts of Kosovo itself. If this happens, I know that our forces, who yet again at a drop of a hat and far from home, are ready to lay their lives on the line, will acquit themselves well, as we have seen so often before. They will, I know, be able to count on the continuing support of your Lordships' House and indeed of the whole country, who should never forget their professionalism and dedication to duty.
I make two pleas to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, whose sense of realism I have always much admired. The first concerns whether it is anticipated—I use that word advisedly—that the forces which are likely to be required to bring everything to a successful conclusion or to consolidate the peace exceed either in terms of strengths or length of deployment those which have been budgeted for under the recent Strategic Defence Review. I remind noble Lords that this amounts to, in addition to the forces engaged on everyday commitments such as Northern Ireland, one brigade on peace-keeping duties (as we have now in Bosnia) and one brigade in a war fighting mode for six months (as presumably we have already deployed to Macedonia), or one complete division for war fighting, also presumably for six months. Also one must not forget the latent threat in the Middle East and the fact that formations have to be relieved from time to time. If that is exceeded—as I suspect it will be—I hope that the Government will have the courage to scrap, or at least put firmly on the back burner, those parts of the Strategic Defence Review which are no longer valid, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did away with the defence review, current at the time, when the Falklands War started.
If we mean business, we really must start matching resources to rhetoric not only in terms of the refugees—which of course is vital—but also in terms of the military. There is always a price to pay for intervention on this scale. I have in mind, for example, the Army's manpower ceiling—for a long time this has been set too low and it is still set too low—and the number and strengths of units or sub-units both in the regular Army and in the Territorial Army (the only real reserve we have).
812
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for raising my next point. After well over two months I still await a promised reply from the noble Lord about the future of the Gurkhas, who would prove most effective, not least as an important deterrent threat in the southern Balkans, as they were in the Falklands and are now in Bosnia. That threat might well force the Yugoslav Army more into the open and therefore make it more vulnerable to NATO air attack.
Finally, there is the annual budget itself, which is already under severe strain and, as far as I know, is still being eroded at 3 per cent compound interest per annum. The budget will, of course, need to he increased, not contracted, if the other restraints are to be removed and our ground and tactical air forces are to be provided with proper strengths, logistic backing and sustainability, and support from our reserve forces. I hope the Minister will not take the view that we can cross that bridge when we come to it because, as he knows so well, these things take a considerable time to adjust and Ministers and their NATO colleagues should know well in advance what can and cannot be provided before decisions are taken on how the campaign should develop.
Besides, it is only right that commanders and staff back in the United Kingdom should expend all their energies on realistic provisioning for our forces in the front line in the Balkans and elsewhere, and should not: chase probably now unobtainable, and certainly unacceptable, bottom-line financial targets. Indeed, one of the many sad things about all this is the number of times in my experience that defence reviews and their aftermath have, under intense financial pressure, been based slavishly, even during times of conflict, on strategic parameters which have proved, in a short time, to be utterly incorrect and indeed inconsistent with our rather grandiose foreign policy aspirations, as many at the time warned that they would be.
My final plea is that if our forces are ever to be committed to ground operations which may involve some degree of opposition and resistance, even of the greatly written down variety, great care should be taken over the command arrangements. Of course, not being privy to either the intelligence on the opposition nor the details of topography, I can offer no Worthwhile views on whether such an intervention, and under what circumstances, would or would not constitute a sound military operation with calculated risks which are worth taking, as in the Falklands and the Gulf. Control from Mons involving 19 different nations may or may not be the way to deal with a politically sensitive air bombardment, but it is certainly not the way to direct land operations involving surprise, the concentration of force and indeed all the established principles of war, even if—as I welcome—there is a heavy international content.
Only a commander-in-chief on the ground, operating within a firm political aim, but with full authority over the land and tactical air forces with whom he would be in close physical touch—all of which occurred in the Gulf War—will suffice. It would be highly desirable for a senior British officer to be commander-in-chief. After all, we command the Rapid Reaction Corps. But if lie must be American, there should be a senior British

813
officer at his right hand, as occurred in the Gulf War. If the Minister thinks that I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, I can say only that in these highly politically sensitive days, when rhetoric, press releases and high profile public relations occasions sometimes seem to be considered a substitute for hard pounding, military realism may easily be forgotten.
We now have to win what we have started. If we get the command and control machinery right, everything else may well click into place. But if there is a hydra-headed arrangement which that great professional, the late noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Montgomery, would undoubtedly have described as a "dog's breakfast", it will be a sure recipe for the kind of disaster from which the British Army has certainly not been immune—particularly in the early stages of the war—and from which, happily, we have been spared during the past 50 years. I am sure that the Chiefs of Staff will be making exactly the same point but, in this highly political war, it is especially worth stressing in your Lordships' House.
5 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I support the policy of the Government as they work with their allies to end the bestial Serbian policy of ethnic cleansing. That must be our main aim at all times. I wish to comment and ask questions about our future policy as it unfolds.
In the time I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have often asked myself what we are here for. We are certainly not here to be another House of Commons. The speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reinforces my view that we are here to draw on experience. I wish to draw on my own far more limited experience to offer a few comments.
When I was a young RAF officer I spent three years of my life working with the Army. Our aim was to work with and sustain the Army on the clear understanding that the battle could be won only by the Army. Air power was vitally important. If we took prisoners, the German PoWs always said "It was air power that defeated us". But they were wrong. Air power was a major factor but the battle was won by the Army. That lesson must be remembered in Yugoslavia. We provided close support in Sicily and Salerno. When I see the news dealing with the war in Yugoslavia, I often wonder what the media, with their television cameras and reporters asking soldiers what they think and so on, would have made of Salerno—a shambles in its early days if ever there was one. At Anzio, the south of France, back up into Austria, marginally into Slovenia and into Croatia, air support was vital to enable the Army to win the battle.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said. Yugoslavia was a place apart. A separate air force was built up to deal with the Balkans. The Balkan air force on the east coast of Italy dealt with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was different from Italy. As the noble and gallant Lord said, to try to run the battle from Belgium is a mistake in terms of command structure.
Eventually we ended up on the Yugoslav border. Our Yugoslav allies were completely unco-operative. What they did to each other was unbelievable. They had done
814
it before. What Croat did to Slovene, what Slovene did to Serb, what they did to children was not new. It will not stop. It will not be stopped by the words of western politicians. It is something that is built into the south Slav mentality. I spent 18 months in that area and I have never forgotten. I had of course read European history. A few days spent in that part of the world enabled me to understand European history far more clearly. The First World War was started when an Austrian Archduke was killed by a Serb. That is the key point: he was killed by a Serb. These problems will not go away and we must be ready for a long haul.
In August 1946 I was the operations officer of a fighter wing which was occupying a Hungarian airfield when our allies shot down two American aircraft. We were re-armed in August 1946 with clear instructions not to seek a battle but, if it happened again, to shoot them down. They were completely unco-operative, which in my view is endemic in the Yugoslav mentality. Lack of co-operation will be there if allied forces have to go into Kosovo, or wider, even if they go in not to fight a battle but to try to keep the peace. It will not be easy. It is early days to talk about that but the rationality is important.
As to NATO, there is much talk at the moment about handing over to the WEU. I am not against the Anglo-French European defence capability, which is an aspect of that, but the Americans control all three services: the intelligence, the signals communication and the transport facilities. NATO is dominated by America and we should face up to that fact. We supply 7 per cent of the bodies offered by NATO; the Americans supply 86 per cent. When one talks of what should happen, one has to convince the Americans of what should happen. I do not object to that because the size of the force is determined by the resources available.
I wish to say a word about targeting. Targeting such as we read about in the newspapers and see on the television is not new. For two years before D-Day in 1944, the RAF from new airfields in the south of England targeted railways, engines and bridges in northern France, just as such facilities had been targeted by both sides in North Africa during the North African campaign and up into Italy. Targeting is a vital part of tactical air force work in aid of the Army. It is not new but it is important.
Who determines the targets? How is it done? Does the targeting come from Brussels? Do the pilots of the fighter bombers, I suppose one should call them in the new terminology, stationed in northern Italy have to get permission from a distance away or are the targets chosen by the pilots, by the squadron commanders or by the wing commanders?
Mistakes will always happen. My war was not particularly distinguished but, like many of my friends, I have been shot at by the Royal Navy and the American navy. I did not blame them. In 1944 a friend from one of the squadrons was strafing a row of motorised and horse-drawn vehicles in the Rhone Valley. He suddenly then realised that he was strafing an ambulance. He did not do it deliberately, but a mistake had taken place and he and others reported it. In the Telegraph or The Times

815
today I noticed the obituary of a distinguished RAF officer who had bombed British forces in Iraq in 1941. I read in the papers about mistakes being somehow a dereliction of duty, but mistakes happen and cannot be avoided. However, targeting is important and I wonder how it is decided.
One difference from 1944–45—long before NATO—has been the work of NATO in providing aid, food and shelter to the refugees, a point highlighted by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. NATO's role has changed; additional work has been given to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right: such work must be done on a far greater scale. But NATO should not do it. NATO may be an engine by which it can be done but it is time now to introduce a Marshall Plan or something like that.
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary said two days ago that the aim is to get the refugees back to their own country. That must be right. Placing refugees in not derelict but empty Army camps is good in the short run but no good in the long run. The aim must be for the refugees to return to their own country and nothing else.
As regards the wider scene, western Europe has been deficient politically. One of the big mistakes of the past 10 years has been the recognition of the independence of Croatia and Slovenia. The Serbs are not fools. Once that had happened, they wanted their own independence and they knew what they had to do. What are the aims of western political policies with regard to the south Balkans and the south Slav territories? What are the aims for the KLA? We are supplying arms to the KLA; will it return them afterwards? Will we have the same story as Northern Ireland'? Will there be decommissioning and arms handed back? Will our policy be exercised through the KLA? If so, the Serbs will not give in easily.
The South Balkans could flare up at any time. There are Albanians in Kosovo and west Macedonia, as well as in Albania itself. There is the wider Macedonian question. There is the Greek-Turkish rivalry. Kosovo is only part of a wider problem. It is time that the western European countries put their mind to a wider problem than Kosovo. In the short term I support the Government; the long run requires a great deal of questioning. I hope that the Government are taking part in that questioning. I hope that the Western European Union, the western allies, are thinking hard about the long term. Was a mistake made in 1918 when Yugoslavia was created? That was a long time ago, but would it have been better to have done things differently? What is the long-term political aim arising out of the Kosovo question? In the short run, I support the Government; in the long run, we shall have to see.
5.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I recognise that one ought not to speak about peace at such a generalised level that one misses the opportunity and the challenge that are presented by the continued ethnic cleansing, just as with the invasion of the Rhineland by Hitler—a challenge which I clearly recognise must be met with force. I recognise, and am
816
deeply grateful for, the professionalism of the Armed Forces involved in the action. Rather than recapitulating on matters in which other noble Lords are far more expert, perhaps I may speak as the Bishop responsible for relations with the Orthodox churches.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke about his personal experience of the spirit in Yugoslavia. There is another side to the story. There is a democratic opposition in Yugoslavia, and there are people who are very clear about the nature of the challenge facing those societies. It is good to note that just before this action took place, religious leaders of the three main faith communities in Kosovo—the Moslems—the 60,000 or so Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church, were trying to promote grass-roots dialogue. Centres such as the Decani monastery have been havens and centres of relief for victims of the fighting, irrespective of ethnicity or religion.
It will be difficult to move towards any kind of settlement. It is obvious that, however justified. violence radicalises the situation. It brings the extremists on both sides to the fore. Bishop Atremije of Prizren, in a letter to Madeleine Albright before the bombing began, predicted that the action would provide a pretext for the Milosevic regime to move against the democratic opposition and to,
"delay the democratisation of Serbia, a pre-condition for a stable peace in the Balkan region".
But the effort to find democratic partners in building the peace is inescapable and the role of the faith communities in doing so—Moslem, Roman Catholic and Orthodox in particular—will be recognised, as it could be vital.
The same is true, to echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of the Russian role as mediator in this crisis. I was immensely heartened by the Prime Minister's statement that the Russian diplomatic effort is receiving the serious attention here that it is receiving in Germany.
The expansion of NATO to embrace former Warsaw Pact countries, effected with so little turbulence, was a huge achievement. But it was an achievement built on the doctrine that NATO was a purely defensive alliance. We may not see matters this way, but Russia has centuries of experience of invasion, not least from the West, and has a sense of vulnerability and a corresponding determination to ensure its own security which it would be unwise to underestimate. There is unanimity right across the Russian political spectrum that the NATO attack on Serbia introduces a dangerous unpredictability into relations within Europe. Many Russians are asking, "Are we next?".
I am certain that nothing could be further from the minds of NATO strategists. But as we look to build a stable peace in Europe, it is vital that Russian anxieties should be respected and its aid in peace-making should be actively enlisted. Again, the potential role of the hugely numerous and significant Russian Orthodox Church in this peace-building effort should riot be, underestimated.
As we look to the future and seek ways to assist the refugees who have been so barbarously driven from their homes, certain questions and challenges arise.

817
Even though the situation has been radicalised by the violence, I can understand why Her Majesty's Government are still persuaded of the undesirability in such a volatile part of the world—we have heard about the tensions in Macedonia and Albania—of altering the international borders of Kosovo. Now is the moment for spelling out more clearly what our hopes for the future of Kosovo really are. Is the cantonisation of the kind recommended by the Peace Mission of the Orthodox Church in Kosovo an option?
At the same time our own Prime Minister has insisted on the need to act in defence of the growing consensus on the inviolability of human rights and to act in a way that is transnational. That represents a new development in the practice of diplomacy. The nature of conflict has changed, and it is clear that the practice of diplomacy must also develop.
In this context there is a clear need to look urgently at reform of the United Nations. If it is true that the Security Council is paralysed by its present structure, then surely there must be pressure for change, led by the governments of the democratic world. Cynicism about the UN is a luxury that we cannot afford. A global trading system and global communications call out for global institutions, which can be powerful advocates and protectors of the human rights and obligations of all world citizens.
I am convinced that future historians will look back on our time with one major question: "What did they do to build the conditions for world peace with justice and stability?". They will look to see whether we have learnt any lessons from the present crisis, which is a vital test of our determination to manage conflict in the new world order.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I may ask him to enlarge on one matter. There are reports in today's press about contacts between Lambeth and the Orthodox Church. Has there been any contact, not only with the Greek Patriarch in Thyatera, but also with the Serbian Patriarch at Sremski Karlovci?
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his inquiry. I assure him that contacts with the patriarchate of Belgrade, with Istanbul, and indeed with Moscow, continue.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. For some years, to my great advantage, he was my vicar at St. Stephen's, Rochester Row, which is not far from here. It was inherent in our respective positions that I was unable, publicly at least, to comment immediately on what he had said. Today, I am delighted that I can do so, not least because he is even more persuasive now than he was then.
Perhaps I may take up a particular point that he made. He spoke about the desirability of reform of the United Nations, if that can be achieved. One of the great
818
strengths of our position in the Gulf War was that the United Nations Security Council was so made up that it was able unanimously to produce authority for the action that was taken in Kuwait against Sadam. That is not the position today. Fortunately, international law does not require the consent, authority or mandate of the United Nations for action of this kind to be taken in these circumstances. However, it would be far better if the United Nations could be reformed along the lines suggested by the right reverend Prelate.
I am most grateful for this debate because it gives each of us an opportunity to state and review our position and perhaps counter some of the recent and extraordinarily shallow and harmful criticism of what our country with its NATO allies is engaged upon.
Much has been said with which I agree. I very much agree with the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the mistake inherent in stating at the outset that a ground attack was not contemplated in any circumstances. I also agree with the comment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, about the desirability of revisiting the cuts in the Armed Forces.
For my own part, it is not enough simply to reflect in a short speech that what we have heard already illustrates the extreme difficulty and complexity of the situation with which we are confronted and it is all too difficult. One must take a view. Our country is engaged in a campaign that is both honourable in its inception and very dangerous in its potentiality. It is honourable because its purpose is to deter crimes of inhumanity, reverse them as far as possible and restore to their birthright those who have been evicted in hideous circumstances from their homeland. Our purpose is and should be to prevent these crimes being replicated elsewhere if it should he seen that NATO is now an alliance of straw.
I strongly believe that our purpose is honourable. But it would not be sufficient for it to be honourable in its inception if it was impracticable because it could not succeed. It is here that the bulk of the criticism—although not in this House today—arises, largely because the success of the air campaign is not nearly complete. It is quite common to hear people who should know better say that NATO is simply stimulating what it says it wants to stop. I do not believe that that is a fair assessment of the heretofore and I dissent from that criticism as strongly as I can.
This campaign can and will succeed, but the challenge that we face is very different from those acts of aggression in the Falklands and the Gulf with which we are fairly recently familiar. On those occasions the acts of aggression were very quickly established as a fait accompli and that gave us time to build up our response. I believe that those campaigns and their successful prosecution have induced some to suppose that war can frequently be brought to a speedy and clear-cut victory; in most cases it cannot.
Here the choice that has lain before us has been, on the one hand, to keep supine observation while Milosevic pursues in full international view his ethnic cleansing campaign, including mass murder—I very

819
much agree with other noble Lords that this was planned and began long before any NATO counter-moves—and, on the other hand, to continue to reduce his regime's capacity to act in this way so long as his crimes continue and until he agrees to the restoration of the Kosovans and their protection under a military force.
Surely, international law cannot require us to take the first course. I believe that if we did so it would be profoundly immoral. Generally speaking, international law does not countenance immorality. I believe that international law permits what we are doing and that today moral law demands it. I do not know—because I do not have the experience of the military junta that confronts me on the other side of the House—whether a ground assault will be necessary to achieve full success. I believe that there is a realistic possibility. It has always been on the cards. I would be very surprised—I am confident that it was not the case—if the Chiefs of Staff had somehow concealed from Ministers what they truly believed.
Instinct tells me that a ground assault would have formidable, but not insurmountable, difficulties and challenges. I do not know the answer to that question. I realise that we would not seek to occupy the former Yugoslavia as a whole but only Kosovo with the assistance—which I do not believe is negligible—of the KLA.
However, I know three things, and when I have dealt with them I shall sit down. First, if such an assault is required, and occurs, the air attacks of the past six weeks, both strategic and tactical, will not be found to have had a negligible, let alone negative, effect; rather, they will be found greatly to have diminished the ability of the Serb Army to resist a ground attack. If I had a son who might shortly be called upon to take part in such an attack I should feel pretty resentful about any suggestion that the earlier air attacks should not have been authorised. I have seen no report of any criticism whatever from Kosovan refugees of the attacks that have taken place; on the contrary, they have been fervent in their applause. I believe that to be significant.
Secondly, if NATO is to be seen to win the campaign and a ground attack is needed, that assault must happen. NATO now must win. Thirdly—but admittedly hypothetically—I believe that the mood of this debate and the country would be very different today if over the past six weeks, in full international view, the Serbs had been allowed with impunity to get on with their butcher's business while we and NATO did nothing. The words of Mr. Chamberlain about Czechoslovakia in 1938—they are too well known to need reciting—would be frequently in our minds. The only difference is that on this occasion we and our allies certainly have the means to do something about it: the means to fight. Only our willingness to look the other way would be the same.
Diplomacy must certainly be persisted in, but it is absolutely essential that we and our allies keep our nerve and maintain our just position. There is no place at this juncture for back-biting. That has not happened in this House today, and I am sure that there will not be any. We have a Prime Minister who leads from
820
the front with great resolution and conviction. One hopes that some of it will rub off in Washington. British servicemen and servicewomen are showing indispensable commitment, professionalism and courage in a just cause. I congratulate them and give credit where credit is due. For what it is worth, I also offer my support to the Prime Minister.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as others have done. perhaps I may declare my absolute and natural support for what my noble friend Lord Gilbert said about our military people in the theatre and my absolute agreement about the horrible actions of the Milosevic regime in Kosovo. However, in the nature of things I stand further back than he can. I hope that my noble friend and others will realise that I speak from a desire that peace should be restored and civilised life resumed in that unhappy country, and that wrongdoers should be deal: with as soon as possible.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been preparing for two simultaneous regional wars: one in the Middle East; and one in the Far East, on the Korean Peninsular. They have not happened because the Arab states and Turkey on the one hand and South Korea on the other prefer more peaceful ways. There has thus been no recent planning for war in Europe. So what we see is an improvised American war with a small British expenditure of expensive weaponry, failing to achieve its stated aims. We see that "smart" weapons do not necessarily make for a "smart" war. High tech does not beat low tech—a forgotten lesson from Vietnam; and whoever told the President that air war would succeed, and that he could safely assure the Europeans that it would succeed, has a lot to answer for. All the military in Washington, although not yet here, are letting it be known that it was not they who advised him to that effect. So who did? Presumably, they were the same forces which, acting privately, persuaded President Reagan that total protection against nuclear weapons was possible, to the horror of his Secretary of Defense who knew nothing of it. The world had to take a year or two off intelligent work to persuade President Reagan that "star wars" was a pipe dream.
The pie in the sky this time seems to have been success in Kosovo in time for NATO's 50th anniversary here in London, as Mr. Strobe Talbott was implying at the NATO at 50 Conference in London. That great jamboree was of course largely funded by the arms industry. And now the US Air Force, with our small help, has been shown unable to succeed without the US Army on the ground. The Balkans are not an Arab desert, and the US Army cannot be there because there cannot be American body-bags.
Now a second humanitarian catastrophe on a scale difficult to imagine and impossible for us to know is being added to the original one; and that is ours. The civil infrastructure of Serbia, and perhaps the historic heritage of Serbia, are being bombed—and bombed without, apparently, any thought for the morrow. With that comes the ruination of part of Europe. War has become its own justification.

821
What professional military judgment decided to destroy important international bridges, and to block the Danube, one of the principal international thoroughfares of European trade? Who decided to cut off the power and the water supply and to destroy the television centre? Is that consistent with the rules of war? What political judgment allowed the bombing of Montenegro?
Behind all these questions lies the new NATO strategic concept, adopted in Washington a week or two ago. It seeks, in often ambiguous language, to establish NATO's right to legitimate its own use of force, and this seems to be what is claimed for the present operations. If a number of NATO allies agree to attack another sovereign state, it cannot but be lawful, even in the absence of a specific Security Council resolution. Is this now generally believed within NATO? Are the Government content that all other states or groups of states in the world should be able to make the same claim? Alternatively, are we still legitimising our attacks under the rubric of "overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe", not under the new NATO strategic concept, since that had not even been agreed when we began bombing? Are we claiming that one catastrophe justifies the infliction of another?
International law about "overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe" is unwritten and still uncertain. I have a note of a question and answer exchange between myself and my noble friend Lady Symons last November; but I shall not weary the House with it. I expect that the noble Baroness would agree that the position is uncertain, although we would part company on the best interpretation to put on the uncertainty. In her last answer she concluded that a decision on whether or not it was right to invade a sovereign state on these occasions would depend on the relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question. Where are the relevant decisions of the Security Council in this case; or has something changed since last November which makes it no longer necessary to answer that question?
The escalation is now "in support" not of any UN resolution but of NATO's credibility, "in support" of the mere determination of our leaders; and that only too human purpose has had the effect of reduplicating the horror of the humanitarian catastrophe we went there to avert.
But we have an ethical dimension to our foreign policy and must recognise that the bombs are ours and the targets chosen by us. Milosevic—we must face the fact—has not broken the provisions of the United Nations charter, but we are doing so. He has indeed broken the international conventions on civilians, proportionality, human rights and much else, but we have now in large respect followed suit. On the last charge, we even hear from Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, whom I hope the Government still feel we know and should listen to. We have been rebuked.
As the World War II generation passes away throughout Europe—and in America the Vietnam generation too—so the memory of real war is fading.
822
What today's leaders seem familiar with are computer war games, whether those run by the military or those produced for profit. They do not much resemble real war. War is of its nature cruel, long, uncertain and indiscriminate, and that is why the generation who experienced the last war made it its business to prevent it happening again. In Europe we had succeeded until now. But today's generation is seduced by bloodless victories on monitors, by the sight of planes flying and munitions hitting their exercise targets on bright, sunny mornings while it watches from platforms raised for its convenience.
War is also phenomenally expensive. Britain was financially ruined by World War II. As less world history is taught, and taught more narrowly and subjectively, so the knowledge not only of other times but of other countries and civilisations dims. No, Saddam Hussein is not like Hitler; nor is Milosevic. No, the blitz on London did not make Londoners rise to embrace Hitler.
Going to war in, or even for, or for the sake of, the Balkans has been avoided by the European powers with justified care between 1918 and last month. We should have remembered the depth of hatred and contempt, unparalleled in Europe, in which the many different peoples there hold one another, and the unparalleled degree of ethnic and religious cohabitation.
We should also have remembered that those peoples have the shortest experience of all European peoples in self-government, and the most recent memory of imperial domination. They also have the only European memory of a non-European imperial domination in a thousand years. We should have understood that a history like that produces not only cruelty and unreason, but also a stubborn and reckless courage which is unknown to the rest of us. And have not the Croatians been guilty of ethnic cleansing, and the Albanians in Albania, and the Kosovars themselves?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to Croatian ethnic cleansing. Is he not aware that the Serbs who were recently in Kosovo were resettled there, having been driven out of Croatia two years ago from an area known as Krajina by a Croatian Army trained by the Americans and supported by the Moslems? I stress that point.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, that was the episode to which I referred when I mentioned that Croatians had also practised ethnic cleansing.
So we now have an American president as usual hamstrung by the polls and a Congress looking to the next election. They have given us a war of bombardment which has not prevented our international military chief, the outstandingly intelligent General Naumann, from effectively disowning it the day before his retirement. We hear military voices in this country, voices which we have grown to respect and trust over decades, stating more quietly the same truths as General Naumann did: wars cannot be half-waged.

