Sitting of 18 May 1999

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Michael Clapham: If he will make a statement on relations with Iraq. [83499]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The British Government's policy on relations with Iraq and on a range of other significant foreign policy issues was enormously strengthened by the remarkable contribution made by Derek Fatchett. He was both a friend of long standing and a good colleague, and I am proud to have the opportunity to carry on the excellent work that he did.
  The Government's priority is to maintain international pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. To this end, we and the Netherlands have tabled a draft UN Security Council resolution which, if adopted, would implement many of the recommendations made by UN expert panels on three key issues.
  First, on disarmament, the draft resolution proposes a new body to address outstanding questions under a reinforced monitoring system. Secondly, on the humanitarian side, it draws together a range of measures that should make significant improvements to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Thirdly, the draft picks up the panel's recommendations on dealing with Iraq's continued failure to meet its obligations on Kuwaiti detainees and stolen property.
  We are discussing our draft with members of the Security Council. Our aim is to see the council re-engaged on Iraq, and reach agreement on a new way forward.
  Mr. Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein or his regime, but I am concerned about humanitarian developments in Iraq. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is clear from the United Nations report last month that the situation is deteriorating. The report pointed out, for example, that Iraq has moved from being a relatively affluent country to one that is afflicted by poverty.
  856
  Numerous articles, such as the one in the New Statesman, reported that 4,000 children were dying each month as a result of disease which could well be prevented.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a new initiative and that it should be underpinned by a determination to assess the situation and to ensure that we direct our efforts at dealing with the long-term effects of illness caused to the people of Iraq by the war and by the sanctions?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Government are equally concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Our draft resolution, to which I referred earlier, reflects the Government's commitment to help the Iraqi people as much as possible. It picks up most of the recommendations of the humanitarian panel which, if implemented, would bring an additional $470 million over a six-month period into the oil-for-food programme.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: I join the Minister in his remarks about his predecessor, the late Derek Fatchett, who will be sorely missed. I also congratulate the Minister on his new appointment at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I wish him personally all the best in his new post. Does he agree that our strategic interest as regards Iraq will be far better served by improving relations with Iran?
  Mr. Hoon: The Government share that view. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, today the existing representation of the two countries will be upgraded to ambassadorial level.

  Middle East
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to promote the middle east peace process. [83500]
  Ms Christine Russell: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to make progress with the middle east peace process. [83507]
  Gillian Merron: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the Israeli general election. [R] [83511]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have sent messages of congratulation to Mr. Barak, the Labour leader, on his convincing victory. We hope that the search for peace can now be resumed.
  I warmly welcome the commitment made by Mr. Barak on the night of his victory that he wants Israeli troops to be withdrawn from southern Lebanon within a year. The people of Israel have demonstrated their desire to break the stalemate on the peace process, and we look forward to working with their new Government for a just and lasting peace.
  Dr. Starkey: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a recent report by World Vision, which documented the effects on the Palestinians of Israeli policy since Oslo.

  857
  When he congratulates Mr. Barak on the election results, will he make it clear to the new Israeli Government that there must be an immediate cessation of illegal settlement building, including Har Homa; an immediate end to the confiscation of identity documents from Jerusalem residents; an immediate end to the demolition of Arab homes; and that those actions are necessary to engender the sort of atmosphere in which constructive negotiations can start between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians, leading to final status negotiations?
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the message of congratulation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister includes a recommendation for a freeze on settlement activity. It has long been this Government's position that both sides should refrain from unilateral acts that complicate the peace process. We view settlements in the occupied territories as illegal in international law and, more immediately, an obstacle to the progress of peace. I hope that we can now resume on the path of peace.
  Ms Russell: I, too, join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Mr. Barak and the Israeli Labour party on yesterday's landslide election victory, and in applauding Mr. Barak's pre-election pledge to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon within 12 months and to renew and reopen negotiations with Syria. In his dialogue and negotiations with the new Israeli Administration, will my right hon. Friend press on them that as great a priority should be given to peace and justice for the Palestinians as to the wider regional context?