823
As one American defence official is quoted as saying in Aviation Week:
'We thought this could be done with a drive-by shooting off a few, cruise missiles, and we grossly underestimated".
But this is not supposed to be war; this is supposed to be the prevention of "humanitarian catastrophe". We are supposed to be doing good.
One good thing has possibly come out of it. It is a little refined, but perhaps I may mention it. It concerns the Rambouillet conference. What happened there is not very well known by the general public. The proceedings were unusual, to say the least. It may be that part of the harm was sown there, but also something good was achieved.
The Cambridge international lawyer, Marc Weller, has 'provided an extremely interesting account of much of this in the current issue of the Chatham House journal, International Affairs. He concluded with the words:
"The connection of the legal justification of humanitarian action with the aim of achieving FRY/Serb acceptance of the Rambouillet package in its entirely, if it is maintained, would represent an innovative but justifiable extension of international law".
"Innovative", certainly, but after the horrors that have been triggered by NATO's "humanitarian" efforts, which have presumably happened since Mr. Weller completed his article, not, perhaps, "justified".
The requirements of this may-be desirable extension of international law—averting—humanitarian catastrophe—may be in need of assent from the international community, as it is not enough to have the limited membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation decide what catastrophes shall be averted.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, much of what I wish to say has already been said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and that is not surprising as he was my commander on many occasions. The Armed Forces will welcome the strong support spoken of in the House today.
I begin by commenting briefly on the key factors that we must consider. First, I should have been surprised if the Chiefs of Staff had not said that the Kosova crisis was much more complicated than anything we have faced in the Gulf, the Falkland Islands or in Bosnia; and that if Milosevic were not prepared to give way quickly we should be faced with a situation which would require considerable resilience and political will and be likely to continue for a long time. We have been reminded of some of the realities of war which the Gulf War in particular, and the Falkland Islands and Bosnian wars to an extent, allowed us to forget.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, spoke of the need for some ground force operation. I am concerned that although we understand the importance of that I do not see as much support for it as I would wish from across the Atlantic and from some of our European allies. Unless we can get a ground force there which is truly militarily capable and commanded in a
824
way described by the noble and gallant Lord, it will not be effective. I believe that it is a major priority to put that force in place.
I also pay tribute to the air campaign because we could not have assembled a force sufficiently quickly to respond to the atrocities that President Milosevic was committing. We had to begin the air campaign whether we liked it or not, but I should have liked to see the ground force build up more rapidly than appears to be the case.
I strongly emphasise the importance of getting right the command and control of that ground force and not only in theatre. There must be a proper commander-in-chief, properly supported with proper authority. I sense that some nations may not be prepared to give a multinational force commander that responsibility, which would be a mistake. We must also give it a proper, responsive and robust chain of command which is able to give proper strategic political military direction. I believe that NATO is the only organisation which is capable of providing that. If we try to do what we did in Bosnia and leave it to the. United Nations, although it has an important role to play, we shall find that it cannot produce such command and control.
The debate has also brought out what I call "the. realities of alliance warfare". Obtaining consensus among 19 nations, as we must, to run a complex and difficult operation, particularly when the vital strategic interests of those nations are not involved, is a remarkable achievement. It is remarkable that we have got as far as we have. The noble Lord, Lord. Kennet. referred to what was indicated by General Naumann, but I read the general in a different way. I argue that his comments about going for the lowest common denominator undoubtedly had some impact on the effectiveness of the military campaign.
I also believe that it raises questions. because in a successful multinational operation a lead nation is necessary not only in terms of command and control but in order to provide such military capability that it h as the right to be that lead nation. Of course, at the moment only one nation can begin to produce that capability; that is, America. However, that raises questions about the military capability which Europe is able to put into the field and sustain on operations, and that raises questions about a European security and defence identity.
I turn to what it means for our own Armed Forces, and this is perhaps the most important point that I wish to make today. We are extremely lucky to have such Armed Forces and they are an example to many. But we all know that they are grossly overstretched. Kosovo, which will require a strong major contribution from us, will increase the problem. The trouble is that the word "overstretch" means different things to different people. Individual overstretch is considerable, but there is an overstretch of matching capabilities to responsibilities, as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Bramall. I too hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will take away the very important message that we need to revisit not only the Strategic Defence Review but also

825
the cuts which have taken place in the Armed Forces since 1989. Unless we do that, they will not be able to provide the support that I believe is necessary to sustain our foreign policy. If we do not do that, I also believe that we shall have considerable problems retaining top quality servicemen and service women right across the rank structure. If that happens, and it is already beginning to happen, it will have an effect on the quality of our Armed Forces, which will in turn have an effect on the effectiveness of their operation.
Finally, although I have talked about the military aspects of this campaign, the military forces are in a way a very small part of this. Only the political and diplomatic efforts will truly produce a solution to the problems of Kosovo and the neighbouring countries. One of the lessons of Bosnia was that although there was a military capability when NATO was deployed, the civil structure in support of that military effort, which should to an extent have led the way, was a long way behind the power curve.
I hope that the Government and others will seriously address the problem of what they are going to do if we are militarily successful in Kosovo, supporting it with the right, strong military civil organisation.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I was the Army Minister in the 1970s and the Armed Forces Minister in the 1980s, including during the Falklands War. Therefore, I have seen our Armed Forces at work at close quarters. I believe that they are unsurpassed in their military skills and courage and in the more frequent humanitarian role that they now have to play.
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken that the present situation in Kosovo is more complicated than it was in the Gulf War or the Falklands War. I support NATO's aims. I believe, as the noble Lord the Minister said in opening, that our cause is just.
I would like to make a criticism of governments, including our own Government. The criticism is that I believe they have failed to think far enough ahead. I will give the House a number of examples.
The first example relates to the recently announced proposal for an embargo on oil. On 29th April, I asked the noble Baroness the Minister a question about why the legality of this embargo had not been considered well beforehand. I asked why, instead of being considered after the decision in principle was taken by the NATO Heads of Government meeting at the end of April, this matter was not considered a long time ahead. The noble Baroness replied as follows:
"as I told the noble Lord last week, as situations develop so does the planning". —[Official Report, 29/4/99; col.437.]
I do not know whether the noble Baroness meant that. In my view, that is not the way that planning should be done. There should be contingency plans which are put in place not as the situation develops, but months ahead. Perhaps the noble Baroness would therefore like to
826
reconsider her statement. However, if it is the way that planning has been done, it will help to explain some of the problems that I am about to mention.
The second example is one that has been frequently mentioned; namely, that the bombing was threatened for about a year before it began. The NATO activation order was made last autumn—not recently but months ago—and we could have been bombing at any time after that order was made. Milosevic has therefore called our bluff many times, and that cannot be good.
The third example is that the NATO Ministers failed to perceive that, instead of there being a crumbling of Serb morale as a result of the bombing, the Serb morale would be reinforced and the determination of the Serb people to support Mr. Milosevic would be increased. Two years ago there were demonstrations in the streets of Belgrade against Mr. Milosevic. We do not see anything like that now. I have a feeling that there was a belief on the part of NATO that we would continue to see opposition to Mr. Milosevic.
The fourth example is that we seem to have expected that the bombing campaign would be successful in a short time. I believe that that has been denied by the Government. Mr. Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, said early in April that he believed that the bombing would be over well before the NATO 50th anniversary meeting to be held on 23rd April. I suspect that he was reflecting the general view of NATO at that time.
I believe that another failure has been to foresee that Mr. Milosevic would use the bombing as a pretext for stepping up ethnic cleansing. I agree that ethnic cleansing had taken place before the bombing began. There were 200,000 refugees created before the bombing began. The moral responsibility for the ethnic cleansing lies with Mr. Milosevic, but he has used the bombing as a smoke-screen to confuse the world about why all the refugees have been created.
I also believe that the fact that the bombing started in a phased manner has helped Mr. Milosevic to achieve his objective of cleansing virtually the whole of the Albanian population out of Kosovo while the bombing was going on, so that he could present the West with a fait accompli when we came to the negotiating table.
The sixth failure is one that was highlighted by the International Institute of Strategic Studies only two days ago. I believe that the statement made by NATO at the beginning of the bombing campaign that we were not going to use ground troops in an offensive role was a grave error. It was said by the institute that it broke two of the cardinal principles of war: first, that the element of surprise was lost; secondly, that we should keep our opponent in doubt about our next step.
Seventhly, there does not seem to be any agreement on the part of NATO about what should happen if the bombing campaign does not succeed. It is a very difficult question. I understand that it is very difficult to achieve agreement about what should be done. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it weakens our situation.

827
Finally, as an example, there was no plan to deal with the refugees. It is still a matter of dispute whether the policy should be that the refugees should remain in South-East Europe or should be removed to other countries in North America and Western Europe.
Our troops have done wonderful work in looking after the refugees both in Albania and in Macedonia. The Government have now responded to some extent by saying that we will take 1,000 refugees per week. However, ethnic cleansing has now been going on in this enhanced way for six weeks. It is significant that a Foreign Office spokesman said, as reported on 4th April:
"We did not expect Slobodan Milosevic to move the levels of population that he is moving—perhaps that was a failure of imagination".
Some of the examples that I have given may be the result of the inability of NATO governments to agree. The noble Lord the Minister referred to that problem; it is a real problem. However, they are not all examples of failure of NATO Ministers to agree. Quite a number of them are failures of imagination, as referred to by the Foreign Office spokesman. I hope that NATO will work out, as a result of the lessons it is learning, better methods to deal with situations of this kind. Governments do not get things 100 per cent right. That is impossible in war. But I do not believe that the record which I have described—and I could give other examples—is good enough.
I conclude by raising another point about which I hope there is very serious and careful planning. The noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken referred briefly to this issue. We want the refugees to return to Kosovo. In order to persuade them to do so, we need to achieve much more than the five basic NATO objectives. If one puts oneself into the mind of a refugee, wherever that refugee may be, whose family has been shot, women raped, home burned, children beaten and livelihood lost, he will need a great deal of convincing to return. It will not be enough simply to have an international force with NATO at its core, which. I support because it is essential. We need a lot more than that.
Such a refugee, whom we are trying to persuade to go home, will ask, "What about the police force? Will there be a Serbian-dominated police force, as we have had in the past? Can I be sure that I can rely on the police force? Will there be hospitals and schools? What about housing? My house was burnt down when I was forced to leave it. What about electricity? What about food because there will not be much of a harvest in Kosovo in 1999? What about government structure?" We need to be ready to answer all those questions.
The military exercise is vast enough, but I am talking about the situation after the military action ends. This is bigger than Bosnia and certainly bigger than Cyprus. We have had troops in Cyprus since 1964. When the protectorate is established, I believe that we shall have troops in Kosovo for a very long time.
In the Second World War, when we were considering the future civilian reconstruction of Germany, there was a planning group involving many departments in
828
Whitehall which worked for years on the civilian management of the problems of Germany after the war. That group was brilliantly successful. Do we have such a unit now? How big is it? What is its budget? How fast is it working? Unless we get the civilian reconstruction right, we may win the fighting but lose the peace.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, in the debate on Kosovo about six weeks ago, I said then, inter alia, that I had no constructive alternatives to suggest. That remains my position today. I support the Government in what they are doing.
Therefore, over the past few weeks, I have listened with some surprise to some of your Lordships criticising what we are doing and saying that we should be talking to Milosevic instead of bombing him. We should all like that to happen, but we tried that and it was a failure. It did not work. I am delighted that the Russians are involved and I hope that they become more involved. Even they have found it impossible to reach any sort of terms with Milosevic. Any sort of talks initiated at this stage by NATO are absolutely bound to fail. Until the Serbs seek talks with real intent for peace, I hope to hear no more of that defeatist talk here.
Talks continue—we have heard a lot about them today—on the question of land forces. Those can take two forms: offensive or defensive. By offensive forces, I mean those who may be used to invade Serbia. I do not believe that we have reached that point yet; I hope that we have not. By defensive forces, I mean soldiers who would be there to protect the refugee camps and, perhaps, the borders. Many troops are in the area. They should be reinforced, primarily in a defensive role, but in a position to take an alternative role, if that becomes necessary.
We must be prepared. We must face the unpalatable fact that troops may be needed to bring about peace. A build-up will take another message to Milosevic, who must have got the wrong message in the past, of our determination to bring about an acceptable solution. In other words, as we have heard from other noble Lords today, we must have a realistic plan B if plan A, to bomb Milosevic into submission, does not work. A publicly established plan B would suggest again to Milosevic a determination to get on with it.
I agree very much with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that it would be a good idea to bring in the Gurkhas. That would mean less pressure on our own forces and would be of great interest and support to the Nepalese Government who have found that, with the disestablishment of the many Gurkha regiments in the past, their income has decreased enormously.
I welcome, as do most of us, the announcement by Her Majesty's Government to allow entry to the UK to a growing number of refugees. But we must face the fact that, once here, it will become increasingly likely that they will remain here permanently. That will apply also to other western countries which give them hospitality. The original NATO demand for return to their villages must be in increasing jeopardy. After all, one must wonder whether the refugees will want to

829
return to destroyed houses; whether families will wish to return to places where their most vivid memories will be of husbands, fathers and brothers being murdered. We must sympathise with the women, both young and old, who cannot stand the thought of return to a place where their memories are not only of murdered relatives, but also of personal humiliation, rape and violence.
On that point, in the previous debate on Kosovo, the question was raised as to what steps could be taken to make sure that the Serbian people are aware of the appalling atrocities taking place in Kosovo. We know only too well that Milosevic's propaganda machine puts the blame for the misery of the refugees on NATO. Will the Minister tell us what is being done in that regard and how effective it is, or can be?
Lastly, we must give an absolute assurance to Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania that there will be real and generous aid if those countries are to continue accepting refugees without devastating results to their economies. We now have the spectacle, as we heard yesterday, of refugees being turned back and forced back into Kosovo. Although that shocks us, we can hardly blame the authorities there who realise that they simply cannot cope with the influx of people which threatens to overwhelm them. We may have to make promises to neighbouring countries—for example, Bulgaria—which see a continuing conflict which is affecting them adversely. In the meantime, I seek assurances from the Minister regarding real and effective aid for Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke briefly of the possible morale of the Serb forces. Under the noble Lord's leadership, a small number of your Lordships went to north Italy to visit the RAF there. It was with some pride and pleasure that we could see that the morale of the RAF there was extremely high. We also took pride and pleasure in the fact that many of the senior US air force officers there spoke of the high regard they had for the RAF.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, like many of my generation, I was conscripted into national service, and I clearly remember that day in October 1956 when I reported to the Royal Navy Barracks in Portsmouth. I was already in uniform, having done pre-national service training, and after reporting to the guards at the gate I was directed across the parade ground. I put my large and heavy kitbag on to my shoulder and walked across the parade ground.
I can remember my thoughts to this day. First, I was worried about small matters, such as my uniform: Were the creases in my bell bottoms smart enough? Were my boots sufficiently polished? Did I have the lanyard—the white cord worn around the sailor's neck—in the right position?
I was also wondering—and worrying—because it was a long walk across the parade ground, about events in the Middle East. As I was to learn very shortly, it was two weeks before Suez. Nasser had seized the canal to
830
finance the Aswan Dam, and that region of the world was clearly turbulent. I was worried about what I was going to do. Would I go to war, as senior boys from my school had gone to war in Korea? Would I take part in military action—in Malaya, for example, under General Templar?
As it happens, I never went to war. I took part in interminable NATO exercises in the north Atlantic, but I never fired a gun at an enemy, and rarely fired live ammunition. But that experience created a great impression on me. I developed close friendships with fellow members of the lower deck. I learnt discipline. I learnt to make decisions in difficult circumstances.
But then events moved on. I left national service and went to university. I started practising at the Bar. Therefore, when I came here in 1972, for what I thought was going to be a very short spell, my interest and, more important, my expertise lay in the law and the functioning of the criminal code. Therefore, in 27 years in this House, until today, I have never spoken upon military or defence matters. Today I break that 27 years' silence because I passionately believe that the Government's policy, together with the policy of our NATO allies, is right. I passionately believe that that policy should be supported by all quarters of the House and the country as a whole.
On any view, a very serious human catastrophe has unfolded yet again in the Balkans, and in Kosovo there have been perpetrated the gravest breaches of human rights. We cannot stand by and watch these awful events and do nothing. As in the biblical story, we cannot walk by on the other side of the road.
Air strikes may have accelerated the so-called ethnic cleansing. But we should remind ourselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, that ethnic cleansing started a long time ago—10 years or more—and by October 1998 250,000 Kosovars had been displaced by the military activity then taking place in Kosovo. And I remind your Lordships of one other event that clearly took place before the air strikes started: the murder of 45 Albanians in the village of Racak on 15 January this year.
Moreover, nobody can pretend that the massive expulsion of Albanian people from their homes, the scorching of villages and the widespread genocide was somehow dreamt up after the commencement of air strikes. It had long been planned, albeit it may have been accelerated by the air strikes.
In participating in this debate I have not altogether shed my expertise as a lawyer. I have been pondering hard during the last 24 hours about how international law properly applies to current military action in Kosovo. What is international law, and how is it breached? I decided this morning that the only thing I could do was to dust down from my library a text book that I had used 40 years ago at university, a text book written by Mr. J. L. Brierly and entitled The Law of Nations. I read from the first chapter, as follows:
"The Law of Nations, or International Law. may be defined as the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another. Rules which may be described as rules of international law are to be found in the history both of the ancient and medieval worlds; for ever since men

831
began to organise their common life in political communities they have felt the need of some system of rules, however rudimentary, to regulate their inter-community relations."
The learned author goes on to identify the more recent development of international law, saying that it dates
"from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, for its special character has been determined by that of the modern European state system, which was itself shaped in the ferment of the Renaissance and the Reformation."
It follows, therefore, that the development of international law well preceded the formation of the United Nations in 1945, and that United Nations resolutions, important though they are, are not the sole depositories of international law. There are treaties, there are conventions and, most important of all, there is the progressive development of a law of nations which is respected and honoured by nation states.
That is very important, because hitherto it has largely been unnecessary to identify separately acts of genocide within a state to give grounds for other nations to take military action into that state. That is because states which have carried out genocide within their own territory have almost invariably invaded neighbouring countries, which gave those countries the right to declare war on the grounds of territorial invasion, against the invading country.
Let me cite a few examples. Let me start with the commencement of the Second World War. At that time genocide was already contemplated in Nazi Germany and certainly there were grave deprivations of human rights. However, Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia, followed by the invasion of Poland, was the right under which we declared war on Germany. There is a second example in Africa. The overthrow in 1979 of Idi Amin by Tanzania—and the anti-humanitarian policies that his government had perpetrated in Uganda—was in response to Uganda's invasion of Tanzania. We might also cite the Gulf War as an example. This was brought about by Iraq's invasion of the Gulf States although it must be said, alas, that we did not succeed in overturning the anti-humanitarian policies of Saddam Hussein.
It follows, therefore, that international law in no way impedes what the Government are doing and that they are in no way in breach of international law by the actions that they have taken with their NATO allies. Moreover, in acting in the way that the Government and their NATO allies have acted so far, they are in the vanguard—and should be praised for it—of the development of international law and the law of nations. How could we possibly have allowed in Kosovo the atrocious genocide and expulsion, now of over half a million people, to go on unrestrained by other nations of the world?
I return briefly to my memories of the commencement of my national service so long ago in October 1956. It so happens that I recently interviewed six young former Army officers. They had all taken short service commissions and were now back in civilian life. Although the reason for my interviewing them was not to trace their military career, they told me about their service in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and the Gulf. From these conversations I have no doubt that all Army
832
personnel—officers, warrant officers and other ranks—know the risks to which they are exposing themselves in joining and serving in the military. They are aware of the dangers and the possibility of the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives.
I do not believe that it is for this House to propose the correct military strategy. I believe that should be based entirely on the military advice given to the Government and our NATO allies. Therefore, a decision on whether there should be an invasion into Kosovo of ground troops should rest exclusively on that military advice.
However, I should like to observe, as other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have done, that I know of no war that has been won exclusively by attacking the enemy from the air. While bombing may be accurate, it must also be scaring the living daylights out of the civilian population, and hence giving support to Milosevic where previously there was not support.
So far I do not believe that the name of Slavko Curuvija has been mentioned in this debate, but one cannot pass from this point without remembering him. He was the brave editor of the Belgrade daily newspaper who wrote an open letter to the president. In that letter he concluded with the words:
"Your excellency, your country, your people and your compatriots have been living for years in a state of fear, of psychosis, with nothing but death, misery, terror and despair around them. Serbia is being stripped of territories and riches as it she were dead already. Serbia has fewer and fewer children, and vies them up too easily".
We must remember the civilian population of Serbia; we must remember those who are suffering under Milosevic.
Having said that, I go back to the main point, that the decision of a military invasion must be based on military advice. From my conversations with young Army officers and former Army officers, I know that the young service men and women will give all, and risk all, to achieve the necessary military objectives. Neither they nor their families are deterred by the awful thought of the military bags bringing back the dead. Therefore, if we have to ask them to enter into combat in Kosovo, they and their families have the right to ask of us, nay demand of us, complete support and a just cause. Clearly, we have already provided them with the just cause. We must also, unhesitatingly, from this debate, from this House, from this Parliament, from the 'worth on the Scroll in the Royal Gallery, from the nation of England, from the action of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, give that unhesitating support.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, when the country is at war there is a proper reluctance to be even mildly critical of the Government or to say anything that may make matters more difficult for our men and women who may be engaged in the conflict.
On the occasion of the last short debate on Kosovo in this House, it was just such a reluctance that held me back from expressing my anxieties about the way in which I thought matters were developing. At the end of that debate, I leant forward, over the shoulder of my

833
noble friend Lord Carrington, and thanked him for saying all the things that I would have wished to say, but with much greater authority than I could have achieved.
From the outset, it seems to me, first, that for entirely noble motives we had stumbled into a war in which there was no clearly definable end-game; secondly, that it was extremely improbable that we could achieve our declared objectives by means of an air war alone; and that, thirdly, far from helping the unfortunate people of Kosovo, there was a grave risk that, at least in the short term, we could make things worse for them. All such fears and predictions have proved correct, but we cannot stop. We now have to see it through.
It is the cruellest of delusions to imagine that time is on our side. It is certainly not on the side of the suffering hundreds of thousands who are fleeing, or the slaughtered relations whom they leave behind.
The Minister's remarks about the timing of future events seemed to be dreadfully casual against that background. I found his remarks about the "brilliant planning" of the conflict or the original intentions about the use of ground troops less than convincing. The Minister's "I don't know what happens next" replies to his own questions hardly fill one with confidence.
The alliance made foreign policy commitments without adequate preparations—that now seems clear—apparently in the belief that the war would be brief. It underestimated the scale of the refugee crisis and initially it deployed inadequate resources. NATO appears to have acted in the belief that it was possible to win a war from 15,000 feet, without incurring significant casualties on either side. I find it hard to believe that the service chiefs shared those illusions and did not warn their political bosses about the realities.
Of course, I do not challenge the need to use airpower, but we have to recognise that the kind of war that has developed, with its widespread destruction of the economic infrastructure—destruction which is damaging the economies of much of middle Europe as well as Yugoslavia—may bring down the regime in time. However, it is not the sort of war that brings speedy relief to the Albanians; nor is it the kind of war likely to permit the building of a stable settlement. Now it gravely threatens the stability of several neighbouring countries.
Our longer-term objectives still remain uncertain. To denounce Milosevic is not enough. It is by no means clear that our troubles will be at an end if he is removed. There are probably others, even more extreme—hard though that may be to contemplate in the face of the evils that Milosevic has perpetrated—to take his place. There is a danger that the Serb people will seek revenge, in their own way, against NATO.
The history of the Balkans suggests that the period of revenge will be long-lasting and its nature vicious. Equally, it may be difficult to prevent the revenge of the Albanian people against the Serbs. The experience of Bosnia and Croatia does not give us much ground for optimism at the present time.
834
Surely it should have been obvious, from the outset, that we would need to involve Russia in a search for a settlement. Our treatment of Russia in the early stages of the conflict was an astonishing error. The remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London about the importance of the Russian contribution cannot be overestimated.
Now we need a hard-headed reassessment of objectives and actions to match our rhetoric. The most immediate need—there are welcome signs that it is happening—is to change the character of the war so that it concentrates on the job of destroying the Serb army, rather than the economy of the region. We need to make it clear that Rambouillet, with its now unacceptable concept of ultimate Serb control over Kosovo, has been abandoned.
The case argued by Noel Malcolm in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, that we must go for an independent Kosovo, is powerful. Whatever the limitations of the previous status of Kosovo, the events of recent weeks have surely destroyed the possibility of a return to past constitutional arrangements. My noble friend Lord Moynihan was right to ask where the Government stand on those questions.
Whether Kosovo is partitioned or made independent, it will have to be protected by an international force prepared and ready to fight. It will be no good having blue-helmeted police who withdraw when the going gets rough. As Bogdan Bogdanovich, once Serbia's leading architect and a former mayor of Belgrade, observed in a remarkable article written as long ago as 1991 and recently republished in this country,
"The people of the Balkans have become addicted to guns, in the same way that we have drug addicts in other parts of the world … This is true not only of Serbs, Croats, Albanians or Moslems, but of all the Balkan peoples".
That reinforces the comments on the same lines made earlier in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. We can be certain therefore that the difficulties of maintaining peace after the war will be formidable. History suggests that order can be maintained between warring peoples in the Balkans and places like it only by the exercise of imperial power. But I know of no example in history of imperial power exercised effectively by an alliance of many nations.
In the short term, to win the war, we are dependent on the United States; in the longer term, I do not believe that we can leave them to shoulder the major burden of what is likely to be a long and unpleasant job. European nations which have painful experience of trying to maintain imperial order over hostile populations will have to commit very large resources. That means that the British Government, if they mean what they say, will have to undertake yet another reassessment of defence policy and reinforce our now desperately over-stretched forces, as the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, so cogently argued.
Surely there will also have to be a major reconstruction programme. In the article to which I referred, in looking back to the independence of Serbia from Turkey since 1819, Bogdan Bogdanovich comments that
"A feeling of failure lies at the very heart of Serb nationalism".

835
It arises from their economic failure to match the successes of their neighbouring countries. We can be certain that after the destruction that has taken place there will be a need for major reconstruction if we are even to undermine that deep-seated sense of inadequacy and failure that is one of the root causes of the situation in which we are now involved.
The price of the kind of policies to which we have committed ourselves is going to be very heavy. Like events in Kosovo, time is not on our side and we must hear from the Government what their longer-term plans are as well as their immediate objectives in Kosovo.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, one of the many surprising things about the Kosovo operation has been the almost complete absence of aircraft losses. In over 15,000 sorties and more than 5,000 strike missions over hostile territory, NATO has only lost two (as it happens United. States Air Force) aircraft over the past six weeks. Given that the Serb air defences were assessed to be potentially effective, that is truly remarkable. It would be surprising in any peacetime exercise of such a scale and with live ordnance if there had not been some failure of flight safety. Given the pressure of operating in a hostile environment, this achievement marks a very professional standard of aviation by the Royal Air Force and the other nations involved.
For many of us, the fact that our aircrew were embarked on active service inhibited questions about the proposed campaign and what our military objectives might be. We did not have information on which to make our own judgments. I accepted that those who did, in government and in the Ministry of Defence, were reaching the right conclusions. Now that we seem to be able to operate without loss and with the benefit of hindsight, we can start to examine the judgments made at the outset.
I argued, when we debated Kosovo on 25th March, that we had to assume that the intention to use only air power and no ground forces meant that NATO's military objectives were judged to be achievable in that way and, in achieving them, the Serbian Government would accede to the political objectives. The military objectives, we were told, were to degrade their fighting capability and to avert Milosevic's ability to inflict horror on Kosovo. But as General Naumann said only last week, an air campaign is always a. race between destruction and reconstruction or resupply.
What we have seen in the past six weeks has been an air campaign dogged by poor weather and by early weakness in NATO's direction of it. Indeed, there are still weaknesses; for example, what has been happening over the intention to impose an oil embargo. Weather problems should have been foreseen arid factored in. More significantly, NATO has not practised such a major offensive operation ever before. Commanders and nations have been learning on the job and that too should have been allowed for. Whether Milosevic's reluctance to agree to NATO's political demands is entirely due to the inadequacies of the early days of the air campaign or to Serbian determination not to give in is far from clear.
836
The assessment of the ease with which Milosevic might back down has clearly been misplaced. Serbs may not have shown the grit and determination in earlier fighting with Croatians and in Bosnia, and I listened with interest to the Minister's assessment of Serbian morale. But there is a wealth of evidence of Serbian toughness going back over centuries. Kosovo is the very cradle of Serbian culture. In 1389 Sultan Murad massacred the Serbian army on the Field of the Blackbirds in the heart of Kosovo. Over 500 years later, in 1911, a Serbian army marching south to engage the Turks paused at the border of Kosovo and removed their boots. They would only cross Kosovo barefoot so as not to disturb the souls of their slain ancestors. Anecdotal maybe, but memories are long in the Balkans and we would be wise to factor those attitudes in as well.
Meanwhile, as we see increasing numbers of aircraft being added to NATO's operation and at long last targeting more directly the Serbian units in Kosovo itself, it seems evident that NATO still believes that it should be possible to bomb Milosevic into submission. But I am not clear why marginal increases in the weight of attack, the better weather and the greater concentration on Kosovo-located targets will guarantee that.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the only exit strategy being to get Milosevic to agree to NATO's demands. But we are not there yet, even though the solidarity which NATO nations have sustained is impressive. Moreover, in press briefings we seem to judge and publish our successes by measuring the degradation of Milosevic's ability to wage war. But ethnic cleansing and the other atrocities in Kosovo do not really equate to the waging of war. As the Minister said, they are criminal atrocities; they are barbaric. So I ask: are we now after military victory? Will we use ground forces? What are our military objectives? What are we at? Where is the consistency in all of this? With every passing day we are becoming embroiled in there being an increasing number of civilian non-combatants being killed by NATO weapons. There are still civilian trains and buses in Kosovo with fuel available to move around and they are getting hit.
Ministers repeatedly say, "We are confident in the accuracy of our ordnance and we would not use them unless we were confident". Then, when a munition goes astray, they say that they regret the loss of life, that this is war and that anyway it is all Milosevic's fault; he has deliberately killed far more in Kosovo than NATO has killed by accident. Am I alone in finding this particular spin, which is so sickeningly mirrored by IRA apologies for killing and maiming with their own bombs, unhelpful and unworthy of our Ministers? 'We must find a better way to deal with this situation. A score pad of non-combatant deaths on the one side and on the other is not edifying.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, wrote to a number of noble Lords on 12th March about the Government's goals and the possible outcome al: Rambouillet she stated:
"Belgrade may choose to reject the agreement and/or launch a major offensive, leading to an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe".

837
Please note the use of "and/or". She went on to say that Britain was prepared to take the necessary action to avert that catastrophe. Therefore, not only were the Government aware some two weeks or more before NATO air forces attacked that the catastrophe which we have now seen was going to happen but we now know that our plans to forestall or avert it have been ineffective. The humanitarian catastrophe is still with us two months or more after we had intelligence about it.
The original statement on Kosovo by the Prime Minister said that NATO action would be in the form of air strikes. He stated that it would have the minimum objective of curbing continued Serbian repression in Kosovo in order to avert a humanitarian disaster and it would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship. Sadly, we have not averted that which we feared and expected; the Government and NATO got this very wrong.
What is important now is to look to the future. How do we move forward? We now promise the return home for the displaced. Two points about that promise are of particular importance, as other noble Lords have indicated. What future status do the Government wish to see achieved in Kosovo when the bombing ends? Are we still seeking a semi-autonomous region within Serbia? Are we now looking to a partitioned Kosovo or planning to establish a protected and ultimately independent state? If it were the first, would we be prepared to negotiate with Milosevic and his government in Belgrade? Ministers have veered in their language about Milosevic from talking about degrading his war machine to saying that we are attacking key elements such as television stations which keep him in power.
The second point is this: do we expect to see him still in power, or will it be essential that he is gone before we strike a negotiated future for Kosovo? The lack of political clarity is a weakness in the otherwise robust, if over-ambitious, position which NATO and Her Majesty's Government have adopted about the future for the Kosovars. We lacked clarity about the future for Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War: look where that got us. We should learn the lessons from that.
If we are to persuade displaced Kosovars and presumably Serbs and others who have fled to return to their homes in Kosovo, they too must know their future status and what sort of government they will enjoy. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made some telling points in this regard.
The protection force, while initially essential, is not a lasting answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us about the future status of Kosovo.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I feel inhibited to some extent in the debate by avoiding saying anything that might make more difficult the tasks of the alliance's servicemen now engaged in operations or give the impression that those operations, or future ones, do not have our support. Also, the Government have to
838
preserve secrecy about military operations and intentions, and I would not wish them to reveal anything about military plans or sensitive information that could be helpful to Milosevic.
I was encouraged to take part in the debate because of an association with, and interest in, former Yugoslavia. As a professional diplomat I spent three years in the Foreign Office department dealing with the Balkans, and two of those, 1947–49, were at the Yugoslavia and Albania desk. That was a long time ago, but during that period Tito had his quarrel with the Soviet Union, in June 1948, and we did our best to prevent him and his country from becoming part of the Soviet Empire. He had very bad relations with the United States because of the trigger-happy shooting down of the two American aircraft that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.
I received informal and valuable advice at the time from my friend Fitzroy Maclean, who was then a Member of Parliament.
If one has been engrossed in a country, as I was for two years, one follows its fortunes for years afterwards. It should be remembered that the Soviet army did not occupy Yugoslavia, as it did other eastern European countries. Tito ruled Yugoslavia before and after 1948 with, it must be said, police state methods. That was one way in which he kept together the several disparate parts of Yugoslavia, stretching from Slovenia to Macedonia. I would add that his personality and skill also counted. It was predictable after he died that the components of Yugoslavia would seek to go their separate ways.
For reasons that I have given, I will not criticise the handling of the Kosovo crisis so far. I understand the problems of consulting 18 NATO partners and taking them with us on decisions.
I will comment that, as the Kosovo saga has unfolded, the stages and results of decisions were predictable but that British Ministers seem to have been taken by surprise. I suggest that the Prime Minister missed an opportunity two years ago when he was appointing the Cabinet because he could have made as Foreign Secretary someone who had great experience of foreign affairs and military matters, the noble Lord, Lord Healey. He would have been Foreign Secretary when Tony Crosland died in harness if he had not been indispensable as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, dealing with serious economic problems. Whether he describes himself as old Labour or New Labour, he has been saying very sensible things on television and radio about the Balkan situation now. I remember when he was secretary of the Labour Party International Department, before he entered Parliament, at the time when I was in the Foreign Office's Balkans department; Mr. Ernest Bevin and his Foreign Office Ministers valued his sound advice.
Now I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. I, too, regret the destruction of the transport system and communications in Serbia and Kosovo and the loss of life, made necessary by Milosevic's genocide and ethnic cleansing. Many times more lives have been deliberately ended by

839
his army and police—I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said—the unleashing of brutality, including rape, and the shooting of men of military age.
The wording of my noble friend's amendment speaks of a sanction "either in international law" or,
"by resolution of the United Nations Security Council".
That raises two vital issues of recent times. The first is intervention in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state; and the second is the veto in the Security Council. On the first, paragraph seven of Article 2 of the charter prohibits the intervention of the United Nations in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. If that had been scrupulously observed, the world would have had to stand by helpless and inactive when genocide and appalling atrocities were being committed inside a single country.
A consensus has been forming that those who framed the charter did not intend humanitarian horrors to be perpetrated unchallenged, especially when huge quantities of refugees create problems for neighbouring countries and destabilise a whole region of the world. On the second point—namely, the veto—NATO members would have risked meeting vetoes in the Security Council by Russia and China if they had raised the matter there.
My memory goes back to June 1950 when I was a member of the small British Mission at the United Nations in New York which was called to the emergency meeting of the Security Council on a Sunday morning when North Korea had invaded South Korea on the previous afternoon. By a fortuitous and still unexplained lack of co-ordination, the Soviet Union was absent, boycotting meetings of the council over the issue of Chinese representation. Had a Soviet representative been there, the inevitable veto would have made the UN operation in Korea appear contrary to the charter. The Soviet Union had disintegrated by the time of Kuwait and Russia acquiesced in the action against Saddam Hussein. I wish the present negotiations involving Russia which I understand are taking place today well, and I hope that the shape of a settlement can emerge soon.
We are not now involved in total war as in World War II, but in a limited punitive and liberating expedition. Delicate decisions are needed in these circumstances. Our chief ally, the United States, will have the shadows of Vietnam and Somalia foremost in its mind.
I shall end my remarks with another reminiscence. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, told us that the bombing programme had been curtailed by bad weather, despite all the modern technology. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke about air/army co-operation in World War II. I am still invited to speak at staff colleges and in Normandy on "Operation Epsom" which happened in June 1944, the reason being that the first part of it was successful, even though there were crippling casualties. I am still a survivor of that operation, despite those casualties.
I had to record that during "Operation Epsom" the whole first stage of the offensive was cancelled—namely, the preliminary air bombing in the early
840
morning. It was cancelled because of fog over the airfields in southern England. On two occasions after I had been speaking, senior RAF officers have come up to me and said, "You know, that could still happen today". Indeed, despite all the modern technology, we now find that this has happened. I believe that the Government and the services were absolutely right not to proceed if they could not carry out accurate bombing. So my sympathy goes to the present Chiefs of Staff and those working for them, some of whom may have had to study "Operation Epsom" in past years.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I believe that the Kosovo crisis is an unprecedented catastrophe. I also believe that President Milosevic is solely responsible for it and that the NATO campaign is both honourable in its inception but dangerous in its potential. I further believe that the amendment which has been tabled tonight is misconceived. It is easy to regret bombing, but I believe that the amendment can only lend sustenance to President Milosevic.
Tonight I want to talk about the institutions involved, both in the war and afterwards in building the peace. Yesterday in this House we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe. During lunch yesterday in the Foreign Office, I sat next to the ambassador to Slovakia and the leader of the parliamentary delegation of Slovakia. As noble Lords will know, Slovakia is a small country which has recently been through a happy divorce. Indeed, it is a new member of the Council of Europe.
Both the ambassador and the politician with whom I had lunch were young men. They were both in their early to mid-30s. All their political life they had seen tremendous changes in their own country, spanning the events in 1989 to the huge changes of recent times. The point which they made to me was that what they see as stability is the involvement of the institutions of the West and of the leading countries within those institutions. Of course, the main debate today has been about NATO, but they also aspire to join the European Union; they were members of the OSCE; and they were very proud of their membership of the Council of Europe. However, it was made very clear to me that they looked for leadership to the established countries of the West within those institutions. They looked for firmness and resolve in the action that is currently under way.
It is important that we do not support only the institutions which are currently conducting the war; we should also support the institutions which will be used to build the peace. Perhaps I may repeat a statistic which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, gave to the House yesterday. I have not had time to check the information, but it appears that the annual budget of the Council of Europe—about £104 million—is equivalent to the cost of two hours of the Kosovar war. I found that to be a startling statistic.
The other people whom I had the privilege to meet yesterday were the representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That state wants to join the Council of

841
Europe. It sees its future as lying within the international family. Those people were very proud of their ethnically balanced delegation and were doing their best to ensure that they were meeting the standards set down by international institutions.
Winning the peace is about pulling the Balkans back into the mainstream. I was extremely glad that the Prime Minister spoke about a Balkans "Marshall Plan". Indeed, I believe that to be of immense importance. However, I should like to add one note of caution; namely, the excellent reports made in this House about the lack of effectiveness of both the PHARE and TACIS programmes due to excessive bureaucracy. Nevertheless, it is a very noble and right ambition.
Last Friday in Strasbourg we had a youth parliament of the Council of Europe: 36 nations were represented and 250 young people attended. Those young people insisted on debating Kosovo with passion and commitment. Resolutions were moved by the Russian delegates and by those who might be described as supporting NATO. The vote indicated support for the NATO actions. However, what is much more important than the result of that vote is the fact that almost every single one of the young people made the same point; namely, that their future as young people within a wider Europe lay within the institutions of the family of the Council of Europe and that that was the only future for Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro. That point was reiterated by the two young Kosovo delegates who took part in the debate.
Today we have had a serious debate. I believe that most noble Lords have expressed doubts about what the future holds. However, one question has not been asked. It has not been asked because its consequences are beyond imagination; namely, what happens if NATO fails? It is quite right that that question has not been asked. The consequences are beyond contemplation and it is right that no one has gone down that road.
This debate has been not only about winning the war, but also about winning the peace. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. I have one final point for my noble friend on the Front Bench. We are all talking about the importance of NATO, but many other international institutions must also properly be used to build the peace once the war is over.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the mention of the Council of Europe makes me realise that we have had 50 years of peace in Europe. I rise to speak in the debate today because I have a passionate fear of war. All the troubles and the local difficulties of the past 20 years have begun because of a lack of understanding, foresight and knowledge of what the end-game should or could be.
This is one of those occasions when I feel a ghost passing over my grave. I refer to 1st April 1993. I remember a debate in this House initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in which the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, took part. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, spoke of his experience in a gentlemen's harem in Albania—
842
although I have never come across a female harem in Albania! We talked about Kosovo and the fear of a war and ethnic cleansing. We asked what the then government intended to do about that. They did nothing. I feel a sense of shame that I did not do anything.
I want to try to convey to your Lordships the feelings of people outside this closed shop. I fear the spread of tribalism. I fear the break-up of the Union as tribes fight against tribes in new elections. I am a Scot and I still somehow remember Glencoe. As your Lordships will know well, the original name for Scotland was Albania. That was what first led me to Albania in 1993. I was encouraged to go there by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe who had popped over there to see whether there was any sugar which might be of interest to Tate & Lyle. My noble friend on the Front Bench who spoke earlier may remember that. In his typical fashion my noble friend Lord Jellicoe returned from that trip and patted me on the shoulder. Two years later I noticed that my arm had gone!
I went to Albania to try to help that country because it is a part of Europe. I also went to the Ukraine. Albania and Ukraine are the alpha and the omega of Europe. I wondered where Europe began and where it ended. I was not sure. There was a fear that if we extended the interests of Europe without those institutions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, we would experience the same problems that confronted Fitzroy Maclean in Eastern Approaches. I commend that book to your Lordships.
We in this country are lucky in that we have not been "beaten up" like some people in eastern Europe. We should remember that, in the Ukraine, Stalin wiped out 6 million people by starving them and that 6 million were lost during the war. Albania held out against the Ottoman Empire for 30 years with only 300 people. As I have said on previous occasions, 200 Albanians became top generals in the Ottoman Empire.
Albania is a strange country. I believe that I have been there 20 times. I first went there on a trade mission. I discovered that there was chrome in Albania. By mistake, I obtained support from the Know-How Fund. Her Majesty's Government sent someone from the Department of Trade and Industry down the mines with me. I led a British mining expedition. I also wanted to save a mine in South Crofty, Cornwall. In Albania, everyone has been down a chrome mine. Chrome is, or was, the lifeblood of Albania. As your Lordships know, stainless steel cannot be made without chrome. No country in Europe has any viable reserves of chrome and the last chrome producer in the United States has closed down. Chrome is, however, a strategic material.
I have travelled throughout Albania. Your Lordships may find my next remark rather trite. The Albanians are highly intelligent people. I speak of the whole Albanian race. They have a high level of literacy and a thirst for information. They had experienced problems with their dictator leader who believed that in order to unite a nation you must create fear of the leadership in a totalitarian state. If a leader wants to stay in power, he must create an enemy. The Albanians created an enemy, the United States of America. Black and white television

843
photographs were shown of the Anzio landings and of American troops beating everyone up. This was all part of the propaganda of that time. Some 600,000 bunkers were built in villages, on hillsides and in orchards. They looked like daleks out of "Dr. Who". They were about six feet high. Every Albanian was given a Chinese Kalashnikov which probably did not work. They told me that a baseball bat would be a more effective weapon as they had no ammunition. The weapons were pointed towards the sea to meet any American invasion.
Although the Albanians were a persecuted people, they had a great sense of humour. They had a strange hero in Norman Wisdom. I did not realise this until I went to meet the president one day arid was told that he had gone to the airport to meet a VIP. That VIP turned out to be Norman Wisdom. Norman Wisdom's films were shown throughout Albania and the Albanians identified themselves with that slapstick humour of a door slamming in one's face or slipping on a banana skin. As I say, the Albanians had a sense of humour. They told me that it was always Buggins' turn in Albania. We discussed who Buggins was. When one is swapping whisky for raid in Albania, one has nothing to do but to listen to people's conversation. If noble Lords think that Irish jokes are bad, they should listen to Albanian jokes for 11 hours non-stop.
I asked my Albanian friends about the situation in Kosovo and Macedonia. They said that they both belonged to Albania. The Serbs have now found religion again. They had forgotten it for a long period. Albanians do not necessarily follow the Orthodox or Moslem religions. As the Albanians explained the situation to me, the Serbs want more room and that is why they want all ethnic Albanians to return to Albania. The Serbs tell the Albanians that they want peace and that the Albanians should hand over their weapons.
However, if the Serbs encounter an Albanian who has no weapons, they tell him that they will be back in the morning and that he had better get some weapons. They return and then they search the house; they pull everything out and take what they can. The next time round, they take the women and children out and search them; they strip them, if necessary, in the street. Then, after the pressure mounts, they are given a way out, 30 or 40 kilometres away—and so, with their luggage and with their families, into the buses they go. Half-way down they may stop, and the young men are taken out and never seen again; sometimes they are even shot in public. As the bus gets near the border, some of the young girls are taken out; then all the furniture; and then everything else, even the gold out of people's teeth. This is not me speaking; this is my Albanian friends telling me of the horrors that they were facing years ago. Some of the horrors that we now see on the faces of people as they appear on television are even worse.
These people are from the Balkans; they are tough, they are resilient. There is hope that they will want to return; they will not want to come over here. They even suggested to me at one time, "If you can help us a bit more, we might get back many of the Albanians who have escaped". I said, "What do you mean?" They said,
844
"Those who have gone to Italy. Give us a bit of money and we will get them back. We know where they all are".
Albania is full of information and knowledge. I have received many Albanian delegations over here: they have to go to London, they have to go to various places. I said, "But really you are meant to be seeing our industry". However, when they return to their villages and their families, they describe what they saw. They were starved of knowledge and information for a long period of time. They are now receiving their cousins, families and kinsmen and, with hardly any resources, looking after them. But they have a strange kind of resource.
We must remember what happened to the Chinese in 1978, but they have hydro-electric power. They can make do even under the most incredible difficulties. They can turn seven broken-up cars into a lorry. That is the way they work.
If an Albanian does not have any bread, he will get an old lorry and go off and get some corn from somewhere, which he will swap for something else, come back and set up a bakery. The same man will then go off in the van to see whether he can get some chocolate. If he forgets to look at the weather forecast and all the chocolate melts in the back of the van on the way back, he will use it in the bakery to make chocolate cake. These are strange thoughts. But these people have had a tough time and they are resilient.
In the past, the Serbs have had a tough time; the Balkans have had a tough time. These people will not be quashed by military force. I have listened to young noble Lords and to those who speak about aeroplanes. Aeroplanes are far, far removed from life on the ground in what could become a guerrilla war of immense proportions.
When we were looking at the mines and wondering how we could make the mines more productive—each miner carried up every day only as much as he could put in his pocket; he went into the mines because it was warm—the miners themselves made a suggestion. As they had had their little troubles, there were guns hidden in the mines. They read about the Bill in your Lordships' House and the other place to get rid of handguns and that the Government were prepared to hand over money for them. They suggested to me that they should hand over all the Kalashnikovs—we had a debate about whether they were handguns because they were held in the hand—and asked whether they would then be able to use the money to buy mining equipment.
They are great people from a great nation. We shall not quash anyone in that area by force of arms We know that eight attack-helicopters can take out 100 tanks; that the tanks have a range of 2,000 yards and the helicopters have a range of 3,000 yards. But one might down even a helicopter with a catapult.
When we tried to get rid of the miners, they said, "Please, what did you do when you had your problems in the empire?" I said, "We went out and we built an infrastructure. We built roads, bridges and railways and we raised regiments". They said, "Ah! Why do you not raise a regiment? You can call it the Selsdon Light Foot

845
or, if necessary, the Light Horse, because horses and men on the ground are worth far more than tanks or anything else".
The problem will not be easily ended. The way we are going is possibly the right way to begin—but the people of the Balkans will never be crushed only by force of arms.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I follow the consensus of the debate by supporting NATO's stated war aims. I do so strongly and wholeheartedly; I could not possibly bring myself to support the amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
I object only to the sixth of NATO's aims; namely, that a political framework for the future of Kosovo should be based on the Rambouillet accords. In my view, Rambouillet is now obsolete. Kosovo should be independent in the same way as Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia are independent. Those are the successor states that have emerged since the almost total break-up of a federation that began in 1989 when Mr. Milosevic revoked the autonomy previously enjoyed by Kosovo. Independence is, therefore, the conclusion of a process that Mr. Milosevic precipitated, but yet has throughout violently resisted. He has failed so far and I think that he will fail again. Independence should not be seen as a precedent for ethnic splits throughout the rest of the world but as something which was overlooked at the time of the agreement made at Dayton, Ohio.
Above all, in my view, the partitioning of Kosovo should be resisted. Why should Mr. Milosevic be rewarded for his fourth war in a row? Why should he be given the mines, the power stations and the better land that lie in northern Kosovo? To do so would prevent many Kosovars who are now displaced or refugees returning home.
I come now to the issue of self-defence for the Kosovars. After what they have suffered, I do not think it reasonable or right to deny them the means to defend their families and neighbours. Denial of arms was perhaps right when negotiations were still going on; now, the negotiations have failed. Your Lordships will recall that both the Croats and Bosnians received arms for their own defence once the moment had come. In my view, now is the moment to arm the KLA.
Having said that, I want to look forward to the time after the Kosovars have been enabled to go home—and here I follow the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. Of course, there must be arrangements enabling Serbs to visit their historic sites and revered monasteries in Kosovo. Similarly, Montenegrins must be able to visit Macedonia in safety.
However, far more important is the need to consider the future of south-east Europe as a whole. We need a coherent, democratic plan for the entire region along the lines mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I should like to stop calling the whole region "the Balkans"—a name which refers to a single mountain range in Bulgaria. To my mind, that name has
846
unpleasant overtones of Ottoman, fascist and communist misrule. Instead, let us think of "the south-east of Europe".
Let us now consider communications. As has been mentioned, the Danube bridges will obviously need rebuilding. Not altogether unlike the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, a few years ago I stood on the shores of Lake Ochrid and saw the need to reconnect Turkey with Albania by rail. Indeed, most of the tracks are still in place. Road connections will also be essential. Frontier crossings will have to be made user-friendly. That was my main thought in the early hours of the morning when last year I was travelling by coach from Bulgaria to Moldova via Romania.
Democracy requires an economic base. The region cries out for internal and mutual development, supported by judicious inward investment. Free but regulated trade and markets are essential. They will have to be buttressed by honest civil and police services, providing justice for all.
Some may say that that is a tall order. I reply that if states based on the rule of law are possible in such places as Slovenia, Hungary or Greece, why cannot the same be done throughout the region? Countries such as those I have mentioned on the fringes of the region are beginning to prosper. Their development needs widening, and we have the international organisations to assist the process. The challenge will lie with the OECD, the OSCE, PHARE, and the Council of Europe, which was debated only yesterday in this House. Here I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. Will the Government strive to ensure that all those bodies are adequately funded to meet the likely calls that will be made on them?
Perhaps I may refer to experience gained over the past seven years in Moldova. That country was formerly in the Soviet Union. It experienced a civil war in 1992. In that same year, a cease-fire came into being and has been effectively maintained by a joint peace-keeping force. Russia and the Ukraine acted as mediators, and were soon joined by an OSCE peace mission. Nevertheless, there is still no overall agreement between the two sides, which remain divided. The governments I have just mentioned and the mediators have been assisted by a voluntary partnership between the United Kingdom and a joint Moldovan committee, using both community development and conflict resolution methods. Those means have reached all levels of society in that country and have on occasion helped to "unstick" the official negotiations. There have been good relations between the official and unofficial processes, and some modest movement has been achieved in the direction of conflict resolution. Community development has provided valuable information into the real economic and social situation.
I conclude that that experience could prove useful rather more widely in south-east Europe. It indicates how different methods and tracks can work together, and how the rebuilding of civil society depends on co-operation between governments and NGOs. I trust that these ideas may be helpful to the reconstruction of Kosovo, to the re-integration of Serbia into Europe, and

847
to positive developments throughout the whole region. Written agreements such as we have seen at Oslo, Belfast and Wye River, show that almost infinite, skilled patience and hard work are necessary if full implementation is to follow on from agreement. I suggest that the underlying needs, problems and identity questions will have to be analysed with the participants both before and after any agreements have been reached.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in a powerful conclusion to his speech, my noble friend Lord Gilbert described in graphic terms exactly what is happening to men, women and children. Against that background, the Government were of course right to take action. Their courageous decision deserves support from all of us. Anything that I say this evening is in the context of wanting to see that brave action brought to a successful conclusion.
History will judge everything that is done in terms of how it protects those at risk, how it contributes to viable long-term stability in the region as a whole and how it enables an alternative, decent leadership to emerge in Serb Yugoslavia itself. We have to win the war. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, wisely said, the even greater challenge is to win the peace.
The gravity of the situation demands the language of sober moderation and humanitarian resolve. We may decide that it is necessary to bomb party headquarters and broadcasting centres, but we have to win the battle of ideas, values and integrity. Reason and honesty have to be the underlying disciplines at all times.
As those of us who are concerned about the situation debate this issue today, our thoughts must go out to the hundreds of thousands of displaced people within Kosovo itself. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, in replying, will be able to tell us specifically how all minds are being bent to bring relief and assistance to those people in their plight. I have been told that there is a danger in, for example. parachuting aid to people in such a situation. As we have seen, there are dangers and mistakes in bombing. We are not always totally accurate. I have been told that people might be injured in trying to collect supplies as they are parachuted. But this is a life and death situation for many hundreds of thousands of people. It is important to know how the Government are concentrating on trying to bring relief.
However, no more than will the bombing, will humanitarian assistance alone build a viable future. It is essential to engage the positive commitment of all those with a stake in the future to a convincing political strategy. It must be one that recognises the historical, religious, cultural and ethnic realities of the Balkans as a whole. It will need to involve all of former Yugoslavia, as well as Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, Romania, and more besides. And it will obviously need to involve Russia. The issues are central to her own internal politics and stability. Russia has a vital part to play, not merely as a messenger but as an architect and guarantor of the solution. There are no quick, managerial, easy fixes. The demands on statesmanship and vision are immense.
848
That brings me to the issue of refugees. They present a huge humanitarian challenge. But they present a far greater challenge than one that is humanitarian alone. The dangers of destabilisation are there. I recently visited Macedonia and Albania with a mission from the Council of Europe. I was deeply struck by the reality that in Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro in less than a month there has been more than a 10 per cent increase in population. As has already been asked during this debate, what would happen in this country if, suddenly, between 5 and 6 million people arrived on our doorstep destitute in less than a month. Let us compare the economic well-being of this country with the economic fragility of Albania and Macedonia.
It has been said that it would be psychologically damaging to move refugees too far from their home countries. But that is said by people who have not been to look at the reality. I draw on personal experience as a former director of Oxfam. I have seen many refugee situations in the world, but few worse than this. When you see the plight of the people in this situation. simply to say that to move them might be psychologically damaging is just not to face the reality of the plight in which they presently find themselves.
It has also been said—and this disturbs me more—that to move them might send the wrong message to Milosevic in Belgrade. I become concerned because we could be slipping into the error of reflecting his fault in beginning to use the refugees as a political weapon. These are men, women and children with immediate social needs. We should be concerned with them as human beings.
Meanwhile, the plight of the refugees is appalling. It is difficult to imagine, when the summer heat comes, how they will cope. If they are still there in those conditions in the winter, it will be a tragedy unequalled in recent human history. The dangers of disease are ever-present.
Each day I was there the United Nations High Commission for Refugees issued a checklist of what was being done about the refugees. Imagine how I felt in the presence of other European colleagues on the mission when I saw that on the checklist that recorded movements, scheduled movements and quotas to which countries were committed the only nation to score a blank under all three headings was the United Kingdom.
Of course we are concerned about the closure of the border by Macedonia, but what credibility do we have when we lecture Macedonia on its responsibilities if we do not shoulder our own? For that reason, I am glad that in the past few days the Government have changed their position from an unjustifiably negative reaction to a. highly positive plan as to how we should play our part and more. That is to be welcomed. I hope that this debate will send out a message of encouragement and endorsement of that position and that the Government will have support from all parts of the House in taking that line.
In the meantime, we must recognise that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is barely coping, despite valiant work by its staff, NGOs and the