  Mr. Cook: It is our view that there has to be a comprehensive peace settlement embracing all the tracks of the peace process, including the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. My hon. Friend ends with an important point: we should not regard the peace process as some kind of zero sum game in which somebody wins at somebody else's expense. The Israeli and the Palestinian peoples have everything to gain from a just and lasting peace, and we would urge both to work towards that in good faith.
  Gillian Merron: Will my right hon. Friend join me, also, in welcoming the results of the Israeli general election as a victory for democracy in the middle east? Will he comment on the instrumental role played by Yasser Arafat in cracking down on terrorism, which so marked the previous general election, in a way that allowed voters in Israel—Arab and Jew alike—to choose a new Prime Minister who is committed to the road to peace and willing to take the kind of risks that are necessary to get along that road?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to congratulate the new Government of Israel as often as I am invited to do so. The contribution of the Palestinian National Authority to improved security should be recognised—and we have played a part through our advice on dealing with terrorists and improving security. We should firmly keep in mind the same principle that we ourselves have applied in Northern Ireland: we should not let the terrorists, on either side, who wish to impede the peace process to derail us from making sure that the great majority who want peace have their interests served first.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I press the Foreign Secretary on the question of Har Homa, the sensitivity of which he is personally aware of as a result of his visit there 18 months or two years ago? He knows that those settlements are contrary to international law. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will press that view on the Israeli Government, not least because, elsewhere in the middle east, we take certain actions based on international law? If we are to enjoy any acceptance for those actions elsewhere, we must surely show that we are even-handed.
  Mr. Cook: I think that, famously, I have done more than anybody else to press that view on the Israeli Government in connection with Har Homa. In the Israeli mind, the issue of Har Homa concerns not only the question of settlements, on which we are entirely at one, but touches on the future status of Jerusalem. It is very important that the issue of Jerusalem is addressed in the final status talks, and Britain played a leading part in achieving the Berlin declaration of the European Union countries which called for final status talks to be concluded within a year of commencement. I hope that we are now on the verge of those talks commencing.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in simply welcoming the latest in a long string of democratic elections in Israel? Does he agree that it represents a clear example to other middle east states of the basis on which such elections should be conducted? Can he confirm that he will be pressing to ensure that the next elections to the Palestinian National Authority will be conducted with the same due regard for probity and fairness?
  Mr. Cook: In fairness, I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the previous elections were observed, and the broad conclusion was that they were free and fair, but I of course agree that we should congratulate Israel on its vibrant democracy. We should also take note of the fact that one of the issues in the election on which the Israeli people have spoken is that they want a Government who are willing to work with their neighbours and promote peace throughout the region.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I assume that my right hon. Friend will also be putting pressure on Syria and Iraq and making it clear that support for Hezbollah is not the way to help the peace process forward. Will he also make it clear that, as a nation, we welcome and support the amazing result in Israel because it is possible in a democracy for a whole people to express their desire for peace through the ballot box? That should be the way forward that we, of all people, should support most strongly.
  Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I assure her that we have raised the issue of the security of southern Lebanon with Syria. I hope very much that Mr. Barak's proposals to withdraw from southern Lebanon will create an environment in which both sides can respond, and security can be achieved on the track of both Syria and Lebanon.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Bill Rammell: What discussions he has had about improving European defence co-operation. [83501]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We have had full and intensive discussions with NATO allies and European partners since last autumn, most recently at the NATO Washington summit and the WEU Bremen ministerial meeting. We look forward to further discussion at the Cologne European Council.