849
armed services that work closely with it. One of the specific issues that needs to be addressed is registration. Many people are without papers of any kind and there are insufficient arrangements on the ground to ensure that they can be properly registered. UNHCR has an urgent need for more support.
But if our resolve is measured in history by how we respond to the refugee crisis, the Prime Minister is certainly right to recognise that it will also be measured by how we respond to the economic needs of the region as of now and in the post-war period, especially in Kosovo itself, Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. We must also recognise that there will be tremendous challenges in Serb Yugoslavia. Even before these events unemployment in Macedonia stood at 40 per cent. Now Macedonia has lost the markets for her agricultural produce and trade routes out of the country. Surprisingly, few questions have been asked about the expense of the bombing. I hope that we shall see the same Treasury solidarity in building the peace.
Inevitably in this debate reference has been made to a military presence in Kosovo to protect people when they return to their homes and to the need to take the necessary action. In such an operation Russian involvement is indispensable. Whether or not there is UN endorsement is not just a nice theoretical notion; a very important principle is at stake here. It must be demonstrably clear that any military presence in Kosovo is there because of certain universally applicable principles, not just those identified as a priority by any one military-political alliance. That is the importance of UN endorsement.
However, I am a realist. If we do not get that endorsement we shall have to face that situation, but we should strain every sinew to ensure that we obtain it not only for the sake of Kosovo and the region itself but for the future of humanity. What will be the lesson of the future order of world affairs if the message begins to go out that if there is no UN endorsement one can invent one's own authority for taking action in one's own region? I do not believe that that would be a good development for the future of humanity. The United States may not always enjoy the paramount position that it now enjoys. China may become a much more significant nation than it is even now.
Yesterday in the Guardian there was a very interesting article by the Foreign Secretary in which he spoke of two Europes. I was impressed by the theme of his article. As a member of the delegation of the Council of Europe I was glad that he underlined the relevance and significance of that body in this context. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby has rightly taken that as his main theme in the debate.
But we must take a very hard look at ourselves. The credibility of our unqualified condemnation of Milosevic's sinister and evil ethnic cleansing will inevitably be related to the effectiveness with which we combat racism and prejudice in society in the United
850
Kingdom and apply humanitarian principles in asylum and immigration policy. The clear message that must go out is, "Do as we do", not simply, "Do as we say".
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, does the noble Lord equate ethnic cleansing and genocide with immigration control? That is what it sounds like.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl raises that point. Unless it is clear that our guiding principle in immigration and asylum policy is the fulfilment of our humanitarian responsibilities, inevitably the strictures that we may address to other parts of the world are undermined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, concluded with an anecdote. I do likewise. The mission of which I was privileged to be a part went to the border of Albania with Kosovo and visited the impoverished town of Kukãs. The mines had been closed and the local population, which was in a disastrous situation, was dwarfed by the refugee population by seven to one. We were in a little office of the prefect who sought to cope with his team. The rain was pouring and mud was everywhere. In the midst of all this I noticed a television in the corner of the room. Displayed on that television was NATO's daily smart, crisp and clinical briefing of how the technological dimensions of warfare were being pursued. The contrast could not have been greater. If we are serious in our commitment we must keep our eyes on those men, women and children in the mud without shelter, or if they are lucky in flimsy tents, and remember that the heat of the summer and cold of the winter are not many months away.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are at war. That prevents me from asking the questions that I would like to ask for fear of putting our forces at risk. Yet this war is like no other in that so much of it appears to be conducted through (and evidently sometimes, they think, by) the media, who both demand to know more than they have any right to know and are often the first people—not Parliament—to know what our next actions will be and why. Managing the presentation of the facts—a feature of government to which we have become accustomed—extends even to NATO. Mr. Alastair Campbell was sent there to set up a team to show how news should be presented. Fortunately, Mr. Shea, whose style is rather different, seems to have survived.
Russia is emerging from all this smelling like roses. She is the virtuous mediator who wishes to fight the UN corner against a predatory colonialist aggressor, NATO. She is successfully indulging in what the old communists called "splittist" tactics, speaking willingly in the ear of the Germans, Italians, Greeks and the Czech Republic. She has succeeded in securing her IMF loan and the agreement of the Paris Club over her debts, meanwhile seizing the occasion of NATO's "aggression" to delay yet further her accession to the START treaty. Her excuses for that are legion. She also queries her future adherence to the Founding Act.

851
Russia can he sure of having a large contingent in whatever form of force Mr. Milosevic graciously eventually allows to enter the ruins of Kosovo. Who knows? She may end with a treaty with Yugoslavia that gives her the access to the Aegean that she has long sought. Her peace objectives and ours, sadly, do not coincide. Her interest lies in preserving Milosevic and giving him credibility, ours in ensuring that he does not continue as a head of state. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, at the G8 meeting Russia's formula was for a civil and security presence and for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. It does not include, and never has, a military NATO presence capable of protecting those who return—and they will not return without it.
The Russian press knew that Rugova was going to be in Rome because they are expecting Mr. Chernomyrdin to meet him there. Presumably he agreed that with Mr. Milosevic.
I know that what we are trying to do is right. However, I question whether we can take the ineffable President Clinton with us. Without America we cannot, in the end, act effectively. Let us by all means involve Russia. In the long term that is a wise act. But let us not expect that the results will be in favour of our needs.
Russia's long-term threat to NATO is not at present military but political; it is none the less dangerous for that. Moreover the Kosovo campaign, as the Minister indicated, has exposed many weakness in NATO. There are a great many grand front-doors with no house behind them.
Since I am not prepared to offer solutions without having the facts on which to base them, I wish today to address myself to this question. What do the Government intend to do now to strengthen the Armed Forces and ensure that we are able to deal with future unexplained and unforeseen commitments? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, stated this far better than I can, but I intend to say it again.
Whichever way things go, whether we have to invade or are part of an accepted force of peacekeepers, we are committed to maintaining a sizeable presence in Kosovo for an unforeseeable period in what may be dangerous circumstances. We are already committed to what seems to he an entirely open-ended position in Bosnia meanwhile those troops are waiting in Macedonia and our air and sea forces are engaged. There is a considerable logistical commitment, to say nothing of the number of expensive missiles being fired daily.
The Government knew of the Kosovo commitment before the Strategic Defence Review was completed. Their political campaign included threatening military action. They refer to Kosovo as a threat to stability in Europe. Yet the scale of effort defined in paragraphs 88 to 90 of the SDR states clearly that, apart from Northern Ireland, we should be able to respond to one major international crisis on the scale of the Gulf War or two more extended overseas deployments on a much smaller scale. The SDR states:
"We would not however expect … to maintain them simultaneously for longer than 6 months".
I wonder whether that would be true any longer.
852
The SDR recognises that since 1990 defense expenditure has fallen by 23 per cent and our forces have been cut by nearly a third; and that we have faced a series of new and largely unexpected challenges. It recognises that the Armed Forces,
"face serious problems that carry increasing risks'",
and that,
"there are personnel shortages in important areas which, with the high level of operational commitments are creating excessive and unsustainable pressures on many of our people".
That was stated last year. The review acknowledges that the increased operational pressures of the past few years have shown up weaknesses in our ability to sustain forces deployed overseas, particularly where local facilities are limited. That must be true of the present situation. In particular we would face serious difficulty in supporting two substantial operations at once. The pressure on our logistical services has been so great that specialists in key areas have only 14 months between periods of service overseas.
The review states, too, that above all we shall need highly skilled and adaptable personnel. It recognises the disincentive of overstretch as it affects training and retention. If our troops are to be bogged down indefinitely in open-ended peacekeeping commitments, if there is no time for training and more or less permanent separation from families because of roulement difficulties, that, too, will be a strong disincentive to stay in the forces, splendid though their spirit is.
The promise of a 24-month gap between deployments and operations for units seems to have gone by the board. Most of the Kosovo intervention force in Macedonia served in Bosnia the year before. The Government must no longer expect the forces to grit their teeth and manage indefinitely. Families are a powerful force nowadays and there will be rebellion there. It is not good enough for the review to speak of a "Policy for People" and even, rightly, to recognise that,
"it is also vital to the confidence of the forces that the plans are properly resourced";
and then to say,
"the plans set out in the White Paper require substantial investment…The resources needed will come from savings generated from within the review".
Incidentally, paragraph 170 tells us that over the decade efficiency savings have accumulated to over £4 billion annually. I wonder whether the social security budget, which receives 12.4 per cent of GDP, or the health budget, which receives 4.7 per cent, compared with the defence share of 2.7 per cent, due to fall to 2.4 per cent by 2001–02, is required to make such savings. No one would even ask it.
However, the Treasury has not finished with the forces yet. The review states:
"The Ministry has the target of achieving a 3 per cent annual efficiency saving in operating costs over the next 4 years".
The Government cannot have an ethical foreign policy at the expense of our service men and women. I believe that the Ministry and the Armed Forces should stop

853
gritting their teeth and managing somehow—because that is what they have always done—and should start reminding government (and so should we) that.
"strong defence is the essential underpinning of a successful foreign policy".
Those are the Government's words, not mine. We shall find that we no longer have a strong and committed professional army if we do not do something about it.
Money will certainly be found for the new Marshall plan we shall have to have to help finance the reconstruction of the Balkans. That is absolutely right. I strongly support what has been said about Macedonia. But money must be found for the services too. Without them the Government will have neither an effective NATO nor even a common European defence. Money and resources must be found for better conditions of service, better roulement and time for training, and now in order to allow for the placing of defence orders. An awful lot of missiles, with which one has to wage a war, have vanished; they have been used. There needs to be money for the services and plenty of resources. Otherwise I believe that the Government can say goodbye to any hope of retention of one of their best assets—the Armed Forces.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. We on this side of the House have some sympathy with what she said about the dangers of cutting the Armed Forces. The Minister has heard the noble Baroness. Professional chiefs of staff will no doubt advise him when the situation affects our Armed Forces in relation to their operational duties; and I am sure that he will listen to their advice. However, the Motion before us is about Kosovo, so I shall not labour the noble Baroness's point.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for introducing the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord and his department for the material that I and other noble Lords who serve on the House of Lords' Defence Committee have received. I noted the map of Kosovo which show the displaced persons at one glance. I fear that that map is not complete and that the situation will become worse. I hope that the noble Lord and his department will continue with the excellent way in which they have informed us and the general public of what is going on, in so far as they know, without damaging the security of the forces engaged in this operation.
I have heard many interesting speeches today but I should like to draw attention to the outstanding speech of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. Two points arose. First, it is vital that the American Congress, having allowed the President to launch its air force into battle, continues with that to the end. I hope that anyone who has friends and acquaintances among the Congressmen and women will be in contact with them. I shall play my part, as will other noble Lords, when in June we visit Washington as part of your Lordships' Defence Committee. We shall tell them that if the air force and possible ground force operations are not seen through to the end, Europe will lose a great deal of confidence in the Americans.
854
Secondly, we owe another debt to my noble friend Lady Williams. Two weeks ago today she arranged for us to meet, listen to and question in a Committee Room two outstandingly brave Kosovar Albanians who had come from Kosovo. They were Professor Kelmendi, a highly experienced and well respected journalist and broadcaster on Radio 21. She told us how at the outset of the cleansing her radio station was invaded by army and police from Serbia. All the records were destroyed and she was ordered out of the country at gunpoint. She had a car and she drove to the border and escaped. She was one of the lucky ones.
The second speaker was Dr. Dobruna, director of the Centre for the Protection of Women and Children. She told us the most harrowing stories. She was looking after small children and infants in incubators in her intensive care department. She, too, was ordered out at gunpoint.
President Milosevic is responsible for murder. He is a murderer. Those two ladies when questioned were adamant on two points. First, they, like us, were very grateful for what our servicemen, in particular our airmen, are doing to halt the ethnic cleansing. Secondly, after close questioning they informed us that under no circumstances would they return to their homeland, as eventually they must. unless they were protected. I take those points on board. I am grateful to the honourable Member for Weston-Super-Mare, Mr. Cotter, for drawing that point to the attention of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time.
We must take action in three important areas: military, diplomatic and social. First, as regards the military issue, we are told that the Serbs have a great warrior history. Let us be careful. I say with irony and great distaste that the current Serbian army is very good at murdering women and children. I am sure that all noble Lords who, like me, have had the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces know that bullies and cowards have no place in our Army. They do not make good servicemen, especially when the going gets tough in either counter-insurgency campaigns or conventional war. Let us not overrate the Serbian army.
Furthermore, I believe that an international protection force will be needed. We are told that it might not have to fight its way in. I hope that that will be the case. I emphasise the word "international". The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, told us that he sees the need for all the nations of south-east nations of Europe to be brought into our Western institutions. I also note that the Scandinavian countries and the Baltic states have offered to take refugees. I am sure that once they have secured the consent of their parliaments, they will wish to contribute to the international peace-keeping force.
Secondly, as regards the diplomatic aspect, I should like to see the involvement of Russia. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what state the diplomatic contacts with Prime Minister Primakov have reached.
Thirdly, by the "social" aspect, I mean the economic support of the refugees. I am sure that we can do more. In particular, I welcome the constructive suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we consider how to get supplies to the hard-stricken people living in the hills in Kosovo.

855
In conclusion, we must help the Serbian people to rid themselves of this tyrant and his henchmen because they cannot do so themselves. Once that has happened, we must welcome them back into the civilised European and world community. I offer a word of caution, "humiliation". Let us not humiliate the people who have done these dreadful deeds once they have been cleansed of their democratically elected government who have greatly let them down.
I recall two incidents during this century. The first occurred in 1919 in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. Representatives of the four great powers sat down so that the Germans could sign the Treaty of Versailles. Clemenceau, who was the host, said, "Faites entrer les Allemands", in a harsh and brusque voice. It means, "Bring in the Germans". They came in and they felt humiliated. Fifty years later when the Council of Europe was set up, Winston Churchill, then Leader of the Opposition, looked around the seats of the Assembly and asked, "Where are the Germans? 'We need them". I hope that Her Majesty's Government, together with their allies, will say when this dreadful conflict is brought to a halt, "Where are the Serbians? We need them".
7.57 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, in case I should send the wrong message to your Lordships, I beg in by saying that I support everything that has been said about helping the unfortunate refugees. Like every other noble Lord in the House, I deplore ethnic cleansing whether it is against Kosovars, Serbs or anyone else. However, I support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale and should he choose to divide the House I will be in the Lobby with him.
According to the Daily Telegraph, this country has been at war for 43 days. Apart from Statements, this is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate the subject. In my view, that is a grave discourtesy to the I-louse. To my recollection, it is the only war in which this country has been involved when the Government have not allowed full parliamentary debate at the outset. It seems to me and to most of the people to whom I have recently spoken, that the Government are at pains to suppress so far as is possible—though, happily, we still have a free press—all debate on a most sombre sequence of events in the second half of this century. Furthermore, it has not escaped my notice that this debate is taking place on the day of the local elections and elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, which will certainly keep the media busy without bothering about us. The stark fact is that this country and its allies have attacked a sovereign state without a declaration of war and without a mandate from the United Nations.
Almost at the same time as this attack took place, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO membership. NATO was not formed, as the Secretary of State in another place said on 19th April, out of a desire to secure a just settlement in Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. In effect an extremely unjust settlement, whereby the three countries
856
which I have mentioned were consigned to a communist tyranny, was reached before NATO was even thought of.
The point of forming the NATO alliance was to prevent the Soviet Union from further enlarging its empire at the expense of the members of the alliance. It was pre-eminently a defensive alliance and remained so until the attack on Yugoslavia.
It was at this point that the three new members of the alliance were admitted. One wonders what they were supposed to make of it. I have spoken to Polish people both official and unofficial. The official ones, army and navy diplomats, are naturally cautious. The unofficial ones, as Poles tend to, say what they think. To say that they are unhappy with the situation would be an understatement. Indeed that has also been my personal experience in discussing the war with my British friends.
It is not my business to discuss the conduct of the war. There are plenty of ex-field marshals in this House who can and are able to do that. We are obliged to support our Armed Forces who are being presented with an extremely difficult and potentially dangerous situation, with which I do not doubt they will deal with their usual courage and professionalism.
That said, I believe that we in this House and those in another place are perfectly entitled to discuss and criticise the actions of those of our rulers which have led us into this deplorable situation. There is a long and honourable tradition in this country. Charles James Fox is an exemplar of this. He attacked the policies followed by the British Government and its allies consistently throughout the early part of the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
I have supported the actions of successive British Governments which have led this country into conflicts of varying severity, and it is a cause of great sadness to me that I cannot support the present attack on Yugoslavia. I have never before found myself on the same side of an argument of this kind as the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and Lord Kennet; unfortunately, I do now.
There is a bee buzzing in the bonnets of our present rulers. Its origin is in all the talk and legislation about human rights. The general idea seems to me to be that if any national government breaches human rights or has in the past done so, NATO has the right to bomb and attack them. The decision as to whether human rights have been breached rests entirely with the governments who make up the NATO alliance, pre-eminently Britain and the United States. They are prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner rolled into one. International law as we have hitherto understood it no longer applies in these cases. This is the new Brezhnev doctrine writ large. Brezhnev only justified attacks on what he called socialist states whose rulers were considered by Moscow to be guilty of back-sliding.
As we saw, the attack on and occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 gave rise to this convenient document. That operation was bloodless compared to the savage aerial onslaught that we are witnessing today. People in Belgrade and elsewhere, who have nothing to

857
do with the clearances in Kosovo, are being killed, maimed and having their lives and livelihoods ruined by the continuous bombardment of their towns and cities. As we have heard, communications by the Danube are totally disrupted, thus partially cutting off trade between Romania, Bulgaria and central Europe.
Of course, that is not all. All the Balkan states, as we have recently heard, especially Macedonia, have been severely destabilised at a time when their economies are only beginning to recover from the blight of communism. All this massive disruption of human life and the stability of the whole of Europe is being carried out in the supposed interests of humanitarianism.
I have tried to gather together a few facts which have come out of this conflict. It is taking place in an area which is and has been constitutionally unstable for 2,000 years. Had any of those in authority thought about it, an understanding of history might have helped.
Coming to recent events, I must ask a few questions. It is reported that the Foreign Secretary said in January that the KLA had killed more Serbs than the Serbs had killed Albanians. Is this a true reflection of the situation before the bombing started?
Is it true that on 29th April the Foreign Secretary warned Russia that she risked isolation if she continued to support Serbia? If so, what exactly did the right honourable gentleman mean?
Why were the airport and other installations in Podgorica bombed when we were hoping to keep Montenegro on our side? Was the risk to a large number of refugees who had fled to Montenegro taken into account when this operation was planned? Was the further destabilisation of the situation in Montenegro taken into account?
United States Secretary of State Cohen warned that there would be economic and political consequences if Moscow defied the embargo on Serbia. What precisely did he mean by that?
Is it correct that it is said in the annexe to the Rambouillet agreement that NATO personnel would be permitted to enter Yugoslavia from any border—Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia—with machinery, arms, ammunition and men, and, furthermore, that they must be given all assistance from the military and civilian authorities throughout Yugoslavia and would be able to leave their arms in Yugoslav army depots or where they please?
If that is the case, it is, as Mr. Benn in another place said, an ultimatum. It is on a par with the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia in 1914, which I have taken the trouble to read. In fact, it is rather worse than the Austrian ultimatum, and it is not a demand to which, in my opinion, any sovereign state could submit. Have our diplomats and statesmen given this any thought?
Is it true that as long ago as last October the Vice-President of Yugoslavia—I gather a very nasty man— promised that as soon as the first NATO bomb dropped the Albanians would vanish from Kosovo? If that is true, why were we taken by surprise?
858
No one can defend the appalling clearances which have taken place since the bombings started, but they were predicted. I would put in an historical marker here: columns of refugees follow a continental war as night follows day. We only have to remember France in 1940, Poland in 1939 and Belgium in 1914. In 1914 there were many stories about "German frightfulness" which bear a remarkable similarity to what we hear today.
It is in the interests of governments to spread atrocity stories about the enemy, which does not mean that many of them are not true. This is no doubt why NATO is at pains to destroy television transmitters and other media communication within Serbia. In spite of this, we have a fairly good picture of the situation in Serbia under NATO bombing. As we have heard, a train, a bus, and columns of refugees have been bombed. How is it that one bomb went so far astray from its target as to hit Sofia, 50 miles from the Serbian border and in the wrong country? Is that precision bombing?
A columnist called Andrew Roberts in last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Telegraph proposed the dropping of a small nuclear bomb on Serbia. His article was a serious one. I could not believe it. I have to ask Her Majesty's Government to assure the House that there is no intention of carrying out such a deranged policy.
To conclude, bombing Serbia has not succeeded in saving a single Kosovar life or home. Two wrongs do not make a right. It has destabilised the whole of the Balkans and put NATO's credibility at risk. It also runs the risk of war with Russia, which, however slight, is there and whose attempts to defuse the conflict have not, to my mind, at least until quite recently, been treated with the seriousness or courtesy that they deserve.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I know that it is impossible to make an omelette without breaking eggs. The trouble is that the end result may so easily turn into scrambled eggs rather than a neat, tidy omelette. The aim of our omelette-making in NATO is to end the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. My noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall spoke of grandmothers sucking eggs. Some grandmothers are not very good at sucking eggs, and we do not want to end up with egg on our face. Also, the Balkans is not a very lucky place for starting a war. We are all in what we believe to be the civilised part of the world, although sometimes, with nail bombs going off indiscriminately in city centres, good people being shot dead on their own doorsteps and even football fans becoming rather too violent, it is difficult to believe so. But we all suffer when we see on television the sad eyes of old women shielding their bewildered grandchildren as the huge tide of suffering humanity struggles out of Kosovo.
I do not like the pretty euphemism "ethnic cleansing". It refers to killing, murder, torture, atrocity and total barbarism. We all felt that something should be done and I applaud the courage of our Prime Minister and our Government for taking that steadfast action with the rest of NATO. We have struck a blow for decency, democracy and humanity. We could not just stand by and let this horror happen.

859
This situation is not new, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. For six or seven years now, I have been receiving newsletters from Kosovo detailing all the ways in which the very large ethnic Albanian population has been mistreated. It started in a small way—breaking up furniture, requisitioning valuable goods, attacking schoolboys, imprisoning people on trumped-up charges, small acts of violence and discrimination—but it grew. Good and evil are like yeast. They feed on themselves and they grow out of all proportion to the original mixture. When the violence finally erupted, we had to do something.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has kindly sent me a fascinating map listing all the atrocities committed in every town and village in Kosovo in the past two months. It was a horrifying document—and difficult to see the map for all the horrors marked all over it. I am only a little confused about the acronyms for which there is no translation. I imagine that IDP stands for "itinerant displaced persons", but my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley believes it to stand for "interminably displaced people". With VJ, however, we are both totally mystified.
Like all speakers, I very much applaud also all our brave servicemen who are flying sorties constantly over hostile territory or helping with the refugee camps. Our hearts are with all our forces whose courage and dedication is second to none, particularly those of us who have been lucky enough to visit and meet some of the men and women now serving in the Balkans.
I also agree with every single word of my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
We also think much of the suffering refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, wrote in the House magazine most movingly of his personal experiences in the refugee camps in the past two weeks and we listened with much fascination to his speech today.
Your Lordships may have noticed that there was a lack of flowers last week. That was because I was at home in Scotland all week for the AGM of the War Widows Association and 250 of them held their lunch in our home so, as you can imagine, I was busy washing up, cooking, doing flowers and generally organising. It all went well: the weather was perfect, the house was filled with shoals of cold salmon and meringues. The very few Territorials left in the Black Watch lent us chairs and tables, cutlery and crockery and also produced a splendid piper. When he came down from piping on the battlements, he piped and posed with all the ladies in the garden. Mr. Soutar of Stagecoach lent us his real stagecoach, called the "High Flyer", which used to ply from Leeds to York, drawn by four matching Gelderlanders. All the ladies had rides in it and on top, trotting through the blossom and daffodils with the post-horn playing a fanfare.
But war widows, from all wars and of all ages, are ladies who have lost the most important person in their whole life. They have lived with grief and have come out the other side. They all know what it is like. One lady was in tears, thinking of her grandson, a captain in the Territorials, who might possibly have to be sent out
860
to Kosovo. They all felt as I do that we have done what we set out to do. We have shown steel and courage and a concern for the refugees and for the battered and bewildered people of Kosovo.
Now we must concentrate our efforts on feeding and housing the refugees. Perhaps with the sanctions and more diplomatic initiatives, we shall be able to sort out the mess that Slobodan Milosevic has made. We shall have to send in a ground force to keep the peace and to help people to go back and to try to rebuild their homes and their lives. But we must draw back from a total offensive with no end in sight. We are, after all, the peacemakers who should inherit the earth. We do not want any more war widows.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale rose to move as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert
("; but regrets that bomb attacks on the sovereign state of Yugoslavia have resulted in killing and maiming of civilians as well as damage to the economy of Eastern Europe through blockage of the Danube. without clear sanction either in international law or by resolution of the United Nations Security Council.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the hidden cabal of the usual channels having denied me the opportunity of moving my amendment earlier in the debate, I must repeat it and beg to move it now. The amendment was correctly tabled yesterday and was being discussed in the Lobbies last night but, as speaker No.24, it is rather late now for me to start again.
So at this late hour, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by reading out at length important quotations from the European edition of the Christian Science Monitor dated 3rd May. They draw attention to economic damage suffered by Croatia and Slovenia in their tourist trade and the effect, by the destruction of bridges over the Danube, of blocking traffic on Eastern Europe's longest waterway which is hurting trade in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.
The Monitor quotes European bankers as saying that apart from damage to the economies of Albania and Hungary, the impact on the economy of the Soviet Union has been considerable and its ramifications have been felt even throughout Belarus, the Ukraine and central Asia—Kazakhstan, Turkestan and other countries.
What is not clearly understood today is that the Serbs who in the past few years have been living in. Kosovo were transferred there, having been driven out of the Krajina area of Croatia by the American-trained Croatian Moslem Army where they were exposed to just the same humiliations and mistreatment as is now laid to their charge in Kosovo. That does not excuse their behaviour but it may help to explain it.
What do the sanctions on Serbia mean? According to a report of the Prime Minister's speech to the Romanian Parliament a few days ago, the NATO aim is to "beat them into the ground".
What about some of the implications of this? When electricity is cut off in Belgrade, for example, what about the hospitals and operating theatres, which are immediately halted? What about new born-babies needing immediate incubation when in the middle of the

861
night all electricity is stopped? That is not a civilised weapon of war; it is a disgraceful aspect of aerial bombardment. What about depriving hospitals and private users of pumped water supplies? If electricity is cut off, water is cut off. That, too, is not a humane arm of warfare. It may be effective in destruction terms, but it does not go well with the high-minded sentiments of sympathy that we have been hearing today and elsewhere about the wickedness of the Serbs and the loveliness of the Albanian people.
One of the many muddles in this dreadful story is talk of a sea-based oil embargo. No doubt the Minister in winding up will explain what is meant by it. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that the oil embargo project was now being "examined". How on earth can one by sea stop oil going from Ploesti in Romania overland to Pancevo? There is no sea route; it is land all the way. Blocking Salonica does not stop oil going from Romania. If the idea is to block Salonica, does that need the goodwill and consent of Greece, whose port it is?
What about some of the other things that have been going on? I have to thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for a letter that she kindly wrote to me about the legality of all this. She wrote to me on 16th April and placed a copy of her letter in the Library, so I take it that I am free to quote it here. I had asked—as reported at col.644 of the Official Report of 13th April—what was the legal basis for military action against Yugoslavia. The noble Baroness wrote:
"I replied that, in exceptional circumstances, the use of force was justifiable when that was the only means to avert a humanitarian disaster. However, I mistakenly gave the impression that this [new] basis was also set out in a United Nations' resolution. It is not. But the force being used on the grounds of humanitarian necessity is in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council".
That is very different from having a direct mandate from the United Nations. I must thank the noble Baroness for her letter to me. As I have said, I hope that as she said that she would put a copy in the Library I have not breached any confidence in reading it out.
When we last had a debate, on 25th March, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, promised to write to me about targets attacked and any collateral damage in Novi Sad. Today, three weeks later, I received a letter, not from him but from his secretary. I am grateful to have even that. He said that his office did not have any information about collateral damage at Novi Sad. Perhaps I may I stress to his office that if it does not have information of its own it might find it worthwhile to listen to Radio Cologne, which, after all, is a NATO broadcasting station. Every night it broadcasts details of damage done in Yugoslavia. The Radio Cologne list of damage is not the same as the official TANJUG list; this is a list from NATO sources. The noble Lord's office might find it worthwhile to tune in to Radio Cologne to learn what is going on, if it does not know from its own sources.
Collateral damage is a tricky subject. I refer your Lordships to yesterday's edition of The Times, where a headline reads:
"Allies risk crimes tribunal over civilians".
The article under that headline reads:
"NATO risks investigation by the international war crimes tribunal if its bombing attacks are found to have caused unnecessary civilian deaths or injuries. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights"
the former President of Ireland
"in a direct reference to recent attacks on bridges, water supplies and electricity stations, said yesterday that more should be done to avoid such casualties.
"'It is a very important principle that if civilian casualties can be avoided they obviously must be avoided' she said on a visit to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. … if it is not possible to ascertain that there are civilian buses on bridges, should bridges he blown in those circumstances?".
"Her questioning of the legality of the bombings echoed her remarks to the closing session of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva last week. She said: 'These are very important questions because people are not collateral damage, they are people who are killed, injured and whose lives are destroyed, and we are very concerned about the way in which civilians are so much in the forefront of modern warfare.'"
What about the astonishing bungling of the NATO operations? The noble Lord referred obliquely to General Klaus Naumann's comments as retiring chairman of the NATO military committee. He is reported in Monday's edition of The Times to have said:
"the air war was now working, but Serbia could still achieve its aim of mass deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo."
The Times reported that he
"gave his unvarnished account of the campaign on the eve of his retirement this week."
NATO had previously reported only engine failure as a cause of aircraft losses. The quotation from General Naumann continues:
"quite frankly and honestly, we did not succeed in our official attempt to coerce [President] Milosevic through air strikes to accept our demands. Nor did we succeed in preventing Yugoslavia pursuing its campaign of ethnic separation and expulsions."
I wish to draw the noble Lord's attention to that passage in The Times, which he might have overlooked.
My final quotation is from the Daily Telegraph:
"'Blitz spirit' is boosting Milosevic, US admits".
These quotations, idle and scattered as they are, do little to bolster the Government's claim to be conducting a satisfactory campaign. But, with our service men engaged and having been unable to deploy my arguments at an earlier stage in the debate, I will, when the time comes, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert
("; but regrets that bomb attacks on the sovereign state of Yugoslavia have resulted in killing and maiming of civilians as well as damage to the economy of Eastern Europe through blockage of the Danube, without clear sanction either in international law or by resolution of the United Nations Security Council."). —(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
8.29 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Earl will not feel it appropriate to press his amendment to a Division as I do not feel that this is a suitable occasion on which to do so. Nevertheless, if he were to, I should feel it necessary to follow him into the Lobby. I take a similar view to that which he has expressed and which has been expressed latterly in the debate on all sides of the House.

863
I begin by reading a letter sent to me by a friend who has been in communication with Belgrade. It is from a Mr. P. R. Adzic, of the VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Laboratory of Physics, in Belgrade. It reads as follows:
"Something which we feared that might happen, seems very likely. I can confirm now we expect that NATO planes will bomb VINCA Institute. In the passed several days we received this warning, but today we got this information as serious threat from the highest authority. Our reactor is not working for more than 15 years, hut the significant amount of 235-U enriched and unused fuel is still in its interior. Highly radioactive material for everyday activities is also located in several research laboratories. I fear that a big disaster may occur. In the worst case, no Balkan and even European country would be safe. Not to mention ecological catastrophe. I still hope that this disaster could he avoided, unless we are already late. I would appreciate if you succeed in informing as many people as possible on the eventual tragedy. God bless you".
I sent a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who opened our debate. I am not sure whether he has passed it on to my noble friend who will answer the debate. If so, she will refer to it. If not, I hope that she will ask him about it and request him to investigate whether it is a serious threat or whether it is no more than an attempt to avoid the bombing that they fear. I considered it sufficiently authentic to send it to my noble friend and to mention it tonight.
As I have said, I am of the same view in this matter as the noble Earl who has said that he will withdraw his amendment. That position is not unique. It is not just the fact that some of us feel that the whole operation is a mistake; this is an issue on which there is a variety of opinions. There are those who feel that, and others who feel that it has gone wrong in the middle and some who believe that it has gone correctly all along. I take the view that this operation was an error and illegal from the beginning. I believe that it should never have been embarked upon.
There are ways other than war. War cures nothing. There are methods, short of war, by which pressure can be brought to bear upon governments without resorting to a cure that is worse than the disease. That is not to say that one is immune from pity. However, one has to evaluate whether going to war is worse than the existing situation. One cannot attempt to cure by inflicting something even worse on the patient.
Perhaps I may inject a personal note. There is a point at which one has to decide what will be done as a war comes to its end. I have some personal experience of that, having been posted to Burma towards the end of the Second World War. I was due to join an operation, which by that time had reached Rangoon. By the time I arrived in Rangoon, the bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and there were no more operations in which to take part, so I was seconded to the civil affairs government of Burma, the British temporary government before we handed over to the Burmese. Hence, I have some experience of the complications and difficulties of such a situation, particularly as in Burma there were tribal or international difficulties such as we encounter in the Balkans. The Serbs and the Croats are in a similar position to that of the Burmese and the other nationalities surrounding the Burmese borders.
864
That kind of complication often exists when a war comes to its close. The winning party has to deal with it. We messed it up in Burma, although not deliberately. We were not quick enough. By the time Lord Mountbatten got to work, he shared my view that the only man worth talking to in Burma at that time was Aung San. The old hands who had returned to Burma wanted to talk to the people who were there before they left and. quite frankly, they were no good at all. Prime Minister Attlee came to share that view, but by the time we got around to it, it was too late. I am not saying that if we had acted quicker the murder of Aung San could have been avoided, but if it had been avoided the history of Burma, lamentable though it has been since, would have been quite different.
These are crucial times, when actions taken affect the future history of the country. Whether it is true or not, I am not certain, but it can be said that because we did not get around to recognising and establishing Aung San at an earlier date—sharing the opposition view which he regarded as fascist—the murder took place and that changed the situation. Several experts on Burma—more expert than I shall ever be—took the view that the history of Burma was altered by that tragic act.
I mention that in passing to show that I am not unaware of the difficulties that will face the former Yugoslavia as and when this matter comes to a quick conclusion. The quicker, the better, as far as I am concerned.
In this age of new weapons, as the matter to which I have just referred emphasises, we must learn that war is no longer an adventure or a cure for anything. We must be patient and use methods other than those of warfare if we want matters to be brought to a conclusion with which we can live in the future. If we do not learn to eliminate war, war will eliminate us. Weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical or biological—will make our world uninhabitable by mammals. As I said, if we do not eliminate war, war will eliminate us.
The present conflict is, of course, illegal. It was started by a non-European state—the great and only superpower—chiefly supported by its main satrap, the Labour Government of the United Kingdom, who can and did start a war without consulting Parliament.
My old friend Robin, our Foreign Secretary, knew that to be legal wars need the unanimous support of the Security Council. To do him justice he tried very hard to secure that support. Only when he failed did he decide that a majority, backed by earlier unanimities, would have to do. He decided that if all those joining in the conflict agreed to it and said it was legal, it became legal. But of course it did not—and it remains illegal.
Even if that point was arguable, the way in which the: war has been fought has become hopelessly illegal. The question of whether or not the war was legal was raised a little earlier in the debate. I recommend that noble Lords read the Rambouillet agreement and the Geneva conventions. Those who are interested will be able to obtain copies of the Rambouillet agreement from the Library, but I understand that Appendix B is not always included. It is important to ensure that it is attached because it is an incredible document.

865
Appendix B led me to the conclusion—a conclusion I believe to be inevitable—that the agreement is not an agreement at all and was never intended to be one; it was an excuse to go to war. No government could conceivably have accepted the conditions laid down in Appendix B and elsewhere in the document relating to NATO's powers when occupying the country after the war. The agreement insisted that NATO could occupy the whole country; it could utilise all the machinery of the country; it could travel anywhere in the country without payment; it could use the radio and television and must not be questioned. All that is laid down as a condition of agreement. Needless to say there was no agreement. No sane person would ever sign such a document. I came to the conclusion that it was never intended that it should be signed; it was an excuse to go to war. Noble Lords may disagree with that view, but if they read the document they may come to the conclusion that there is at least a possibility that I am right.
Once we started the war, we got into a situation of making it more illegal. We had signed the Geneva conventions. When we accept a convention in this country, we do not just accept it like some do and do nothing about it; we incorporate it in an Act of Parliament. I am holding a copy of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995. Under that Act what we are now doing in Yugoslavia is illegal and must not be done. So we are breaking not only the Geneva conventions, but also our law which implements those conventions. We are therefore doubly guilty of breaking the law and the war is doubly illegal.
The Geneva conventions are not only international; they are also part of our own law. We introduced Acts of Parliament such as the 1995 Act to ratify the conventions and in doing so we agreed not to do exactly what we are now doing and admit doing. The only lip service we pay to the law is that we call the civilian economic structure we agreed not to attack—the bridges, radio and television stations, oil refineries, car factories and so forth—part of the military apparatus. Frankly, the Geneva conventions would not permit any such nonsense because they say quite clearly that if there is any doubt in any matter, one assumes that the target is civilian and not military. That is entirely opposite to the assumption that we make in carrying out our operations in Serbia.
We are also killing and maiming civilians, including women and children. In the places we are bombing there are usually more women and children around because the men are more often out at work. Our Secretary of State for Defence has at last admitted that, but of course said it was accidental. It is not accidental; it is incidental; it is consequential, which means deliberate and intended. In short, it is murder.
It is said that we will go on as we are—that is, burning to death more and more babies, blinding, maiming and killing people as well as destroying the structure in which they live, all of which is illegal—until Milosevic gives in. But what can the people of Yugoslavia do about that? Pressure is not being brought to bear upon the people who are responsible; it is being brought to bear, by and large, upon the people who are
866
not part of the governmental machine. It is no wonder that they are not quite sure what our eventual aim is. I can see noble Lords on the Front Bench becoming restive; it is perhaps time that I sat down, and I shall. Are we saying that the innocent are to suffer until the guilty become good? A distinguished Conservative Peer described it to me in one word: madness. Let us stop it as soon as we can.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, a short time ago, in his interesting speech which certainly merits careful reply, my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton reminded the House that this is the first debate that we have had on this subject since these hideous events began.
I agree very much with him that that is a poor show, and I put down a marker that I should expect another debate before too long on this topic, because this is not the right moment to engage in any detailed analysis or to pass judgment upon what has been taking place.
I was encouraged by the article which appeared in The Times today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I very much agree with his view that the campaign by NATO against strategic and military targets in Serbia is fully justified.
There have been doubts expressed about NATO action, and they are due in large part to the wrong signals having been given at the outset. In his powerful speech my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded the House that NATO's declared objective was to avert a major humanitarian catastrophe. For very good reason, that quickly won popular support in most NATO countries; there was a groundswell of revulsion. It was that, I believe, which enabled the alliance to keep together. The public reaction was understandable and creditable. No one could have ignored the scenes of human misery, suffering and degradation that were daily projected into our homes. However, we should take heed that media-led decisions are an inadequate replacement for measured judgment and clarity of purpose.
NATO duly responded, but initially not very decisively. The bombing began almost half-heartedly. The trumpet gave an uncertain sound. Evidently, NATO hoped that by demonstrating a willingness to bomb, and by inflicting a degree of damage, Milosevic would be brought back to the negotiating table. But I have to ask: on what evidence? It is certainly not by the example of his previous conduct.
There was a grave miscalculation and one that ignored the lessons of history. Far from crumbling, as we know, in the event the very reverse happened. With a cold-blooded ruthlessness that is impossible for us to understand, the regime in Belgrade scaled up its campaign against the Kosovars, showing a total contempt for life and bringing about a massive humanitarian catastrophe which it had been NATO's publicly declared aim to avert. This has hurt NATO's credibility, and some responsibility for that must lie directly with the Prime Minister and with other leaders in the alliance who have presented the case for bombing solely in the context of the unfolding humanitarian disaster.

867
I do not in any way discount the patience and persistence of the negotiators at Rambouillet, but the tactics seem to have been flawed in this respect: they failed to secure Russia's commitment to compel Milosevic to stop his dreadful deeds against the Kosovars. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us, Russia had, and still has, great influence over Serbia.
At the end of the Cold War much effort was made to bring Russia into a closer relationship with the West to allay Russia's fears about any possible threat to her boundaries. NATO brought Russia more closely into partnership.
What has happened to the concept of partnership for peace? During the course of the tragic events in Kosovo, of what value has been the founding Act of May 1997 which was designed to promote better co-operation, harmony and understanding between NATO and Russia? Instead of co-operation it seems that Russia gave moral and practical assistance to Milosevic and then threatened to frustrate the more effective prosecution of the war by NATO.
Although Russia is now more directly involved in the search for a solution, towards which the GA meeting could certainly be helpful, the differences that have arisen should never have been allowed to fester. The real underlying purpose of NATO surely should be, and one hopes is, to ensure that the evil being unleashed by Milosevic does not precipitate a wider conflict which could engulf other countries in the region. That always was, and to some extent still is, a very real threat. If nothing had been done, it could have led to NATO member nations opposing each other with the almost direct, inevitable involvement of Russia as well. The consequent disruption would have been far more severe and extensive than anything we have seen so far. The ultimate result would have been the re-opening of old divisions in Europe, the destabilisation of the newly emerging democracies and the collapse of the credibility of NATO as a force for peace. The true justification and purpose, in my view, of NATO's actions is to prevent just such a disaster. It is for that objective that the alliance nations must continue to work together.
Our immediate short-term goal has been made clear and has often been re-stated by Ministers: it is for all Serb forces of repression to be withdrawn from Kosovo and for a credible international protection force to be put in place so that those refugees who wish to will feel safe to return to their country.
In the longer term it is in the interests of every member country and of Russia that NATO is seen to prevail. A strong NATO spells stability in Europe. For that to happen, those who have taken the lead in the military campaign must maintain control over the ensuing diplomatic processes. I think we are entitled to seek assurances from Ministers that there will be no weakening; that they will show no irresolution at this time. In the event that any settlement might be brokered, there must be a strong NATO military presence. To agree to anything less would be a betrayal of our fighting services who, despite the politically imposed handicaps under which they have had to operate, have
868
carried out their task with the professionalism and dedication that we have come to expect. The British servicemen in particular have earned our admiration and respect. We will be letting them down and failing to achieve NATO's objectives unless we can be sure that any peace settlement secures the dispersal for all time of the monstrous Milosevic terror machine.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, a number of different opinions have been expressed in the debate. The ones with which I felt most in sympathy were those of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. A view that is shared by all noble Lords is that the problem of how to handle the Balkan imbroglio since the break-up of Yugoslavia has been one of exceptional difficulty. It has seldom been obvious what not to do and it remains very difficult to decide on the right thing to do. It is, however, clear that many noble Lords of different political affiliations are unhappy about what has happened. They are greatly distressed about the present situation and are deeply apprehensive about the future.
I do not wish to spend too much time crying over the spilt milk of the past, but I believe that there were two major errors which have been influential in leading to the present situation. The first was to recognise Bosnia Herzegovina as an independent sovereign state, although it met none of the criteria normally applied for such recognition. That almost inevitably led to intervention, step by step, until it culminated in the Dayton Agreement brought about under military pressure. Anyone who thinks that that agreement will last once SFOR is removed—whenever that may be—and that Bosnia will then remain a single sovereign state, viable in every respect, is, in my view, living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
NATO's air action, which its supporters believed led to that agreement, was the second major error. It persuaded some of the policy-makers, especially in the United States, to see it, or the threat of it, as the answer to the major Balkan problem—Milosevic's determination to create a greater Serbia, free of other ethnic elements. Of course, everyone rightly felt that something had to be done to try to stop him being beastly to the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo and from planning an even more beastly fate for them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, said. it was a major error of politico-military judgment to think that that threat, or, if it failed, its implementation, would quickly lead to his capitulation. It would be interesting to know what advice our embassy in Belgrade gave about his likely reaction.
So what should be done, or not done, now? It is clear that the Government believe that continuing and intensifying air strikes will result either in persuading Milosevic to accept NATO's five conditions or in his removal and replacement by some other Serb political figure who will accept and implement them. Many speakers seem to believe that that will happen, but at present it seems to me to be only a slender hope. To a large degree, hope must rest on the diplomatic mediation of Russia, and, if that is to succeed, the alliance, I am

869
sorry to say, may have to modify its insistence, expressed in paragraph 4 of the summit meeting press release of 23rd April, that,
"There can be no compromise on these conditions".
However, if we assume that, whatever route is taken, somehow or other most of the refugees return to most of Kosovo, what then? That same statement talks about,
"an international provisional administration of Kosovo under which its people can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia",
secured by an international force, of which NATO forces would form the core. I believe that much greater thought is needed about what form this should take. For example, to cite only one problem: what law should operate and who would enforce it? I believe that no British forces should be committed to it until it is much clearer than it is now what its functions would be and how it would operate. But whatever form it takes, it is likely to be there for a very long time. I hope that the Government can give the House an assurance that on no account will we contribute to a force which attempts to force its way into Kosovo and maintain itself there against the active military opposition of the Serbian forces. That could lead to a situation like that hinted at to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, which the Russians faced in Afghanistan.
Intervention in the Balkans is gradually creating a quasi-imperialism, a sort of NATO empire, there. Empires in the past, however much resented, have at times been beneficial in creating a form of regional peace; but they have depended on the authority exercised by a sovereign power. An alliance of 19 members, which intends to increase its numbers further, cannot effectively do that. The North Atlantic Alliance must not go down that road.
Finally, I strongly support the views expressed by my noble and gallant friends Lord Bramall and Lord Inge that the Government must be careful, by giving way to popular and media pressure or to the pressure of allies, not to over-commit our forces. They must tailor their commitments, which still include a sizeable one in Northern Ireland, to the cloth which they have themselves cut.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I ventured to speak in this debate because I found that the developing affairs in Kosovo touched me in a number of unusual ways. One of my four boys is a financial journalist in Sofia in Bulgaria. His job is to explore financial opportunities for people from the West to invest in. There are a number of extremely bright people, headed by a Bulgarian ex-patriate from America, who have been beavering away for a long time.
When Bulgaria escaped from the clutches of the Soviet Union, there was a colossal feeling of optimism there. The crisis in Bosnia, and now in Kosovo, has cut off its trade with the West. When I was there a year ago, I found that there was beginning to be a
870
feeling of despair. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, say that Yugoslavia has been reduced to the state of 1945. It strikes me that much of Bulgaria is still in the state of 1945.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, answered a Question earlier today, she said that the European Community was looking forward to the moment when the democratic systems in Bulgaria will enable it to be welcomed into the European Union. I think that it is the other way round. We have been responsible for impeding Bulgaria's progress by this war, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The Bulgarians are innocent parties. I think that we should compensate them for this; indeed, they have never been compensated for Bosnia. We should take an active interest in their financial affairs. Otherwise I think their politics will go wrong and they will never be in a position to join the European Community or anything else.
My journalist son visited Kosovo between a year and 18 months ago. Travelling on a bus among ethnic Albanians he made a derogatory remark about the Serbs, only to be turned on by its occupants and told that, on the contrary, the Serbian police were the only people to protect them from the activities of the KLA. In civil wars there is seldom a clear-cut line between right and wrong.
My youngest son is newly commissioned in the Coldstream Guards and may well find himself involved in this conflict. Members of my family have served their country as soldiers over many generations; at least three were at the Battle of Waterloo. We understand the sayings, "Theirs is not to reason why", and, "My country right or wrong". It is only afterwards that the debate should begin on whether the cause which induced the politicians to commit them to the field was sufficient and what made the sacrifice inevitable. History delivers its verdict. But those of us who are closely involved in this affair have the right to feel that the Government have a strategy. But I was far from convinced of that fact when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I endorse the views expressed by noble and gallant Lords who emphasised the point I have just made; otherwise, you will not keep the support of the people for the war.
When you hear the recording of the haunting voice of Chamberlain declaring in 1939 that, "We are, therefore, now in a state of war with Germany", it is possible to understand the impulse that made thousands of people flock to the colours and the sensations that my father and his generation must have felt when they opened the brown envelopes recalling them to their regiments. Nowadays we go to war with less emotion.
I heard that we were at war with Serbia on my short-wave radio in Zimbabwe where I visited the farm that I jointly own. It was a simple announcement that targets in Serbia had been attacked by NATO missiles. Zimbabwe was an interesting place to hear that announcement because a major topic of the conversation there concerns its own war. It too is fighting a war which, with no viable parliamentary

871
opposition, the country has never been given the opportunity to approve or disapprove. The war is in the Congo. It is a civil war in a sovereign state between rival tribal factions, neither of which has any claim to humanity, trying to wrest the government of a benighted country away from each other. Zimbabwe shares no common boundary with the Congo but they are both in Africa and the war is causing unbelievable cruelties.
As Zimbabwe does not have the US as an ally, it is fighting on the ground—no cruise missiles or laser guided weapons for it. The country has no money and the war is unpopular with the people. To save money and to keep the number of casualties from the public view, it is alleged that the war dead are decapitated and only their heads are returned to the families from which they came.
This horrific and unnecessary involvement of a poor country with an unpopular and undemocratic government in a battle which should be none of its business has, quite rightly, been condemned by the international community and Zimbabwe finds itself with all sources of aid cut off and the support of the IMF withdrawn.
Of course I fully understand that Africa is not Europe, with all the politically incorrect sentiments that such a statement assumes; that NATO, supported by the United States, is rich and powerful, while Zimbabwe is a struggling third world country; and that President Clinton and the Prime Minister are not President Mugabe. Kosovo is a war where we are promised that a moral right can be enforced by technical might and there will be no grieving at home. But is not that where the difference ends? Who is the pot and who the kettle in these similar affairs across the continents of the world? What precedents are we setting? We need to be able to distinguish our actions on a better basis than just who we are if there is not to be anarchy in the world.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I shall try not to be repetitive, particularly at this late hour. I have agreed with many comments that have been made today, in particular with everything that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said and also with much of what the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, have said.
With John Austin MP, I am the co-chair of the newly registered all-party parliamentary group on Kosovo. We of course welcome new members. I entirely support what the Government have done in this matter. NATO military action is the regrettable result of the refusal by Milosevic to sign up to the Contact Group's peace proposals at Rambouillet, and it will stop when he complies with NATO demands. The responsibility for the outbreak of war lies entirely with Belgrade. NATO action did not provoke Milosevic; it just showed him up as a war criminal. It was not NATO air raids that triggered the wave of refugees but violence by Serbian forces. That has been attested to by the refugees, whom surely we should believe. NATO has acted to protect the rights of people. It has not acted over claims to
872
territory or to resources; this is not a militaristic or imperialist adventure. The unity and political leadership shown by NATO has been impressive.
International law is in evolution but it does provide for action on humanitarian grounds. I am persuaded by the arguments of Professor Christopher Greenwood, Professor of International Law at the LSE. He says,
"Nato is not asking the world to accept its own assessment of the humanitarian situation. It is acting not in a legal vacuum but to address a humanitarian disaster"—
created by the Yugoslav government—
"which the Council has characterised as a threat to international peace".
So, although there has not been a specific resolution authorising the use of force, there have been resolutions by the Council characterising the situation in Kosovo as a threat to international peace.
When I make comments under three headings—how to deal with the refugees; how to end the crisis and get people back into Kosovo; the future and how to prevent a repetition—I will not be trying to score political points. I will be trying to express some concerns, drawing some lessons and perhaps urging the Government to carry through with the best of what they have done so far, and to be consistent.
Perhaps I may pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and speak in the same spirit, about the refugees. It must be admitted that we were not prepared to deal with the scale of the humanitarian disaster which has occurred. The UNHCR is under-funded. The figures I have seen show that the UNHCR launched its first appeal for contributions specifically for Kosovo on 1st April; the appeal was repeated on the 6th and 22nd April. As at the 29th April, a week ago, of the 275 million dollars that the UNHCR requested, member states have so far promised to contribute only 105 million dollars. It is obviously of prime importance that further assistance be speedily given. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in the months to come to review the way in which the UNHCR functions and the further resources which are needed to enable it to fulfil its task as the lead agency in major refugee situations.
I will not repeat what others, and particularly my noble friend Lady Williams, have said about the need for urgency in airlifting refugees out of Macedonia. We may be talking about several hundred thousands. I will also not repeat what others have said about the 10 per cent increase in the populations of Macedonia and Albania that the refugee influx has created. It might help to understand the situation by imagining that that 10 per cent would represent an increase of five to six million in the population of the United Kingdom or eight to ten million in the population of Germany. Albania's generosity must be recognised.
It is obvious that the Immigration and Asylum Bill currently passing through Parliament—and here I am being more explicit than the noble Lord, Lord Judd, although I think he was hinting at it—is totally inconsistent with the current response to the plight of the Kosovan refugees. The Government are now acting to receive probably thousands of refugees; local communities and councils are being generous. Perhaps