  Mr. Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the general principle of defence co-operation is important, what really matters is the building of practical structures to ensure a rapid response in terms of European crisis management? Does not the current conflict in Kosovo underline more strongly than ever the need for European defence co-operation? Does it not also show that Europe needs to pull its weight on defence matters, within the context of NATO?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lessons of Kosovo are clear. When it comes to collective security, we need a practical mechanism—at the moment, NATO is certainly that practical mechanism—that can both deliver security and engender the stability that Europe needs. Europeans themselves now recognise, however, that the action in Kosovo would have been impossible without the United States. It is a commonly held view that it is time for us to begin to examine, and rectify, the deficits in our own capacity, and move towards a position in which Europe can take responsibility for its own security.
  Mr. William Cash: The Minister will, of course, know that a new European document relating to common strategy in the European Union and Russia is due to be considered in Cologne on 3 and 4 June. Does he agree, in the context of the Petersberg tasks—to which the document refers—that there is no question of the introduction of majority voting, which would result in our going down the slippery path towards majority voting in European defence matters?
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand that that is one of the hon. Gentleman's obsessions. Let me assure him that, in this instance, it is an obsession shared by—1 think—all the Governments of the European Union.
  Mr. Roger Casale: Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent visit to Rome by members of the British-Italian parliamentary group to discuss British-Italian defence co-operation? Does he agree that Italy has a key role to play in European defence, both at present in respect of the conflict in Kosovo, and in the future with regard to securing peace and stability in the Mediterranean region? Will he renew his efforts to establish a strong British-Italian defence link in the context of the NATO alliance, but also as a cornerstone of European defence co-operation?
  Mr. Lloyd: We welcome the link between British and Italian parliamentarians at any level, but there is no doubt
  860
  that Italy's role as part of the NATO alliance in Kosovo is particularly significant. All partners are pulling their weight in Kosovo, and, in the future, that co-operation within Europe will become closer and tighter. What was begun by our Prime Minister and President Chirac at St. Malo has been extended to include the rest of the European Union, and, potentially, those who are willing players throughout the European continent.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Does the Minister agree that the process of improving European defence co-operation should not take place in a way that might undermine NATO? If he does, why did the St. Malo agreement provide for such co-operation inside and outside the framework of NATO? Can the Minister tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to implement such co-operation outside the framework of NATO?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our national security and, indeed, of the security of the whole of Europe. That is not simply an historical perspective; we know that, even as we speak, NATO is actively helping the move towards a more stable Europe in Kosovo. There cannot be any suggestion that a British Government would work in any way that undermined NATO's role, but there is no contradiction between the decisions made in Berlin and Washington—which refer to a European role within NATO—and the integrity of NATO as a whole. Of course Europeans must do more for their own security, but, in the end, we shall always have NATO there as the cornerstone of our collective security.

  MOX Shipment (Japan)
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: What discussions he has had with overseas Governments regarding the shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83502]
  Mr. Tom Brake: What recent representations have been made to him by foreign Governments regarding the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83509]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Discussions have taken place between officials and their counterparts in France, Japan and the United States to ensure in particular that appropriate measures are in place for the physical protection of MOX fuel, consistent with internationally agreed commitments and recommendations.
  Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply, but is he aware of concerns that MOX fuel is not only highly dangerous for the environment, but could be a threat in the hands of terrorists? Can he assure me and the House that the Government will take serious note of international opinion on the manufacture and, indeed, safe transportation of MOX fuel?
  Mr. Lloyd: The reality is that transportation of MOX fuel is undertaken in a way that is consistent with what the public demand, but I must make the point that, as a fuel, MOX is safer than many other similar nuclear materials. In particular, handling it is inherently far safer.

  861
  However, the capacity of the transportation systems themselves to deter both accident and attack is high. That includes, of course, arming those who have responsibility for the safe transport of the fuel. Within those terms, I think that I can say that we are certain that what British Nuclear Fuels plc is engaged in is as safe as it possibly can be. There is a high measure of security.