873
I may refer to a letter from my colleague, the deputy leader of Liverpool City Council, Councillor Richard Kemp, who, a couple of days ago, said:
"Since Liverpool Council informed the public three weeks ago that we would be helping asylum seekers and refugees from Kosovo, we have been inundated with offers of help from local people…A multi-agency steering group has been established with support from more than 30 organisations…If a relatively poor city like Liverpool can open its heart and its homes to asylum seekers and refugees then so can and should the rest of the country. Perhaps where Liverpool leads today the government and other cities will follow tomorrow."
What we are setting up is (as I hope) a Rolls-Royce welcome for the early Kosovar refugees, but perhaps a rickshaw for the others. Refugee organisations in this country are concerned that two parallel systems will operate, with Kosovar refugees being placed in reception centres while asylum seekers, even Kosovars who come clandestinely in lorries, or, let us say, those from Sierra Leone, will have to survive on vouchers and £1 a day. Indeed, the carriers of those who come in lorries will be fined if caught.
I believe that the citizens of Britain understand what a real refugee crisis is, and that we have a responsibility to take our fair share of refugees. I hope that that will track through to the Government, and that they will perhaps reconsider the situation as regards the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place that the exceptional leave to remain being granted to the earliest refugees provides a passport into the normal benefits system and the right to work, but Kosovars who arrive in Britain by their own means will continue to be able to apply for asylum in the normal way. I am afraid that we are setting up what a colleague of mine has called a Jekyll and Hyde approach, a two-tier approach in which we surely cannot persist given our experience of the current crisis.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on how the crisis might be ended and the people returned. The news of a statement from the G8 meeting on principles of a political solution evokes some hope, but also some concerns. Perhaps I may take up a phrase cited by my noble friend that deployment in Kosovo would be of an effective international civil and security presence. I should be concerned that the composition and operational deployment of an international force as described should avoid aiding or encouraging partition. It should also inspire confidence in the Kosovar Albanians whom we want to return to Kosovo. We have learnt from them that NATO leadership of the force is essential to such confidence. Furthermore, the implementation of a peace agreement surely cannot depend on the goodwill of President Milosevic, such that he is protected from prosecution for war crimes.
I was slightly concerned on hearing the phrase used by President Clinton. He said that there could be an agreement without Mr. Milosevic being forced from power. I hope that does not mean that we shall consolidate his grip on power. Surely we want to loosen it. It would be rather ironic if we were to treat President Milosevic yet again as the solution, as a factor for stability, and treat the KLA as a factor for instability.
874
These are sensitive matters, but perhaps the KLA might also claim to be as much part of the solution, or at least more so than President Milosevic.
We must also be concerned about the status of Kosovo. Surely President Milosevic has lost the moral authority to rule there. The reference to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rings hollow when President Milosevic's expression of sovereignty has been to strip his own citizens of their passports which attest to that citizenship. Any sovereignty must be heavily qualified, and probably not permanent. We must not rule out, even if it means in the medium rather than the short term, the possibility of independence for Kosovo. We have been talking about an international protectorate in the short term to guarantee an interim political settlement allowing the Kosovars to run their own affairs. But we must not close doors at this stage.
Finally, perhaps I may repeat the comments of other noble Lords regarding the need for a Marshall Plan for the Balkans. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Perhaps we should refer to south east Europe rather than the Balkans. Without any plan, which must include a democratic Serbia, we risk creating a situation like that in Germany under the Weimar Republic rather than the post-Nazi Federal Republic. We must not prolong the instability that arises from lack of democracy and repression in that part of Europe. Therefore, we need a Bretton Woods, not a Yalta, and there must be no carving up of territory on a map.
The ultimate future of south east Europe, including a democratic Serbia, lies with the European Union. All efforts should be devoted to ensuring that there is stable democracy and social development in that region to prepare for its engagement in the European main stream. As the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force a few days ago we should redouble our efforts to achieve a coherent common foreign and security policy in the European Union and a defence capability within NATO.
We should have heeded the words of Ibrahim Rugova 10 years ago. It has been said that the war in Kosovo is one of the most predicted in history. The Government must be consistent. Progress has been made in talks about the substance of defence co-operation led by the Prime Minister. I am not sure that that has tracked through to the institutional structure of the European Union so that it acts under a common policy rather than just co-ordinates national policies. If we do not learn those lessons for the future we shall go back to where we started. I hope that we do not do that.
9.26 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on becoming a co-chair—whatever that may mean—and equally for reviving something that I thought had died in the early part of the 19th century when Chamberlain became a Liberal imperialist, saying of Kosovo and Serbia that we should do this and that. It is worth pointing out to the noble Baroness that Mr. Milosevic is elected by popular mandate and is a socialist and has very little in common with Adolf Hitler. He is an unattractive Balkan thug

875
enthusiastically put into power by his fellow Serbs. Adolf Hitler was an Austrian house painter elected by proportional representation, so beloved by the Liberal Party. He was anti-smoking, anti-fox hunting and a vegetarian, all of which are equally beloved by the Liberal Party. I accept that then he went slightly astray. But Mr. Milosevic does not have at his disposal 20-odd panzer divisions that can go on the rampage all over central Europe. He is a Balkan thug.
Afghanistan, Burma, the Caucasus, Indonesia, Iraq, Kashmir, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Rwanda, Sudan, Zaire and Zambia are the ABC of nastiness in this world. Even with the limited resources available to NATO we cannot go round the world putting down unattractive regimes because we do not like them. That is a form of imperialism out of which I thought we had grown. Unfortunately, we must live with the beasts and brutes of this world. There is nothing that we can do about it.
However, I believe that Kosovo may be slightly different. This was explained to me by a South African friend whose reasoning was as follows. If there is rape in your own flat you do something about it; if it happens at the other end of the passageway it is nothing to do with you. I believe that Kosovo comes under the heading of rape in your own flat. It is undoubtedly an example of quite appalling behaviour. We have said that we must do something about it, but we cannot do much about it. The only possible way that the Kosovar situation will be resolved is by Rifleman Bloggins on the cross-roads in Pristina. It will not be resolved by fusing the lights in Belgrade with a graphite bomb. The only way that those people can go back is by having infantrymen on the ground. This has been true since Thucydides, Xenophon and Alexander the Great. It does not matter whether you are Rifleman Costello on the walls of Badajoz, or a hoplite on the walls of Persepolis.
There is no other way known to military science of controlling the ground other than by infantry on the ground. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, everything else is subsidiary or an aid to getting those people on the corner of the cross-roads so that the man who has been pushed out of his shop can go back to his shop and sell his goods under the protection of infantrymen.
The Government have not realised this. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made the announcement, I asked her what will happen if Mr. Milosevic does not react. She said, "We'll go on being beastly to Mr. Milosevic". I think that those were her words. Quite understandably, and in my view correctly, the Government have said that something must be done. But they have not thought through the consequences.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that they come round and realise that the former second lieutenant Viscount Cranley in the Lifeguards in 1960 is a military genius and they will take his advice and understand about infantry on the ground. We will have created this wonderful imperium advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. How long will it last? How long shall we be there? It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that Mr. Gladstone said that we would be out of Egypt after he bombarded Alexandria. He was another Liberal imperialist.
876
It is essential to know what we are thinking of. Do we say, "We shall have an imperium and a protectorate"? We must think through the consequences of that. I do not think that anything has been thought through. It has been reported that Mr. Clinton takes poll soundings almost twice daily as to what to do. How to be a leader, my Lords! "What shall I do?" he says to the pollsters. Surely he should say, "This is what I think we should do. This is the policy I propose, and if you don't like it you must say so", but it should not be the other way round it. I do not think that we have thought through the consequences of what we are doing.
I accept that the Government were right to intervene, but they should have been upfront and said, "This means infantry. It means casualties". The European Union has been pathetic. The only people who have really good troops on the ground are ourselves and the Americans. I looked at some Italians and thought, "Caporetto, Sidi Rezeg", but did not allow the thought to go much further. There are not enough Germans. For heaven's sake, come back 90th Light and 21st Panzer—all is forgiven. That is what one wants. The European Union is not putting in enough force and it should do so if it wishes to be grown up and behave on the world stage. It has to be able to behave in its own backyard and not have 86 per cent of its work done by someone else. I feel that not enough thought has gone into this issue.
I accept that the Government have a great problem. I accept that the Government are trying to do their best, but they have not done enough joined-up thinking. I therefore worry very much for the future.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Government have faced a great problem, as the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, stated. It would be sensible to begin by touching on some of the special difficulties and features of this crisis and, in my judgment, tragedy.
We have become used to a world in which, if one nation aggresses against another and crosses its frontiers in a hostile way, it has committed an international crime. We then rally together, as we did in the recent case of Kuwait, to resist and punish the aggressor. That is a great step forward in the story of mankind. But Yugoslavia—the collapse of a state! The Serbs have not crossed anyone's frontier and that is the beginning of the difficulty. My noble friends have had to face the new problem of dealing with an internal catastrophe and how the international community should deal with it. That is a big problem to which I shall return at the conclusion of my remarks.
I believe that my noble friends, and certainly the Prime Minister, deserve far more of our praise than our blame and criticism—much more. The moral force which the Prime Minister has brought to bear in facing such disastrous conduct and appalling treatment of a helpless minority people in Kosovo has been outstanding. He has identified the evil and spoken against it. He has insisted on action against that evil.
Of course, it is one thing to identify, condemn and act, but, unfortunately, the tragedy is that one's actions do not always meet the needs of the situation. The

877
tragedy is that, for the best of all possible motives, we have failed to achieve the central objective with which we started the whole affair: it is the answerable call from the Kosovar people to be rescued and helped and that the Serbian attempt to drive them into exile should be resisted and stopped. That was our number one war aim and it is precisely that aim that we have been unable to achieve.
Instead of being able to rescue the Kosovars and resist the Serb oppression, what was already a serious problem of exodus has turned into a flood of refugees. Seven hundred thousand people have been driven into the surrounding territories. We have not heard the end of the problems, particularly of Macedonia.
It can be said of my noble friends—it is probably the only accusation that the debate has brought against them—that they might have foreseen the appalling Serb reaction; a reaction which turned what was a flight into a flood. I am not so sure. Frankly, it took a bit of imagination to conceive of the wicked continuing actions that Milosevic has inflicted on the people of Kosovo.
Against that, I must strike a balance. We heard some relevant contributions today from those who know about Balkan history, what went on under the old Ottoman Empire and the hatreds which were generated. My good friend Lord Merlyn-Rees spoke about that earlier today. Those hatreds are formidable. They are not merely the meeting point of religions but of different linguistic, cultural and racial groups clashing together.
When I think about it a little, I would quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, whose speeches I generally agree with entirely, when he uses the word "genocide". It is not genocide. Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a race. By God! we saw it under Nazi Germany dealing with the Jews, as they did in their Holocaust. It is not that. It is ethnic cleansing. We are seeing a deliberate expulsion of people, triggered by deliberate terror, resulting in mass migration. It brings with it slaughter and wickedness of all kinds; but the aim is to expel. Frankly, that is part of the history of the Balkans.
One thinks about the Armenians in Turkey at the beginning of this tragic century; the expulsion of the Greeks from Asia Minor at the end of the First World War; and more recently the expulsion of the Serbs from the Krajina. That was very serious. It was a major factor, of course, and it does influence their behaviour and thinking. Although not on the same scale, what about Cyprus? People there could not live together any more, resulting in division, partition, separation. That is one of the ways in which problems are solved. We know that from our own experience. Heaven knows, when we gave independence to India, the Punjab erupted into hatred between Hindu and Moslem and the populations moved out into Pakistan and India respectively. Perhaps we might have had that a little more in mind, even though the behaviour of Milosevic was almost unbelievable.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that matter, perhaps he cares to recall with regard to the expulsion of Serbs from Krajina that there
878
was no great sentimental uproar in Britain, Germany or Europe stating that this had to stop. It all happened in silence. People looked the other way.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I agree. That is an important point about not having politics absolutely dominated by the camera. The camera cannot be ignored. The cameras were not there showing what happened, but they were there in Kosovo, and we reacted because we are basically decent human beings. Our whole instinct is to try to help our oppressed fellow men and women.
The truth of the matter is that it is a tragedy. The tragedy is that we tried to stop it, could not stop it and this great dispersal has taken place. Frankly, bringing people back under armed guard to a province from which they were expelled, in which their villages were burned and their community structure destroyed is not the same thing as preventing them from being expelled in the first place. That is what gives me doubt and worry about how long the whole thing can be maintained by us in the interests of the Kosovars.
What does that lead me to? It is not enough simply to say that it is a tragedy. We have to prevail. NATO must not be put in a position where its credibility and authority are undermined, because it will have great purposes in the future to perform, greater frankly than we have had in Kosovo. I am sure of that. It is the great instrument that the world has for enforcing peace against aggression. Do not let us destroy it if we can possibly avoid it. I am sure that NATO should insist on and will get the larger part of the five conditions, but do not let us be over-rigid about the negotiation.
We must bring in the Russians. That is essential not only in this regard but for the whole peace of Europe, looking much further ahead than Kosovo. It is absolutely right to bring in the Russians. We must renew the Partnership for Peace. There cannot be peace in Europe without the Russians. There must be a democratic Russia or one that does not feel humiliated and destroyed.
I hope very much that we are able to do that. We need to negotiate with the Russians and show a certain flexibility. Clearly, the people must go back to their homes and they must do that with the protection of an international force.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that there was a G8 agreement in Bonn today which involved the Russians?
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, there is so much going on and we have not really had time to deal with it in this debate. That meeting of G8 is extremely important. I should love to hear later from the Front Bench about the appearance in Rome of the gentleman who is a moderate among the Kosovar leaders and any other information which up-dates the situation.
We must think very hard indeed about a future in which we have started to say that we shall not tolerate unacceptable internal repression inside the different states. The noble Earl reminded us of a long list of

879
villains in the world today. We cannot interfere and deal with them all. There must be strict criteria and we must think very hard indeed before we use anywhere the military weapon.
The Prime Minister—and I recommend this to the whole House—delivered a quite remarkable speech in Chicago on 22nd April in which he tried to spell out what, in a new world setting, is required. He listed various criteria which should limit action and should lead to only the most selective occasions on which we should intervene.
However, I add two points to that. First, if we are to have a world in which we intervene more in internal affairs than we did before, in spite of what the charter said, we must have it very clear in our minds who is to give authority for those interventions. It cannot just be NATO. It must be the United Nations, and if we must reform the United Nations in one way or another, then we must do that. That is from where the authority must originate.
Secondly, we must look carefully at the criteria, including to what extent internal repression has been triggered by the kind of IRA activity of the KLA and other bodies. We cannot ignore that and it must be in our minds.
Thirdly, we must look carefully at all other sanctions—diplomatic, economic, oil and so on—before we think about military action.
Fourthly, in thinking about military action, we must take account of the forces available to this country. We are putting an incredibly disproportionate military capacity of our country into a tiny area. I am in favour of doing what we can to help, but, good God, there will be other events. As our learned military friends told us, we shall have to be there for decades in order to keep the peace. That is no good. That will deny us the freedom of action and movement to deal with other crises in different parts of the world.
We must have more members in our Armed Forces. I take that for granted. We shall have to have a review of the defence review, which will not cause great unhappiness to some of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
That is all I want to say. I do not advocate in any way that we should shrug our shoulders about intolerable behaviour within the frontiers of sovereign states. But unless we are to be faced with the charge that, in the words of Tacitus,
"They make a desert and they call it peace".
we must think carefully about the relationship of means to ends, and we must above all encourage the spread of democracy as the greatest defence against tyranny that mankind knows.
9.49 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I normally listen to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, who speaks with clarity and precision on the subject of the European Union. I am delighted that we have had a full demonstration that his knowledge and clarity of thought are not restricted to that important subject.
880
First, I want to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for moving the Motion. As I have said in the House before, I have the honour to be standing on behalf of my party for the European Parliament for my home region of Yorkshire. In the first part of what I have to say I shall be fully reflecting the views of my party and my noble friends, but subsequently I shall be speaking only for myself.
As a party, we unreservedly support the brave men and women in our superb Armed Forces. Further, we strongly question the erosion of the Territorial Army, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said earlier from his unique perspective, is our only reserve. The erosion of the Territorial Army is taking place at the same time as the Government are imposing ever more obligations on the Armed Forces. When the Armed Forces go into action they are entitled to expect that the Government will have defined and attainable war aims. attainable by clear and consistent objectives. So long as that applies, so long are the Government entitled to expect the Opposition's unconditional support.
I should like to permit myself some personal but relevant observations, one of which echoes the noble Lord, Lord Shore. First, it is very hard to sustain the proposition that the bombing has done much to help the Kosovo Albanians in their plight, which was, and is, its primary purpose.
Secondly, NATO was, as I understand it, formed originally as a defensive alliance, and it is highly questionable that NATO is a suitable instrument to prosecute a moral foreign policy defined by Britain and the United States outside the borders of NATO. Indeed, it is rather likely that this war will result in possibly lethal stresses and strains on the NATO alliance. Already one NATO member, Greece, has made it very clear that it will not provide any facilities for NATO ground troops to go into Serbia.
Thirdly, if we are indeed engaged on a moral foreign policy, by definition that moral foreign policy cannot and should not stop at the borders of the European land mass. Many noble Lords, like me, feel strongly about Kashmir, an area where, unlike Kosovo, Britain has historic links and, deriving therefrom, a historic responsibility. By comparison with Kosovo, the Government seem to be showing very little interest in Kashmir and in other problems in other parts of the world.
Fourthly, the Government have many times made clear to this House their contempt for history. But those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The problems of Kosovo and elsewhere in the region are not solely the product of Milosevic or anyone else; but, more especially, are the product of 1,000 years of Balkan history. Such problems are unlikely to be resolved rapidly by the simplistic solution of bombing.
Fifthly, the Government are rightly impressed by science, but they should therefore remember the scientific axiom that for every action there is an equal and opposition reaction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, in a typically eloquent and statesmanlike speech, the Government do not seem to have considered fully the collateral effects of the

881
damage done by the bombing of Serbia on the fragile economies and even more fragile newly democratic and partly pro-Western governments elsewhere in the region—for example, Bulgaria and Montenegro, although there was a brief mention of Montenegro in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert.
Sixthly, as others have said, the Government seem to have made a classic error in ruling out the use of ground troops from the outset. I know that this Government are suffused with a strong Christian ethos, but, on the face of it, it is rather surprising that nobody appears to understand that you should not show your hand to your opponent before you begin.
Seventhly, another lesson of history is that bombing hardly ever works in terms of removing an established regime. It did not work during the Blitz in London and Coventry; it did not work in Germany; and more recently it did not work in North Vietnam with the constant bombing of Hanoi. Widespread bombing seems to have the opposite effect. It unites the civilian populace behind the existing military and political leadership.
Perhaps I may permit myself a party point. I find it utterly bizarre that the same people who favoured one-sided disarmament for this country in the Cold War, in 1999 are almost completely in favour of bombing defenceless TV stations in the Balkans. That is a bizarre irony which has not been properly addressed.
I hope that the Government have fully considered the effect of the bombing of Serbia on the struggling and fragile pro-Western and democratic forces in Russia. Pan-Slavism is a movement with deep historic roots and it is hard to envisage NATO's attacks on Serbia doing anything other than playing into the hands of the revanchist and former communist forces in Russia. The possible effect on Russia of the bombing in Serbia is more than worrying. We may yet be living dangerously all over again.
I want to raise a point that, I fear, will make me rather unpopular in the Chamber, if that is possible. It is a point of great concern to the electors of Yorkshire and will be of concern to all electors in this country. Originally, we were told that there would be an absolute ceiling of 3,000 refugees admitted to Britain from Kosovo. Now we are told that we should expect 1,000 refugees a week. Can the Minister tell the House whether there is to be a new ceiling for refugees from Kosovo and, if so, what that ceiling is? If there is to be no ceiling, can we be told?
I also want to draw the Minister's attention to an article in today's edition of The Times. In quoting the article, I want to make it absolutely clear that in no way do I endorse it. The article written by John Laughland is headed as follows:
"In spontaneously opening our hearts to these Kosovan refugees, we are opening our country to organised criminality".
On the face of it, that statement seems totally libellous, but such assertions need to be thoroughly investigated. I ask the Minister for some assurances on that point.
882
Finally, for the Government to maintain the national support that they now enjoy, and which they need to achieve their desirable and laudable objectives, they must demonstrate an absolute clarity in their aims and their thinking, and, I dare to suggest, a greater degree of clarity than has been exhibited thus far.
10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that on 25th March I dissociated myself from the military action—the bombing—against Kosovo. Indeed, I said then that it was a deadly venture from which there was no quick exit. In fact, so it has proved.
I want to make it clear that I take this position not because I am a pacifist or a peacemaker; indeed, I supported the retaking of the Falkland Islands, though I was in complete disagreement with my local Labour Party. As a result I faced de-selection, though in the event I was not de-selected. I was supportive of that campaign to retrieve British sovereign territory and to rescue British citizens from the vicious Argentine dictator, General Galtieri. I felt that we had a duty to do that because British sovereign territory was at stake. I am not sure that the present Prime Minister was as supportive of the action as I was at the time.
I want to say also that I supported the Gulf War. I felt we had a duty to prevent a dictator taking over somebody else's country and to protect Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, some of the present Cabinet did not support the Gulf War. I hope therefore that I shall not be accused of being an appeaser, especially by the Secretary of State for International Development, who demands free speech—very free speech—for herself but apparently not for others who might disagree with her.
The fact is that what many feared would happen in Kosovo has happened; it has been a disaster. The campaign which was expected to last seven days is now in its seventh week. Until the beginning of this debate we did not seem to be making any progress. I hope that since then, and throughout the day. some progress is being made. I fervently hope that it will result in the end of the hostilities and indeed the return of the refugees to their homes, though I doubt that that will happen.
A humanitarian tragedy has turned into a humanitarian catastrophe as a result of NATO intervention. Let us make no mistake about that. And anybody reading the debate on 25th March will realise that there was no mention in that debate of any mass exodus. So the mass exodus has taken place since 23rd March when the bombing commenced and we should keep that in our minds.
There was also a failure properly to negotiate with Mr. Milosevic. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, criticised Milosevic as being some sort of Hitler figure. I do not believe that that is so. We have extremely short memories. Noble Lords may remember that Mr. Holbrooke said that Mr. Milosevic was a man with whom we could deal. Indeed, he dealt with Milosevic, and without dealing with him he would not have got the Dayton Agreement. We must therefore refresh our memories before we start demonising the Serbs and Mr. Milosevic. We dealt with him and shall have to deal with him again over the negotiating table.

883
In the Rambouillet agreements we presented Mr. Milosevic with an ultimatum and timescale which he could not possibly accept.
At the same time we encouraged the KLA to believe that: NATO was on its side, and if its representatives would only sign up to the agreement, then things would go well for them and they would eventually get the independence that they wanted. This has brought about untold misery for the Kosovars, death and destruction to Serbia and the destabilisation of the region, especially in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, which have had to absorb the refugee out-flow.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, pointed out, we said to Milosevic: "Unless you give us the whole run of our military machine throughout Yugoslavia, we will start bombing you". No leader of any country could accept such a demand and ultimatum. It was that failure to negotiate on a proper footing and on reasonable conditions that has brought about this tragedy. I hope we will learn a lesson from that.
It has also undermined the authority of the United Nations. There has been some loss of NATO's credibility and it has exposed some of its weaknesses. President Clinton today has said that the main war aim is to return Kosovar refugees to their land and their homes. However, but for the impatience of NATO and its leaders and their underestimation of the staying power of Milosevic and the Serb people, it is unlikely that the refugee flood of 680,000 people would have occurred in the first place.
NATO leaders also made the mistake of ignoring Russia's pleas for a peaceful settlement and offers of diplomatic assistance, in the belief that a few days of high -level bombing would force compliance with their demands in a short space of time. Now, they are having to turn to Russia as the last hope of achieving a peaceful settlement and avoiding further escalation of military action, including low-level terror bombing.
All this shows that the policy of ultimatum and belligerence has failed, as it always does, and that the likely outcome is very much worse than could have been obtained by realistic and patient negotiation.
We are now told by the World Bank and others that we shall have to pay billions of pounds, perhaps hundreds of billions of pounds, to re-build the property and infrastructure after the damage that the bombers have wreaked in Kosovo and Serbia and to re-build their shattered economies and those of the countries adjacent to Yugoslavia whose economies have also been shattered as a result of the war.
Can the Minister give a realistic estimate of these costs? I have heard estimates as high as a £1,000 billion. The Government must have made some estimate, so perhaps the Minister can let me have that this evening. Can she say what are the costs to British taxpayers of re-building the region and stationing British troops, perhaps for as long as 10 or 20 years, in Kosovo?
We should remember that troops sent in to police Bosnia were intended to be withdrawn after one year. Three-and-a-half years later they are still there and
884
likely to be there for many, many years to come, and there are still 1,200,000 refugees who have not yet returned to their homes. That is the scale of the problem.
We are entitled to ask whether the Armed Forces can cope with these tasks, with their numbers reduced—shamefully reduced, in my view—and their resources cut to the bone.
What is to happen to the 50,000 Kosovars who may come to Britain? Will they be allowed to re-settle here permanently if they so wish, or are they to be forcibly repatriated when their year's stay is up? I think we need an answer to that question.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether we can expect further actions of this sort by NATO concerning the internal affairs of other sovereign states—actions which, incidentally, would be against the UN Charter. If so, how will we determine which countries they are to be? After all, Turkey ethnically cleansed 1,200,000 Kurds. Is it a target for NATO intervention? It has not been up until now, but is that the sort of thing that we have in mind? I believe that the British people and the world need an answer to that question. What about the United Nations, which has been ignored and sidelined? Has it any future at all, or is the new world order about which we hear so much to be determined not by the comity of nations but by NATO on the basis that might is right?
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that this venture has wreaked all sorts of harm from which we will suffer for a very long time. I urge the Government, and all NATO countries, to seek peace as soon as they possibly can. Indeed, to do so, they must be prepared to soften the demands that they made at Rambouillet, which were unreasonable and could not be met by the Serb leader. In fact, had he met them, he would probably not now be in power. Therefore, I urge the Government to do things properly this time and try to get a peaceful settlement and one which proves to be long term in the Balkans.
10.10 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for initiating this debate. The noble Lord treated us to some fine warlike oratory. However, I find the implicit appeal to withhold criticism of the Government out of respect for our troops an invidious one for two reasons. First, our troops are highly efficient and professional soldiers and will perform their duty, even if its demands are distasteful to them. Secondly, we were not given an opportunity to express our opinions before this wild adventure was embarked upon and it is quite right that we should be allowed to do so now, and to do so without reservations.
I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. She has the unenviable task of justifying the Government's actions when she replies to the debate. She will doubtless tell us what the legal basis for our intervention in the former Yugoslavia was. Our security was not threatened; Serbia had not attacked the United Kingdom, or any other country; the United Nations had not sanctioned the attack; and NATO had not even been "invited" to intervene by an opposition group within the former Yugoslavia. We are

885
behaving as policeman and law in one—an attitude that violates one of the fundamental principles on which a free and democratic society is based. Our justification seems to rest solely on a sense of moral outrage compounded by frustration. That is not a sound basis on which to start a war.
Moreover, the place NATO chose to start this war could hardly have been less well chosen. Kosovo holds a particular place in the Serb consciousness. It was there, in 1389, that the Ottomans defeated the Serbs in a battle that resulted in 500 years of Ottoman domination. It has immense religious and cultural significance and the idea of its loss or secession is inconceivable to the vast majority of Serbs. It would have been hard to have found a worse starting place for NATO's bombing offensive. With complete disregard for history in choosing Kosovo as the starting point for the war—the "conflict", as the Americans euphemistically insist on calling the dropping of tens of thousands of bombs on a country that cannot retaliate in kind—NATO achieved precisely the opposite of what it had intended; the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was accelerated dramatically and horrifically; hundreds of thousands of refugees poured out of Kosovo into Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro, and Milosevic, who had had his problems in holding onto power, was able to "giddy busy minds with foreign quarrels" and boost his own reputation within the country.
Until the Rambouillet meeting, a substantial contingent of United Nations observers was stationed in Kosovo. After Rambouillet, provoked by Milosevic's refusal to accept what was an unacceptable ultimatum—as the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Jenkins of Putney, have pointed out—those observers were withdrawn and the bombing commenced, supposedly to compel the Serbs to respect the Albanian population of Kosovo and to withdraw their troops. However, as might and should have been anticipated, that precipitated a massacre and resulted in the desperate exodus that took place; an exodus which should have been foreseen and for which no contingency plans were made.
Add to this the accidental but predictable bombing of innocent civilians, both Albanian refugee and Serb, and the irreparable damage to the country's physical heritage and modern infrastructure, and one has some idea of the appalling and catastrophic tragedy that has been created.
It is as if television and newspaper images of refugees and victims of Serb forces have conspired to give us a sense of moral superiority vis-à-vis the Serbs. Let us not forget that we are responsible for the accidental bombing of a civilian bus, the accidental bombing of a column of refugees that NATO was supposedly there to protect, and the deliberate bombing of the Belgrade television station which caused the death of innocent civilians. That is to name just some of the disastrous incidents that have occurred.
Moreover, originally the Government quite clearly expected the bombing to be over in a few days. They, and the Americans even more, seemed to view the action as some kind of video game—with this difference: that although there was no danger of casualties on our side, the enemy were flesh and blood
886
and might be blown to smithereens. Surely that is an obscene idea. On the other hand, if, as we were assured at Question Time last week, the Government always knew that this would be a long haul, why was Parliament not consulted before we were led into this quagmire?
One thing is absolutely certain: this war cannot be won by either side. In the end, the only beneficiaries will have been the arms manufacturers. In addition to the billions of pounds that will have to be spent on the rebuilding of the former Yugoslavia and the resettling of hundreds of thousands of refugees, if peace is concluded on terms that are totally unacceptable to the Serbs, the deep resentment that will result will ensure that the instability that has plagued the region for centuries will continue.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I rise to speak drawing on some 37 years of military experience and a sense of outrage at this horrifying matter of ethnic cleansing and mass murder of the Kosovar people. I never thought that such a holocaust would take place in a civilised Europe. Such appalling atrocities, brutal killings, rape, pillage, the destruction of villages and forcing people to flee from their own homes, towns and villages to other countries have created conditions of a world disaster. NATO should carefully scrutinise its procedures to ensure that a similar situation can never occur again, but the immense difficulties of obtaining unanimous agreement among 19 different countries, with 19 different heads of state, 19 different foreign secretaries and 19 different chiefs of staff should not be underestimated, as many of your Lordships have said already.
Since the ethnic cleansing started just over a year ago, it has been estimated that some 1,200,000 Kosovars have become homeless and are now displaced people as a result of the most cruel savagery and barbaric acts. I am under no misapprehension whatever that this unacceptable brutality has to be stopped in a civilised Europe. If the tool to achieve this is NATO, so be it. I believe that intervention by NATO is justified, not only on humanitarian grounds but because a destabilised part of Europe, albeit outside the NATO area, is a threat to the stability of NATO itself.
It was quite clear that diplomacy failed at Rambouillet and that Milosevic had been given every chance to accept a proposed solution to this terrible situation in Kosovo. If NATO was to retain its credibility, it was necessary to take military action in order to attempt to prevent Milosevic's killer squads, the paramilitaries and the army from committing any more atrocities in Kosovo.
There is no doubt in my mind that a state of total war exists with Kosovo and Serbia and, from my studies of war some many years ago, there are two types of war. Limited war is similar to the Falklands, with limited aims and the avoidance of civilian casualties as far as possible. Total war is akin to the Second World War; the objective is to overthrow the enemy with no holds barred. It is to weaken his resolve and diminish the morale of the civilian population; to destroy his

887
economy and wealth by the destruction of his industrial power; to deny his communication and to prevent propaganda to the people by the destruction of his radio and television stations; and to weaken and degrade his military capability by the destruction of his infrastructure and logistical systems. When this has been achieved—and not before—the enemy may then have been so weakened that the conditions should have been created to start an offensive with an intervention by ground troops. For NATO to win this conflict, a total war strategy has had to be adopted, but it should be understood that total war takes time to work. People must not be impatient but become resigned to that fact.
There are many examples of people saying that the political aims of this war are not clear. I have found them quite clear—and I agree with them. They are that there should be an immediate and total cease-fire—that is very clear; that Milosevic's killer squads, paramilitaries and army should completely withdraw, under verification, from Kosovo into Serbia; that conditions should be created for the return of the Kosovar refugees to their homes and villages in Kosovo; and that an international peace enforcement force, led and commanded by NATO, should be based in Kosovo to guarantee the safety of the Kosovars. I believe that Kosovo should become a United Nations protectorate with full independence.
As diplomacy has failed, military force has had to be used in an attempt to force Milosevic to accept NATO's terms. I fully support the action being taken. This action will lead to the severe degradation of Milosevic's military forces and should provide an opening for ground forces to intervene at a time of NATO's choice. At this juncture, Milosevic should come to terms with the situation.
Any open criticism is helpful to the enemy and most unhelpful to our own servicemen and servicewomen whose loyalty and courage should be praised whenever possible. Some editors of newspapers and television and radio stations have been of little assistance to our Armed Forces in this dangerous and difficult operation. I am surprised at the whingeing and whining attitude expressed by many people. Who are these commentators who have never smelt a sniff of gunpowder nor fired a shot with an automatic rifle in danger? Do they consider them selves to be more proficient and knowledgeable than the Chiefs of Staff? Do they know how to pilot an aircraft on a strike mission? Do they know how to manoeuvre tanks and to fire tank guns? Do they know how to command ships and submarines? It is high time that we heard no more from these commentators who have had no proper military experience or training.
I am sure that your Lordships would not want me to comment, criticise or speculate on our military strategy and tactics, as to do so would be assisting the enemy. Furthermore, to let the enemy know when we are going to start bombing and that their television stations are going to be a target on a particular night is nothing short of treason. Surprise is a very important principle of war.
However, there is one matter that I should like to address, and that is to inform your Lordships that I believe that the allied bombing campaign has been
888
highly successful. Out of 15,000 missions, some 5,000 have been air strikes, of which 500 have been by the Royal Air Force. NATO has lost a total of only five aircraft in the whole theatre, with three pilots being recovered. Half the Serb fighter planes have been destroyed; elements of their air defences are no longer effective; a number of their SAM3 and SAM6 sites have been destroyed; oil; power; infrastructure; logistical installations; communication centres; and radio and television stations have all been targeted successfully. Military barracks and equipment, airfields, and even Milosevic's party headquarters have been successfully hit.
Some people have expressed their doubts as to whether this appalling slaughter on the part of Milosevic would have taken place if the air strikes had not been authorised. To those, I would say that the systematic and careful way those actions have been executed indicate that they were planned well before any NATO action and were not a panic reaction to the air strikes. There is no doubt that Milosevic was massing his tanks and troops around Kosovo before and during the Rambouillet talks. In fact, I believe it was the Germans who obtained what is now called the "Horse Shoe Operation", which in my opinion shows that this was no new plan, but something that had been carefully worked out before the first killings in February last year. However, it is probably true to say that Milosevic realised that he would have time to complete his ethnic cleansing programme as he knew that it would take some time for NATO to intervene with ground troops.
Perhaps I may now bring your Lordships' attention to future events. The first most important and critical fact or is that NATO must win. NATO will win, but it will have to involve an intervention by ground troops after Milosevic has been softened up sufficiently. The Serb soldier is not 10 feet tall, and by Western standards is very poorly equipped with out-of-date equipment and not a good record of standing and fighting. He gave in quickly in Bosnia some recent years ago, and it was the Croats, not the Serbs, who harried and held up the Germans so well during the last war. It is essential that we accept only unconditional surrender from Milosevic and ensure that we achieve all our political aims, which include a fully independent Kosovo and not a partitioned state.
Even after Kosovo is declared a UN protectorate and Milosevic has withdrawn all his troops, there is likely to be a protracted terrorist and guerrilla campaign against the UN, which will be denied by Milosevic and with which the United Nations, with the help of the KLA, will have to deal. In these circumstances it may be worth considering the construction of an "iron curtain", similar to that which existed between East and West Germany, to surround Kosovo. That would extend for a distance of only some 350 miles. After the situation in Kosovo has settled down, with the terrorists in captivity, the patrolling of the iron curtain and the policing of the protectorate may be undertaken by other NATO and UN members, not the United States and the United Kingdom which can be released from that task to recover, reform and retrain; UNFICYP (United Nations Force in Cyprus) is a very good example of that.

889
In conclusion, I emphasise that only a few years ago the West prevented the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia by Milosevic and now it sees a repeat performance of butchery in Kosovo. Is it possible that NATO can forget the lessons learnt in Bosnia so quickly? Any force other than a NATO one may well be doomed to failure, as was the UN force deployed in Bosnia in the first instance. At the introduction of properly equipped NATO ground troops Milosevic promptly gave in. That is what he is likely to do if we intervene with a properly balanced force with sufficient troops to achieve our objectives at the time of our choosing. There must be no negotiation over any form of partitioned state: Kosovo must be fully independent.
Finally, I place on record noble Lords' immense gratitude to our brave and courageous servicemen and women, some of whom face death daily and yet are quite prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for their country to ensure that their own countrymen can live in peace. It is to these very special people that I give all my support and sincere gratitude. I wish them good fortune and pray for their eventual safe return to this country.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in the sentiments expressed towards the end of his speech. I, too, honour and salute the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. As I am the 36th speaker there is very little new to say. However, I begin by recalling that in 1931 Mahatma Gandhi visited London and during a round table conference he was asked what he thought of European civilisation. His response was that it would be a good idea. At the end of a century in which we have witnessed the most amazing violations of human rights and appalling genocide in Europe it really is time to say that these kinds of things should not happen.
All our consciences, including mine, are troubled by this, but I have no hesitation in supporting the Government and the alliance in what they seek to do. I shall try briefly to explain why. I am not a soldier and have never fought. I have never even been conscripted. Therefore, I have no expertise in military matters. However, we often speak of globalisation. It is now accepted that in economic terms we are becoming very interdependent. In economic terms countries accept that their sovereignty is seriously compromised by, if not the market, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on. But we are still reluctant to accept that doctrine in political and international matters.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in a very remarkable speech that reflected the sense of today's debate, said that we could not accept the UN Charter as it is today because it places too much importance on national sovereignty and not enough importance on human rights. If we believe that human rights are universal, we should be able to enforce them.
Until recently we took for granted that the best protector of a people's interests is the state in which they live. I think that we can no longer continue to
890
believe that. We have seen far too many examples of states violating the rights of their own citizens. When that happens we have to decide whether or not to intervene. I agree that there is no consistency in our position. We have not intervened every time we have seen violation of human rights. We let the genocide in Rwanda go without intervention. Pol Pot killed one seventh of his population and was still recognised by NATO and allies for a seat in the UN. Consistency is not the problem in this instance.
Within the borders of Europe there is a violation of human rights. It is not recent. It has been going on in Yugoslavia for the past nine years. We missed earlier chances. We were too late to intervene in Bosnia. We have intervened earlier this time.
I am clear that this is the new order, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said. No order is easy to establish. Establishing order is a violent act. In order to establish order, you go through the violence because you hope that at the end you will establish peace and order. In order to establish a framework of law and order, and the protection of human rights, you may have to bomb. When one bombs, mistakes are made. No perfect war has yet been designed.
There are no saints on either side. The human rights of these people had been violated before NATO started bombing. Mass graves were discovered in Kosovo before bombing started. The human rights of those people had been grossly violated. Therefore, it was right to intervene.
I am also somewhat pessimistic. I think that it will take a long time even to gain cessation of military hostilities, let alone peace. I know of no dispute, for example, in which the UN has intervened where the problem has yet been solved. I refer to Kashmir, Cyprus and Palestine—I could go on. We should not think that if the UN had been asked to intervene we should have had a swifter settlement of the dispute. But the UN is a flawed organisation, as the right reverend Prelate said. It gives too much power to the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. It creates a community of unequal nation states. Until we create a community of equal nation states with some kind of majority voting for some of these actions, we shall not have a framework of global governance. We have to work towards that framework because we cannot continue to behave as though we are a community of sovereign states. That model was broken long ago. Therefore we have to re-think these matters.
I am surprised at the unpreparedness of NATO. I thought that when there was no war military planners sat round with scenarios and simulations. Someone should have foreseen the perhaps small probability that if bombing began a mass exodus would commence. It is not the first time it has occurred; it has happened before. Someone should have worked out that bombing may not yield immediate returns and that we may have to be there for a long time. Someone should have worked out not one but many exit strategies and then chosen one. I am somewhat surprised that there has been such a lack of forward planning, but, as I said, I am not a soldier.

891
Finally, I turn to reconstruction and development in what we should call south-eastern Europe and not the Balkans. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in that respect. Reconstruction will be required in the medium and short terms. After that, development expenditure will be required. While 'we do not have to do that yet, we should have larger scale planning than was discussed by the World Bank a week ago. Pitifully little preparation is taking place. If we can find 54 billion dollars for bank mislending in Korea—just because a bank misbehaved we had to stump up 54 billion dollars—we can think more ambitiously. The money can be raised not by taxpayers but perhaps on the markets. We ought to think comprehensively for the entire region of south-eastern Europe. Paradoxically, the World Bank was first set up primarily for the reconstruction and development of south-eastern Europe.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, might I ask him a question on the interesting comments he has just made? Between now and the achievement of whole-world government, does he believe that any particular machinery is needed to decide when and when not to attack a country which is doing wrong internally, or would he allow a complete free-for-all, with each country in the world being free to decide whether or not to do so?
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have some case law on this. The humanitarian intervention which took place in Somalia was the first intervention which occurred without the invitation of the local government. There was no local government to invite intervention. We then learnt something about the limits of intervention. What happened in the Gulf War in 1991 and what happened last December in the Gulf are examples of full and partial UN support.
What will happen, but not quickly, is that we will reform the United Nations with a Security Council on which there will be proper representation. I might mention qualified majority voting or some such structure whereby we will have broad support from the world community establishing a new framework. It is arbitrary because there is no one else to do it. But we cannot allow the United Nations to do so because it is not a "quick acting" body nor, under its present structure, a democratic body.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that if we had all been working flat out to achieve the reforms in the United Nations system which he advocates, our reservation about that system would be a good deal more convincing?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has written a report on the reform of the United Nations, but I believe that we should forget about the past and think about the future. There are problems to be overcome and I do not have the answers to all the questions. Sooner or later this lecture must end and it ends now.
10.43 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, what has made this debate so very important is that most if not all of us are convinced that Kosovo is a watershed in history. The Prime Minister said that this is not a battle for NATO or for territory; it is a battle for humanity. It certainly is. But it is also a battle in the national interest, in the interest of all democratic states, for the achievement of our avowed aim would have a definite deterrent effect on other transgressors, whether on the banks of the Tigris, in the Afghan hills or indeed in the Colombian jungles. It is a war, not a "conflict" or a "campaign", a war in defence against a threat to peace in a region within an hour's flying time from the heartland of Europe. If we fail or succumb to an unworthy compromise, fudge or split the difference, we shall leave a legacy of slaughterhouses, bonfires of inanities and a record of self-deception or even hypocrisy in the annals of history.
Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Stoddart, I shall think twice before drawing historical parallels or indulging in terminological exercises comparing holocaust, genocide. ethnic cleansing, Hitler versus Milosevic. As someone, who has had more than tangential personal experience and indeed a lifelong involvement with the exploration. of the horrors of the Third Reich, I say with diffidence that, although Milosevic, Mladic and Karadzic lag behind the Nazis in the thoroughness and sophistication of mass destruction, some of the Serb soldiers and police, and certainly the para-military gangs, have nothing to learn from the panzer movement of the SS In fact, I dare pay them the ghoulish compliment that, in relation to sheer brutality, inventiveness and the minutiae of torture, slaughter and rape, they are a notch higher in the league table of evil.
It is gratifying that our Government have so far never faltered in their resolve, and I hope that they will not yield to false blandishments or fallacious compromise. The main allies hold fast so far: President Clinton is by now used to fighting simultaneous battles on different fronts quite deftly, but it is to be hoped that—and here I agree with and share the hope of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, whose speech I found very inspiring—our Prime Minister will use his influence to stiffen the President's resolve. Let it never be said that where there is no will there is a third way.
France has closed ranks; the red/green German coalition is still holding. There is some irony in the fact that the Conservative opposition in Germany is far less committed. Mr. Oskar Lafontaine's re-entry into German politics via militant pacifism reminds one rather sadly of Britain's Old Labour, indeed very Old Labour, when George Lansbury, in the years of Hitler's rise, led demonstrators against fascism in the morning and voted against the defence budget in the afternoon.
Who would not want a negotiated settlement rather than a continuing war? Such obvious mediators as Kofi Annan and Mr. Chernomyrdin must be left in no doubt about their brief. After all we have heard today, I do not consider that the Rambouillet terms are realistic. They are not real; they are surreal. An autonomy that

893
forces Kosovar Albanians to live under the sovereignty of a regime that has perpetrated so much terror is unthinkable.
I agree with the commonly held thesis that the Russians have an opportunity to display moderation, skill and real statesmanship. However, in order for the Russians to be effective, they must have their hearts set on an outcome that also benefits their real interests. Therefore, they must be reassured that NATO's powers have no enduring political ambition in the Balkans that are exclusive or against their interests. The United States, as we all know, has no interest in staying there. The US would rather be shot of the whole thing. But the taxi driver in Moscow and the housewife in St. Petersburg do not think that. They are afraid of NATO.
There is much pseudo-historical argument mindlessly repeated about the whole region, full of half-truths. Of course the Russians have feelings of pan-Slav affinity and religious solidarity. However, in my view, those are secondary to the primordial fear that a NATO victory would set a precedent for future interventions in the innermost enclaves of the Russian Federation or heavy-handed action in parts of the former Soviet Union which are of vital importance to them for economic and strategic reasons, areas which border on the Russian heartland.
As for pan-Slavic feelings, I remind your Lordships that much of the glue that kept Tito's Yugoslavia together was the fear and suspicion of Stalin's Russia, which was only marginally assuaged in the Kruschev and Breshnev eras.
If Mr. Primakov or Mr. Chernomyrdin wanted to earn history's acclaim—granted that they have weak cards on the international game table today—they should emulate that great statesman Talleyrand, of whom it was said that he entered the chamber of the Congress of Vienna naked and emerged at the end with a velvet cloak. If a Russian leader now were to persuade a future Serb government that it should come to terms with the West and with NATO, then that Russian statesman could leave the negotiations with a sable coat. The Russians would then obtain rich rewards for their work and Russia would resurface as a truly important, constructive great power.
I believe that it is very important that we are aware of not just being engaged in a quixotic enterprise, insufficiently prepared and inadequately thought through as it may be. We are here concerned with proving to the Milosevics and Saddam Husseins of this world that, however cumbersome NATO's procedures may be, the perception that NATO is a bloated giant weighed down by sophisticated armour is mistaken.
Lastly, appeasement was a term first coined two generations ago in a situation in which a British Prime Minister may possibly have been excused because he wished to gain time to catch up with a better-armed opponent. Still, that appeasement did not stop a terrible war and ultimately, systematic genocide. Ever since then we have been debating about whether we did or did not know about Hitler's Final Solution and who were the guilty men and willing helpers: we are still arguing about those questions 50 years later.
894
Today in Kosovo we know the facts. We see them daily on our television screens. Many a foul deed is corroborated by countless testimonies. Are we to compromise? Are we to pulp all the books and video cassettes about the 20th century and displace the events of Kosovo in our consciences? Are we to leave Stone Age barbarism unpunished and condone the survival in power of heinous malefactors, now, in the last few months of a century in which man has cracked the secret code of life and set foot on the moon?
10.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it has been a long and fascinating debate. It is now very late. Perhaps I may say to the Whips that it may have been fairer to have suggested a 10 minute advisory limit for speeches. Having said that, I shall now try to keep my closing remarks to within 10 minutes.
I agree strongly with what my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about limitations on sovereignty. The Prime Minister has been talking rather explicitly in some of his recent speeches about the doctrine of a just war. The doctrine of a just war was always a limitation on sovereignty. The doctrine of just resistance comes in against unjust sovereigns. It is extremely odd that we see in the UN at present China and Russia as the defenders of the principle of absolute sovereignty against those in the world who recognise that government is also a contract and that contract can be broken.
There has been a lot of talk this evening about rhetoric and action and how far we need to make sure that the actions which governments take now match the rhetoric. I agree strongly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that there have been a number of mistakes. He mentioned Dayton and went back to the recognition of Bosnia. I would go back further to the summer of 1991 when the European Union, lightly and without thinking through the implications, thought that it could manage the problem of the break up of Yugoslavia and the Americans signalled that it was nothing to do with them and they would leave it to the Europeans. There was a lot of rhetoric without thinking through what the implications were.
A few people within the European Union said at the time that we should contemplate the break-down of relations between Croatia and Serbia and in particular in relation to Bosnia that a small number of troops on the ground was what was needed. Had we put in a small number of troops on the ground in the summer of 1991, we might have averted a great deal of pain, agony and casualties since then. That would have been a just war and proportional force.
What have we learned? We have learned clearly that we need a far more coherent European framework for foreign policy and defence. If we had had one in the summer of 1991 we would have been able to do more. My party has for a long time been committed to the principle of a stronger European defence initiative, and we welcome the extent to which—now covered over by the immediate crisis—the Franco-British initiative is moving forward to provide just what we did not have at an earlier stage in this long and painful crisis.

895
It is also clear to me that we need to redefine the transatlantic partnership by recognising that there has to be a greater European share both of the burden and of the responsibility in the European region. Many of us have some doubts about the consistency of American leadership in this crisis, but at the same time we recognise that it is entirely reasonable for American senators and congressmen to ask why Kosovo is their responsibility and their quarrel and why the Europeans cannot play a larger role.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Bramall, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and others have said that the implications for British defence needs and capabilities, manpower and reserves also need now to be reconsidered. The SDR was very worth while under different circumstances, but some of its conclusions now need to be reopened, not just within a British context but also within the European context, moving on from the Washington NATO communiqué, with its welcome for a stronger and more cohesive European contribution, to the Cologne European Council in June.
Where do we go now? I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that time is not on our side. We have refugees in tented camps. There is a hot summer coming up, in which disease may well spread rapidly through those camps, and after that a bitter winter, in which the refugees may suffer in all sorts of other ways. Roads will become impassable, first through mud and then as the snow comes down. If we are to do something before the winter, we shall need forces on the ground earlier; we need to try to get some of the refugees back into Kosovo before next winter.
I must express my surprise, and the surprise of some of my colleagues, that we have not seen more in the way of pre-positioning of forces and equipment in the region, both as a signal to the Government of Serbia and as an indication that we can act quickly when necessary. I must also express my surprise that a second battle group has been put into Macedonia, when we know how difficult it is to move from Macedonia into Kosovo, rather than its being put into northern Albania, where one might have thought it would now be useful to have rather heavier British as well as other forces, and indeed to he doing something about the appalling state of the roads, transport and equipment there.
The Minister may be able to tell us what role is seen for the KLA in the resolution of the conflict. The KLA is clearly part of the problem, but it may also, as with the Croats in Bosnia, have to be part of the solution. The KLA originally had many dubious connections, particularly in northern Albania, but it has been recruiting a large number of new recruits from among the refugees, and therefore it perhaps provides part of the solution.
It is important that we do not demonise the Serbs and Serbia. I felt uneasy as the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Crickhowell, talked about the lessons of the history of the Balkans, the extent to which these people have been killing each other for years and years. I remind the House that in 1990 the most predicted conflict in the region was over Transylvania,
896
between the Hungarians and the Romanians. It was in Transylvania in 1990. One has only to go into Orthodox churches in the region to see murals of wicked Catholics slaughtering the Orthodox people to recognise how close to the surface some of the hatred was between the two religions and ethnic communities.
That conflict did not break out because political and military leadership in those two countries worked hard to prevent it. The conflict broke out in Yugoslavia because particular political leaders—Milosevic, above all, must share some of the responsibility—worked to use ethnic conflicts to maintain military power.
It is important that we construct a civil society in Serbia after the war. I speak with some passion on the subject, having taught a number of Serbs over the past five years. I do not demonise all Serbs. It is important to keep avenues open and to recognise that Britain and others have a large role to play in retraining afterwards.
We should not compromise with Milosevic. note that the Prime Minister has used extremely strong words in that respect and that the NATO Washington statement on Kosovo says that there can be no compromise on those conditions and that we hold Milosevic and the Belgrade leadership responsible for the safety of all Kosovar citizens. I am a little nervous of the rather more wobbly language of the G8 communiqué. We succeeded in getting General Meciar out of power in Slovakia by maintaining a level of sanctions rather lower than those we are currently maintaining on Serbia. That should be part of the way in which we approach the resolution of the Serbian conflict.
Lastly, we need to think much more clearly about our preparations for the situation once the conflict is over. We should recognise how wide a commitment western Europe and NATO are making to the whole of south-eastern Europe. The language of the Washington communiqué, of the German presidency proposal for a stability pact for south-eastern Europe and of the speeches of the Prime Minister in Chicago, Skopje and Bucharest, with their references to a Marshall plan, is strong. We are talking about extending NATO and EU membership over the next 15 to 20 years to all the countries of that region. Many are extremely weak, scarcely viable states such as Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. There is the issue of what we do with Kosovo, the need to rebuild Serbia and to make Croatia a state with which we can live within the European Union. We must also do something about Bosnia, and Romania and Bulgaria are not yet entirely stable.
That is not just a British task; it is a massive reconstruction of European order over the next 15 to 20 years. That needs a great deal more thought, sober debate and recognition of the long-term implications, political, institutional, financial and military, of the commitments that our governments are now making as a response to the immediate crisis.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, local elections apart, the timing of this debate is immaculate. I am sure that the Minister will welcome the opportunity of explaining to your Lordships exactly what happened today at the

897
G8 summit in Bonn. The Russians appear to have gone at least half way towards the NATO view with regard to an immediate end to violence and the withdrawal of the Serbian troops from Kosovo.
Clearly, NATO and the Russians are not entirely at one on that, but I hope the noble Baroness will be able to explain the situation. Of course, we wish to know whether the bombing is to continue, and to what degree NATO will be able to protect refugees.
A further point is what is the reasoning and effect of the fact that Milosevic has "let out" Mr. Rugova, who must be assumed to be a quietening influence on Serbian activities? Also, it is reported that Milosevic is saying that he will accept the deployment of international forces inside Serbia and the withdrawal of Serbians from Kosovo. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to help us on those points.
This has been a fascinating debate. We have heard every opinion from the hawk to the dove in a big way. Speakers divided between the ethical and the strategic in their discussion of the problems of Kosovo, and so much the better for that. One of my noble friends, on a brief visit to the Front Bench after listening to one noble Lord speaking, said to me, "He would never he allowed to get away with that in another place". That is probably correct and, without saying which noble Lord it was, the speech was fairly notable.
At this stage I should say how grateful I am, as are many other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for the help he has given us in informing us about affairs in Kosovo; for giving us maps of Kosovo which show—something which, naïvely, I never knew—that Kosovo is almost exactly the same size and around the same shape as Northern Ireland; and for the many other briefings he has given us on events as they develop. He has taken great care to do that for a number of noble Lords.
Nearly 200 years after Clausewitz educated the world in the principles of warfare, it is still necessary to quote him to solve our political problems. At the beginning of the crisis in Kosovo the leaders of all the countries which were to be involved should have been repeating Clausewitz, as Sir Michael Howard emphasised, when he said,
"Nobody starts a war, or rather no one in his senses should do so, unless he knows what he intends to achieve by it".
There is little doubt that the NATO countries failed adequately to think through the consequences of their actions. That, combined with the militancy of the former peaceniks in this country—many of them now sitting on the Government Front Bench in another place—who were, not surprisingly, shocked at the activities of the Serbians against their neighbours, together with the political problems at home of that known military expert President Clinton, have brought us to the terrifyingly dangerous position we are in today.
But there is no point in saying, "I told you so" or arguing that a different policy should have obtained. This is the position we are now in and the only sensible thing to do is to know what to do next. We now have a clear statement that the NATO objective is to make
898
possible the return of all the Kosovar refugees to their homes under effective international protection, and it looks as though the recent action of the Russians may help some way towards that. But it will never be simple. There seems no doubt that, barring the elimination of Milosevic, we shall have to negotiate with him. He is not only a war criminal; he is also the possessor of a very dodgy negotiating record.
The political problems are of immediate urgency and seem intractable. Even if they are solved, there will remain the longer-term problems of reconciliation and reconstruction. And "longer" is something we do not have. By October of this year, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, the weather will be deteriorating to the stage where the Kosovars who have been thrown out of their homes and are now either in refugee camps or hiding in the hills, will find it difficult to survive.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that we are planning to have troops in Macedonia throughout the winter. It seems that there are two alternatives. Either the war has to accelerate so that the refugees are back in their homes before the winter, or the camps have to be winterised to cope with the conditions which will inevitably exist. That point was emphasised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who made it clear that if the latter alternative is the answer, work would have to start now. If work starts now, it will give an immense boost to Milosevic, who will know that NATO recognises that it is unlikely to win at least in the short term. The scale of the humanitarian disaster we see at the moment is nothing to what it will be if the war—for war it is—drags on into the winter and beyond.
What has happened so far has been entirely predictable. It may be that those who criticise the Government for their lack of foresight are being unfair, for they were able to know, and possibly did know, exactly what would happen. The increasingly vicious ethnic cleansing could not have been prevented by NATO and the surrounding countries making preparations to receive its victims. My noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Blaker criticised the lack of long-term planning, and that is undoubtedly a justified criticism, but the Government are probably right to believe that that would have endorsed and underwritten the process and encouraged Milosevic to proceed with his plan. On the other hand, there is a valid criticism that, since a tragedy can seldom have been so predictable, the failure to appreciate what was bound to happen was inexcusable.
A number of noble Lords have commented on the failure of strategic, or indeed of blanket bombing to successfully defeat, or even to demoralise, an enemy. My noble friend Lord Dartmouth made this point. Coventry, London, Stalingrad and even Dresden survived in spite of the thousands of tons of metal which were poured upon them; neither did the bombs succeed in unseating the countries' leaders.
The morale of the Serbian army was touched upon. It is probable that the intelligence available to the Serbian generals and their knowledge of the precision bombings that would take place must have made infinitely depressing reading.