  Mr. Brake: I also thank the Minister for his response, but must press him on the point. Will he impress on other Departments the need for caution and for a plutonium disposal policy that takes into account international concerns, as well as environmental risks, rather than increasing reprocessing and MOX production at Sellafield?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleagues in other Departments, but the simple reality is that MOX is a better way to dispose of spent uranium through reprocessing. The advantage of MOX is that, in refuelling, the plutonium is destroyed. Therefore, the proliferation risks from plutonium disappear with that reprocessing cycle. It is a very environmentally and ecologically sound way to get rid of the dangers of proliferation.
  Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the imminence of the decision about the Sellafield MOX plant and the increasing public concern about the transport of all forms of radioactive waste—a concern highlighted by yesterday's revelation about secret attempts by British Nuclear Fuels to negotiate the import of spent fuel from the United States—may I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department or other Departments have conducted any independent research into the proliferation risks of the transport of MOX fuel, particularly with regard to the export of MOX fuel to other countries that are also signatories to the non-proliferation treaty?
  Mr. Lloyd: The export of MOX fuel is covered by the relevant international conventions under the nuclear suppliers group regime. It means that we would not authorise export to countries and Governments where there was no commitment to use MOX solely for peaceful and energy-related purposes, and no agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the conditions under which the fuels were held were adequate to guarantee security against any risk, including, obviously, the risk of proliferation.
  The transportation system is very safe. I defy any terrorist to breach it. Even in the more lurid and purple descriptions of what terrorists might want to do, trying to seize shipments of MOX would come very low on the agenda of proliferators.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: When he plans to visit Cyprus to discuss its accession to the EU. [83503]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Last month, I visited Cyprus to discuss with representatives of both communities the prospects for a settlement and the progress on Cyprus's application to join the European Union. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary currently has no plans to visit Cyprus, he and I have regular discussions
  862
  with colleagues from other EU member states on all aspects of the accession process. There is also close and regular contact at official level.
  Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister agree that the decision not to deploy missiles in the south of the island is only the latest in a long series of constructive gestures made by the Republic of Cyprus, which consistently have not been met by reciprocal gestures by the regime in the north? Will she confirm that the only criteria that could and should properly be applied in negotiations on Cyprus's accession to the European Union are those that would be applied in the case of any other applicant country?
  Ms Quin: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, let me say that we welcomed at the time the decision not to deploy the missiles, and believe that that was a positive step. Indeed, we urged that the authorities in the north should make similar gestures to build confidence and try to relaunch the peace process on the island. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of Dame Ann Hercus, who negotiates regularly with both communities on the island in trying to move the process forward. Perhaps I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that our own Prime Minister has made a strong commitment to undertaking every effort possible to relaunch the peace process this year.
  Moves towards reunification of the island and a peaceful settlement would be very helpful in the context of European Union accession. However, as I have made clear on many occasions, no outside, non-EU country has a veto on Cyprus's accession. We believe that Cyprus's application should be treated on its merits, as other applications are being considered and treated.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to Cyprus's application to the European Union. Does she agree that further progress on achieving a settlement to the Cyprus question will require action by the Governments of Turkey and of the United States? Will she tell the House what representations to that effect the British Government have made to the Administrations in Ankara and Washington?
  Ms Quin: In our contacts with all interested parties, but particularly with Turkey and the United States—with whom we have worked closely on the issue—we have repeatedly urged on all sides efforts to make progress towards a settlement. We shall certainly continue to do so. We feel that it would be quite wrong simply to sit back at a time when EU accession negotiations offer an important opportunity. We believe that European Union membership would be very much in the interests of both communities on the island of Cyprus.

  Balkans
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What discussions he plans with Governments of NATO countries, Russia and the Balkan states about plans for peace in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia. [83505]
  Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the current position regarding Kosovo. [83510]
  Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [83515]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Yesterday, 1 attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, at which I tabled Britain's proposals for a new contract between the European Union and the countries of the Balkan region. I also met bilaterally with Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and Milo Djukanovic, the President of Montenegro, and spoke by phone with President Ahtisaari, who has recently been asked to serve as an envoy in partnership with Mr. Chernomyrdin. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in the region visiting Bulgaria and Albania. I shall shortly report more fully to the House when I open the forthcoming debate.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. Since his report last week, what progress has he made on drafting a resolution to be put before the Security Council, but which would, if possible, be agreed by all parties in Europe? Has he been able to discuss the matter with the European Union special representative, the President of Finland, to engage his good offices in dealing with it? Specifically, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, as we are proposing a multinational peacekeeping force for Kosovo, the position of the Government and of NATO is that forces will not be deployed in a way that results in a de facto division of Kosovo by ethnic allegiance, and that Kosovo must remain as one entity, protected by an international peacekeeping force?
  Mr. Cook: In response to the question about the Security Council resolution, I am pleased to report to the House that we have made good progress in discussion among the western members of the G8, and we have virtual agreement on all the elements of a resolution. We are looking for the appropriate time at which to explore those elements with our Russian partners. There will be a meeting of political directors on Wednesday to discuss the way forward towards a settlement.
  Nevertheless, we should not confuse an agreement with Russia with a settlement with Belgrade. We must take good care not to compromise on the key NATO objectives as we enter into dialogue with Belgrade. I assure the House that we have no intention of reaching an agreement that would result in a de facto partition of Kosovo.
  Mr. Winnick: I recognise what is already being done to try to protect civilians from the air raids. Does my right hon. Friend agree that even more should be done, even if it means the planes flying lower and extra danger to allied military personnel? On the wider issue, is it not the case that, once Belgrade shows a willingness to accept the basic conditions that have been put forward for a settlement—first and foremost an international military force in Kosovo, the return of all refugees and the protection of all civilians living in Kosovo—the bombing can stop and the talks can begin?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right. We have been exploring the precise sequencing of a bombing pause and
  864
  we shall discuss that again with Russia. We are not going to continue bombing when our troops enter Kosovo to escort the refugees back. There is also plainly room for us to agree to a bombing pause while the Serb forces withdraw so that they can do so with confidence. However, there must be a clear agreement, with a serious intent from Belgrade to withdraw and admit the refugees, before we can do that.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the issue of low flying, because I have seen some complaints that there is a political restriction to prevent pilots from flying low. I assure the House that there is no such political constraint; it is entirely an operational matter for the military. Politicians would be extremely foolish to override the military on the height at which our pilots fly.
  Mr. Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when we eventually get access to Kosovo, every effort will be made to trace the survivors of the disastrous accident at Korisa the other day, and the survivors of the other accidental bombings of Kosovars, and offer them whatever help they need, including medical assistance, to try to rebuild their lives?
  Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we are eager to enter Kosovo to bring medical relief to all those who have been victims, including the many internally displaced refugees who we know have been shelled deliberately by Milosevic's forces. We would be most anxious to provide all possible help to the survivors of what happened at Korisa. We would also be anxious to give them a full opportunity to explain to the International War Crimes Tribunal how they came to be refugees, why the Serb forces took them back off the hillsides and into the village, and why the same Serb forces reportedly prevented them from returning to their homes and kept them in two compounds. When the International War Crimes Tribunal investigators go in, I hope that they will have full access to all the sites at which civilians have been killed, particularly those that are the sites not of a tragic accident of war, but of deliberate, brutal butchery by the Serb forces.
  Mr. John Randall: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the words that he used during the Gulf war, when he questioned the efficacy of bombing runs deep into Iraq and asked whether the destruction of every power station, water supply and road bridge hit Iraqi civilians harder than Iraqi troops? Does he share similar doubts over the bombing in Yugoslavia? If not, what has changed his mind?