899
Tough as were the people of London in 1940, they are probably scarcely in the same league as the Serbians. Their devotion to Churchill was similar to that of the Serbians to Milosevic. However heinous Milosevic's crimes, the effect of the bombing seems to have been to bind the people more closely to him. Spinning worthy of Mr. Blair himself will be necessary to untie the bonds between Milosevic and his people.
In this sense, I should like to ask the Minister to tell noble Lords the degree of penetration into Serbia of NATO-based television programmes, such as those put out by CNN, and radio. How far are the Serbian people aware of what is going on? Are they aware of what is being done in their name? If they are aware, is there any indication that they mind about it?
If the minds of the Serbians are being fed with news from NATO, what about their bodies? No doubt the bombing is being carried out with commendable accuracy, and there is obviously a shortage of oil, however much is slipping through from countries sympathetic to the Serbs, but how long can the country continue without such essential supplies in a land as basic as Serbia? If this was the Serbia of 1942, there is little doubt that the armed forces would decamp to the hills and fight on from there. Is that action practical today? If it is, then it is estimated that NATO will need at least 150,000 men to go in on the ground, but NATO has not got anything like those numbers.
Obviously, I would not expect the noble Baroness, or indeed the noble Lord on another occasion, to give details of strategic plans, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we are not in a position to really get at the Serbians on the ground. The noble Lord castigated me in our last debate for even suggesting the possibility that ground forces might be used. Doubtless the work has now been done to evaluate all the alternatives, and maybe the noble Baroness will be able to tell noble Lords which of the alternatives is the least depressing.
As I said earlier, this has been a fascinating debate. I should like to comment particularly on what I would describe as "the gang of four"—namely, the noble and gallant Lords. Unfortunately, I did not hear the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who I see is not now in his place, because I had left the Chamber in order to listen to the 9 o'clock news broadcast. However, I found the expertise and professionalism of the other noble and gallant Lords, especially the tough stuff given to us by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, most impressive. I hope that the advice that these noble and gallant Lords have been giving your Lordships and the Government will be listened to.
Many noble Lords talked about our lack of personnel and of people who can conduct such affairs on the ground. The SDR cannot be made to take all the blame for the shortage of front line troops, but what seems to be an inadequate strategic appreciation of demand has not helped. The assumptions about the duration of expeditionary involvement have immediately been overridden by the open-ended military commitment to Kosovo, including the commitment to continuing military supervision to give effect to whatever settlement is reached, when it is reached. We just do not have the men to do it.
900
The fundamental problem which the SDR failed to address was overstretch. It was always serious, but the problem of insufficient numbers has now been accentuated by expanding policy objectives. The SDR took place not so long ago and the planners, then largely concerned with Bosnia, must have appreciated that Bosnia was not the only country in the Balkans with problems. Is it disingenuous to suggest that the end of the Cold War led the planners to think that any other major conflict was unthinkable?
The United States is showing itself to be less than sympathetic to the objectives of its rulers. Here in this country the British Government are assured of continuing support in Parliament, but that support cannot be unconditional. Indeed, a number of noble Lords made that point clear this evening. Apart from the problems of the refugees, we are entitled to ask what more we in the Alliance can do to bring these military operations to an acceptable conclusion and, as importantly, when we can do it, certainly before the winter. If we are to do it, how are we, the NATO Alliance, even if we can keep all 19 countries on board, going to man the borders and the streets of the towns of Kosovo?
On a previous occasion I reminded your Lordships of the early days of the Northern Irish problems in the late 1960s. We went in with the Army to protect the Catholic population. Within months they were shooting the soldiers in the back; and continued to do so for 30 years. What assurances can there possibly be that the same thing will not happen in Kosovo? It looks as if what we have is ethical imperialism. I do not know whether this is desirable, but it is not going to make the life of anyone concerned with our military commitments and our military forces any easier.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for stating that he will not divide the House on his amendment. I am sure that that would have been of no benefit to anyone. We do appreciate the concern that he and other noble Lords have expressed, but I believe that we should tonight give our wholehearted support, in general, to the Government in what they are doing.
11.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords. I should like to thank all noble Lords who participated in today's debate. It has been a wide-ranging, comprehensive discussion covering many aspects of the current situation, not only in Kosovo, but also in neighbouring countries. Many opinions have been expressed about how and why this campaign began and about how we should proceed; and, indeed, about what may eventually happen. However, I believe that the House is largely united on one point; namely, our condemnation of the murderous brutality of the Milosevic regime. We are also united in our repugnance and loathing for the ruthless oppression and in our disgust at the daily reports of forced evacuation at gun point. of the murder of men, some of whom are very young—boys in their

901
early teens—some of whom are very old—men far too old to fight—and, of course, of the outrageous rape of women and teenage girls.
When NATO action began against Belgrade my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said,
"Britain is a peaceful nation. We are a peaceful people who take no joy in war but we know from our own history and from our own character that there are times when we have to stand up and fight for peace".
Some noble Lords have expressed doubt about the clarity of our objectives. Some have said that we have not thought through what we are doing. That point was made notably by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and certainly not for the first time. I am bound to say that I continue to find that hard to understand. From the outset our objectives have been clear. They have not changed. They were set out by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March when the campaign began, and reiterated by him on 13th April, and again by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 19th April, and several times since. The whole of NATO reaffirmed them at the Washington Summit on 25th April. They have been made clear not only in another place but also in your Lordships' House and to the British public.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, of course there are contingency plans. That was made clear earlier by my noble friend Lord Gilbert. But I stand by what I said; namely, that of course situations develop, as do plans. That was an entirely reasonable, and—if I may say so—a not very remarkable point to have made.
There are others—notably the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—who seem genuinely to believe that if only we had tried harder and if only we had gone that extra mile diplomatically, military action could have been avoided. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, memories sometimes are painfully short. Let us not forget the enormous efforts made only last year to avoid military action through negotiation. In June, and again in October, President Milosevic gave his word that he would stop his ruthless and murderous oppression. He gave his word not only to us but also to President Yeltsin in July. Again and again he broke his word.
Let us not forget how hard we tried to solve this crisis diplomatically. The diplomatic path was followed as far as it could lead us. The Contact Group, comprising France, Germany, Italy, the United States, the EU Presidency, and, crucially, the Russians, as well as ourselves, worked month after month to pave the way for the text that was drafted at Rambouillet in February. The two sides were closeted together with the negotiators for two-and-a-half weeks at Rambouillet, and again the broad outlines of an agreement were reached.
The Kosovo Albanian side committed themselves to consult. When the talks reconvened in Paris they were ready to sign the agreement. When Milosevic's negotiators returned it was to go back on the undertakings they had made at Rambouillet. Let us not make any mistake about that. Even then we could not trust Milosevic to honour his word. We knew that while
902
he had been pretending to negotiate he had been assembling 40,000 troops and 300 tanks in and around Kosovo. I say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, we went the extra mile at every single stage doing what we could to negotiate a way out for Milosevic, trying to find a way for him to back down. He refused on every one of those occasions.
I understand the points made so eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London about the fears of some of our friends in Russia. However, I hope that they, and indeed he, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Eden of Winton, and Lord Shore of Stepney, will take heart from the statement issued in Bonn, as we have been debating this matter this afternoon. The statement includes an immediate and verifiable end to violence and repression in Kosovo; the withdrawal from Kosovo of military, police and paramilitary forces; the deployment in Kosovo of effective international civil and security presences endorsed and adopted by the United Nations capable of guaranteeing the achievement of the common objectives; the establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo, to be decided by the Security Council of the United Nations, to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants in Kosovo; the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons and unimpeded access to Kosovo by humanitarian aid organisations; a political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accord and the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity for the FRY and other countries in the region; and the demilitarisation of the UCK, otherwise known as the KLA. It is a comprehensive approach to the economic development and stabilisation of the crisis region, which is very important in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.
In order to implement these principles, the G8 Foreign Ministers instructed their political directors to prepare elements of a United Nations Security Council resolution. The G8 presidency will inform the Chinese Government about the results of today's meeting. We are asking the political directors to draw up a road map of further concrete steps towards a political solution and Foreign Ministers will reconvene in due time to review the progress.
This is a very good outcome and a significant step forward. We are clear—"we" are clear—that the presence in Kosovo will be a military one with a NATO core. The House and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, may like to know that Dr. Rugova, speaking to the press in Rome, has said that a military force would be necessary for the return of refugees and that the military force would include NATO and Russian forces.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I shall not intervene again. What reassurance can the Minister give the House about the element she mentioned with regard to a NATO core of support. That does not appear in the communiqué that we have received.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it does not. That is why I stressed the "we" in the way

903
that I did. It is not in the statement; it is a point that I wanted to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I am glad that the noble Baroness asked for clarification. I would not like to think that there is any doubt on that point.
We believe that the statement is entirely consistent with what we in NATO have put forward, otherwise we would not have agreed it. We believe also that this is something which clearly sets out to Mr. Milosevic how he can end this crisis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a very quick question. She said that there will be a NATO military core. Does that mean that the force will be NATO-led?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not say that there will be unequivocally. I made very clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, what had been said in the communiqué from Bonn, which was that there would be a force of the kind I have described. I then made it clear to your Lordships—it was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, had specifically asked me to address—that, as far as concerns Her Majesty's Government, we would expect there to be a NATO core. I have also made it clear to your Lordships that political planners will now carry forward this work and that Foreign Ministers have agreed to reconvene. We have made substantial progress. I do not for one moment think that the work is completed, otherwise we would not be asking our political planners to come back and put more flesh on those points.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in relation to the NATO military core, the noble Baroness says that this is what the British Government hope will happen. Do the Government have any view on the extent of support they would be likely to receive from the other governments of the G8 nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have asked the political planners right across the G8 to go on working on the programme I have outlined. As noble Lords will appreciate, I have been sitting on the Front Bench all afternoon listening to the very interesting contributions from your Lordships. Noble Lords may have seen me darting backwards and forwards to the Box, but the fact is that I do not have full background briefing. I have been able to give your Lordships a full account of what I know so far. I very much hope that on a future occasion, probably very soon. I shall be able to put more flesh on the bones that I have been able to outline to the House. For moment, I think it would he unwise for me to go any further than I have been able to go.
Of course—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. But can she be clear? When she talks about a NATO "core", is she talking about a "c-o-r-e" or a "c-o-r-p-s".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: "C-o-r-e", my Lords. I wish all questions were as easy to answer.
904
Of course the United Nations is involved as well. The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and we have kept the UN fully informed on developments over recent months. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, stated, last year's resolutions warned very clearly of a threat to the regional peace and security and of a humanitarian catastrophe if Milosevic did not stop the repression in Kosovo. The noble Baroness made those points very clearly.
I know how passionately my noble friend Lord Judd made his point. But perhaps I may remind him, too, that this year, in late March, UN debates showed strong support for NATO action. A draft resolution proposed by the Russians on 26th March condemning that action was heavily rejected by 12 votes to three. The UN remains involved. I stress that very forcefully. The UN Secretary-General rightly continues his involvement. We welcome his initiatives and in particular his strong statements in support of NATO action. His appointment of Special Envoys to Yugoslavia will further bring home to Milosevic the UN's deep concern at the situation in Kosovo and the need for him to accept NATO's entirely justified demands.
But some noble Lords have questioned the legality of what NATO is doing—in particular the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Belhaven and Stenton and Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and of course the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in his amendment. Let me be clear on this point. Every means short of force was taken to avert military action. When it became clear that every other possibility was exhausted, then, and only then, was action taken. In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention was and is entirely justifiable, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede emphasised.
Let me reiterate the reply I gave in a Written Answer on 16th November:
"Cases have … arisen … when, in the light of all the circumstances, a limited use of force was justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council hut without the council's express authorisation when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe". — [Official Report, 16/11/98; col. WA 139.]
I stand by that Written Answer.
This action is supported by the 19 countries of NATO, 19 democracies with independent judiciaries who believe in human rights and the rule of law, and many like-minded countries besides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised questions about the United States. Of course there are disagreements in the UN Congress about the way forward in Kosovo. But what is clear is that the United States Government are as fully committed as we are to pursuing NATO's action until our objectives are met. The Russian Special Envoy. Victor Chernomyrdin, was received at the highest level in Washington last week, and President Clinton is again demonstrating that commitment during his visit to Europe this week.

905
Many noble Lords have understandably concentrated on the difficult questions surrounding refugees. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was in Macedonia on Monday. He had the opportunity to visit one of the main refugee camps there and was strongly impressed by the determination of refugees to return home to Kosovo, a point about which many noble Lords expressed some doubt. Those refugees urged the Prime Minister to continue his support for the NATO action until a comprehensive and fail-safe political settlement had been reached allowing them to return safely to their homes. The Prime Minister made clear to the refugees that we would not let them down. I repeat that assurance to your Lordships. We shall not let them down.
At the same time, my right honourable friend asked the Macedonians to maximise the care and protection that they could provide in the region by keeping the borders open and allowing the building of new camps. Some 675,000 refugees have now left Kosovo. We should not forget the vast number of people inside Kosovo who are displaced from their homes.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that we do not expect the countries neighbouring the FRY to support the refugees without considerable international support. That is why the Prime Minister announced that our bilateral aid since 24th March would be doubled from £20 million to £40 million. The noble Baroness may also wish to know that the donor conference yesterday pledged 250 million US dollars of immediate budgetary and balance of payments help to Macedonia. It agreed to meet again in the early autumn to review future needs. We made a new pledge of £5 million to strengthen the capacity of the Macedonian Government to take forward reform and mobilise promises of aid from the international donor community. I hope that that news from yesterday reassures the noble Baroness, who raised important points.
We are working alongside UNHCR to ensure that refugees from Kosovo receive care and protection. Our preference is for this to be in the region. This is also the preference of most of the refugees. But where care and protection are not available we have promised to respond to the requests of UNHCR to relocate refugees in the United Kingdom.
I remind noble Lords that over the past three to four years 8,000 Kosovar asylum-seekers have been in the UK. The Government have long said that they stand ready to receive thousands of refugees from Kosovo, and we have begun the process. There will be further flights next week and they will build up in the following weeks to five to seven flights per week, leading to a weekly total of about 1,000 in-comers.
No Kosovar Albanian who is in the UK, or who arrives here independently, will be sent back to the region while the conflict lasts.
The Home Office is working with the Refugee Council, its partner agencies and the local government associations to identify suitable accommodation for the
906
evacuees. Naturally we are anxious to keep family units together, as noble Lords would expect, and we shall ensure that the choice of reception centres reflects this.
Our objectives in offering assistance to the region are to save lives, protect the rights of refugees, encourage tolerance in host countries towards refugees, plan for new contingencies, including access to Kosovo when the security situation allows, and to plan for refugee return. The Department for International Development has already committed over half of the total £40 million.
In answer to the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, the United Kingdom is funding radio stations and recording special programmes for refugees to keep them in touch with events and family members. In co-operation with UNHCR, we have supplied 5,000 wind-up radios to enable people to receive programmes in Albania and Macedonia.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked about the extent to which we were able to penetrate the region. The BBC World Service has extended its coverage in Serbian, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, Hungarian and English in that area. I can give details, but the clock is somewhat against me. I shall write to him with those details. In addition to the 13 million leaflets mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Gilbert, the FCO and MoD website has had 95,000 hits a day since the beginning of April and over 1,000 a day from Yugoslavia. That website is also being used very extensively.
We have provided direct support to Save the Children Fund, Oxfam and UNICEF. To reflect the priority we attach to keeping families together, we have also committed £2.5 million to the British Red Cross for issues to do with family reunification. Our aid has not just been in money and goods but has encompassed expert technical support on the ground. The Department for International Development has sent personnel to logistic cells on the ground to help distribute supplies. The 4,200 UK troops in Macedonia as part of the NATO force there are doing everything they can to assist the refugees. They took the lead in establishing Brazde refugee camp, which serves as an important transit area for people leaving Pristina for Skopje. NATO's ability to deploy personnel and resources at great speed has been an essential source of support to UNHCR.
As reflected in questions in your Lordships' House today, I should also say something about the countries neighbouring Kosovo. Some most directly affected have had to cope with enormous numbers of refugees crossing their borders. Others have been affected by economic and political fall-out of various kinds. We have given our full support to those countries which have taken the refugees, and shall continue to do so.
In answer to points raised by my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, it must be self-evident that a major reconstruction programme will be needed as soon as the conflict in Kosovo is over, not just to rebuild the physical infrastructure damaged in the conflict—the destroyed homes, schools and public buildings—but also to make good the damage done to the economies of the region. The process is some time into the future.

907
Yesterday's donors' conference was a useful step along that road. But we are working hard with our partners in all the relevant organisations—the EU, the OSCE, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund—to take the planning forward. In particular, we are working on the stability plan for south-east Europe. I look forward to giving your Lordships more details of those important issues as the work proceeds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, felt that we had been over-optimistic about how quickly the campaign might be resolved. The point was echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Burnham. I ask noble Lords to reflect on the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who spoke about the differences between the individual campaigns at different times, in different parts of the world, in different territories and with different objectives. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his words of understanding about how we have not bombed at times when we thought that civilian casualties were very likely indeed. His speech showed a good deal of insight.
We never expected to achieve our military objectives overnight. It will take time. But the Washington summit showed that the allies are united in their resolve to proceed with the air campaign and to intensify the pressure that is being put on Milosevic.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and others, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked how targets are chosen. I cannot go into details about a target policy any more than my noble friend Lord Gilbert was able to do; but I can say that all targets are selected and approved at the highest levels in NATO and that rigorous criteria are used to assess the suitability of any target, including its military utility and the risk of environmental damage or civilian casualties.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, NATO has no intention of bombing Vinca. But I was concerned--and I must raise this with the noble Lord—about his accusation of NATO having committed what he termed "murder". I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord—I hope that he will not mind if I say that I have a good deal of affection for him—but I must say that accusations of that kind really are way over the top and I hope that he will reflect on them in due course.
I believe that our military action is consistent with achieving our objectives. We are not attacking wholly civilian targets to kill, maim and demoralise the people of FRY. We are attacking oil supplies. communication links—including media links, as many noble Lords said—and other targets. But they are targets which help Milosevic to prosecute his war against the Kosovar people. The Government never believed that this could be a bloodless conflict. We cannot guarantee—we never tried to guarantee—that civilians will not be hurt or even killed. Such casualties are a source of genuine regret. The military conflict has yet to be fought that does not involve the risk of hurting the innocent. That is why the prosecution of war is such an awesome responsibility for any government.
Several noble Lords referred to what they termed "collateral damage". Like the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, I loathe that term. "Collateral damage" is a nice
908
way of talking about unintended casualties, about killing people you are very, very sorry to kill. NATO action is in strict accordance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts; and it is strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve our humanitarian objectives. I give the noble Baroness that assurance.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in a contribution which I hope was largely rhetorical, said that he would like to know when the bombing would end. NATO will suspend its action when Milosevic meets our conditions, not when we meet his. The Balkans are littered with his broken promises.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lords, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, and Lord Shore of Stepney, raised questions about whether we had made things worse. I ask them to recall that in the summer of 1998 Serb security forces drove at least a quarter of a million Kosovar Albanians from their homes. They destroyed villages and crops; 2,000 civilians died between March 1998 and before the air strikes began. During the winter, we had information that the Serbs planned to destroy the KLA. Raca was an early example. Noble Lords will remember that on 15th January more than 40 people were killed. Before NATO started bombing on 24th March, the Serbs had destroyed many villages as well as their inhabitants.
With or without our air campaign, Belgrade would have moved fast to carry out its ethnic cleansing before we mobilised. But with our campaign, Milosevic is under pressure to stop his door-to-door brutality. Not taking action would have been worse and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her forthright points.
Many Americans are involved in the NATO operation, but I must tell my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees that more than one-third of NATO aircraft are from European and NATO countries—from 11 European countries in addition to the UK. The UK and France are providing about 20 per cent of alliance air assets. The European allies are also providing naval assets; 95 per cent of the troops on the ground in Macedonian are European.
Let us turn to ground troops. We said before the Rambouillet talks that an international military ground force would he necessary to secure long-term peace in Kosovo, to guarantee a cease-fire and to ensure a secure environment in which refugees can return to their homes. We are concentrating on what can be achieved through an effective air campaign, but I remind your Lordships that the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Solana, has been tasked by the NATO military authorities to update the planning for the ground forces in a variety of environments. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as he asked me to do, that no option has been ruled out. We have made it clear that Mr. Milosevic does not have a veto over our decisions. I have said that to your Lordships before, and I say it again with all the emphasis I can muster.
The gang of four was referred to: the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, Lord Inge, Lord Craig and Lord Carver. I would add a fifth: the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. She spoke as forcefully about the forces as any of the noble and gallant Lords. A

909
change in our force structure as a result of the SDR is designed to deal with crises of exactly this kind. The deployment to Kosovo will affect the state of implementation of some parts of the SDR, but it will not invalidate the SDR. If anything, events in the Balkans demonstrate that the results of the SDR are fundamentally correct, but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gilbert and his colleagues in another place will study carefully all the points made tonight in your Lordships' House.
Important points were made, too, about the oil embargo. I propose to write to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about the points that he raised as regards the EU and a NATO maritime operation.
We have dealt today with the objectives of the action; with diplomacy; with legality; with the statistics of refugees and of aid; with the perpetrators of the action; with the military impact; with the politics of decision-taking; with the impact upon the economies of those countries most closely affected; and with our own military personnel.
What we cannot and what we must not forget is the point made by my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I refer to the people who are involved. Mrs. Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees briefed the Security Council again yesterday. As she said, the root cause of the crisis was the systematic and intolerable violence being waged against an entire population; nor was the refugee outflow new, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told us. Last year more than a quarter of all asylum requests in Europe came from Kosovars. Until its withdrawal from Kosovo on 23rd March 1999, the UNHCR had been providing assistance to 400,000 displaced people or people otherwise affected by the fighting in the province and up to 90,000 refugees and displaced persons outside Kosovo. As of 4th May, she reported that there were 404,000 Kosovo refugees in Albania, 211,000 in Macedonia and 62,000 displaced persons in Montenegro. They show up as statistics but they are people. They are individuals. They are people with families.
I do not need any persuading, but I think that the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was an enormously powerful one. There is nothing justifiable in taking unarmed people from their homes at gunpoint, separating husbands from wives, fathers from children, sons from mothers. There can be no reason for killing those husbands, those fathers, those sons in front of their anguished and terrified families or taking young girls to be repeatedly abused and raped by so-called soldiers and militiamen. Two thousand were killed before the bombing ever began. We simply do not know how many have been killed since.
These are not the terrible events of 50 or 60 years ago. They are happening now, they are happening this week, they may have happened today. We cannot and must not give any solace, sanction or excuse to those undertaking such terrible, inhumane and deliberately methodical acts.
910
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for indicating that he will withdraw his amendment. I know from his contributions in the past how obviously sincerely he holds his views, but I honestly believe that he has made the right decision.
The conflict in Kosovo is not of NATO's making. We spent months trying to secure a political settlement, but Milosevic refused every opportunity for a peaceful solution. While he negotiated at Rambouillet, he built up his military forces. The humanitarian catastrophe that we had hoped to avert by prompt action has indeed happened. I pay tribute to all those who have worked to relieve the worst consequences of humanitarian disaster. I also pay tribute to our brave service men and women and give thanks to them, although I cannot emulate the eloquent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, did it. They have worked hard, risking their lives, to relieve the worst consequences in terms of human misery.
It is clear that with or without an air campaign Milosevic would have moved fast to carry out his ethnic cleansing plans before we could mobilise to stop those atrocities. Without the air campaign, he would have been under little pressure to stop the brutality.
Taking no action was not and is not an option for us. Military action was truly the last resort for NATO. If Milosevic continues to reject the path of peace and pursues his scorched earth campaign in Kosovo, NATO must see the job through until our objectives are fully achieved. Her Majesty's Government believe that this action is just. We are committed to it, but in no less measure are we committed to a just peace for Kosovo and for her neighbours.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, with British servicemen currently engaged, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999

  International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999
  11.53 p.m.
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I beg to move. It was back on 5th February of last year that I moved in your Lordships' House the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1998. I said at that time that that was an interim order which would be followed by a comprehensive order. Here is the comprehensive order.
  I have a briefing document which I have not read and I have no intention of doing so. If any of your Lordships is so tactless as to ask me any questions on the order, they will receive a letter from me and consider themselves lucky.

  911
  The second order introduces absolutely no matters of substance. It is merely a tidying-up order with respect to lists of certain international headquarters covered in the previous order which this order amends. I commend the orders to the House.
  Moved. That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Gilbert.)
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, from these Benches, I entirely accept everything that the noble Lord has said.
  912
  Having read the order, I merely ask him whether he will join an organisation which I am thinking of founding called the SEA—the Society for the Elimination of Acronyms.
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, happily.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Fluoride Intake for Bottle-fed Infants
  Fluoride Intake for Bottle-fed Infants
  General Osteopathic Council
  General Osteopathic Council
  Residential and Nursing Home Standards: Report
  Residential and Nursing Home Standards: Report
  Working Time Directive: LEGV Owner Drivers
  Working Time Directive: LEGV Owner Drivers
  Badger Cull Trial Areas
  Badger Cull Trial Areas
  GM Crop Farm-scale Evaluations
  GM Crop Farm-scale Evaluations
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mobile Phone Masts: Siting
  Mobile Phone Masts: Siting
  Abnormal Loads: Movement Applications and Control
  Abnormal Loads: Movement Applications and Control
  M.4 Bus Lane
  M.4 Bus Lane
  Air Navigation Order: New Offence
  Air Navigation Order: New Offence
  Lead Poisoning in Birds
  Lead Poisoning in Birds
  Non-toxic Shot: Research
  Non-toxic Shot: Research
  Severn Tunnel
  Severn Tunnel
  Water: EU Legislation
  Water: EU Legislation
  Freight Movements
  Freight Movements
  Eurostar Regional Rolling Stock
  Eurostar Regional Rolling Stock
  Rail Freight: Grants
  Rail Freight: Grants
  SEN Pupil Numbers
  SEN Pupil Numbers
  SEN Pupils: Expenditure per Capita
  SEN Pupils: Expenditure per Capita