  Mr. Cook: I do not share the same doubts, because we are not hitting all the power stations and all the water supply in Yugoslavia. On the contrary, we have taken great care to ensure that we hit only those targets that are of direct assistance to the military. That is why there have been many fewer bombing runs than there were during the Gulf war. I am pleased that we are succeeding in hitting the tanks, the trucks, the armoured personnel carriers and the artillery batteries in Kosovo. Those are the units that are carrying out the direct killing in Kosovo. I want an end to the bombing, but I can agree to that only when there is an end to the butchery of the civilians in Kosovo.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: May we have an assurance that any resolution will not be based on the Rambouillet ultimatum, which was the severance of Kosovo through NATO bombing with immediate effect, or the severance of Kosovo through NATO occupation three years later? Not surprisingly, the Serbs said no to both.
  Mr. Cook: I was at Rambouillet on every second day of the discussions—
  Mrs. Mahon: Read the document.
  Mr. Cook: I am familiar with the text, and with what we put to the Serbs. There was no proposal, as is now claimed by some in Belgrade, to occupy the whole of Yugoslavia. That point was never raised by the Serb side during the talks at Rambouillet. We proposed an arrangement which would have preserved the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic by keeping Kosovo within it; which would have preserved the long-term status of Kosovo, with matters to be resolved in consultation with the Kosovar people; and which would have provided full protection for the Serb minority within Kosovo, with their own elected authority to look after their language, religion and culture. It was the basis for a democratic, self-governing, multi-ethnic Kosovo. I very much regret that Belgrade was not willing to accept what was a fair offer.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Prime Minister, who told the House last week that he believed that the air campaign, as currently conducted, will achieve in full NATO's five original objectives?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that I always agree with my Prime Minister. For the past 48 hours, I have been stressing the success of that campaign, and I have done so again to the House. Only on Friday, I spoke to Hashem Thaqi—the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army in Kosovo—who told me that the Yugoslav army in Kosovo is even more demoralised than before and has a high rate of desertion. There have been frequently witnessed confrontations involving VJ units leaving the front line and being turned back by the Serb police. We are making a mark, and the VJ army knows it.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Foreign Secretary take steps to move British forces near enough to Kosovo, so that, when fair point. If we are to take advantage of the success of our air campaign, we have to be reathe moment comes—at present, it looks like it will be in the far-distant future—and President Milosevic buckles, there are sufficient troops present to capitalise on that success? Does the Foreign Secretary understand that, unless that happens promptly, not one single refugee will be able to go back to Kosovo this year? What steps are being taken to plan for their maintenance and support in the camps?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises ady to enter Kosovo when the moment arrives. That is why we have already deployed to Macedonia over 4,000 British troops. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the weekend, we put another 2,300
  866
  troops on standby to move there. We are making a major commitment, and we are now by far the leading nation within the force that will provide the nucleus for KFOR and enter Kosovo. However, that force must be an alliance force, and that is why we are in dialogue with our allies to make sure that others are deploying forces to the area in the same strength to make sure that we have a balanced contribution.

  European Union
  Mr. James Plaskitt: What proposals he has for the reform of the governance of the European Union. [83506]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government are pressing for radical and specific reforms in the way in which the Commission works. We believe that the Commission should be governed by the principles of efficiency, transparency and accountability. Achieving this will require changes in financial control systems, personnel management and structures. We have proposed a number of detailed measures and are discussing these with our partners and the new President of the Commission.
  The Cologne European Council will examine how to take forward the institutional issues which were not resolved by the conclusion of the Amsterdam treaty.
  Mr. Plaskitt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to radical reform, which is clearly necessary. The European Union has evolved substantially in the past 40 years, but its governance has yet to catch up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chances of securing that reform, and of Britain leading it, are all the greater now that we are in a position of engagement and leadership in the European Union and no longer carping from the sidelines, as was the case before?
  Ms Quin: Absolutely. That was clearly seen in the positive outcome for this country of the negotiations in Berlin in March and the successes that we secured in structural policy and a variety of other policies, as well as in working out ways to make proper progress with a reformed European Commission.
  Mr. Michael Trend: Why is the disgraced Commissioner Edith Cresson still in post and drawing a salary?
  Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we have agreed the appointment of the new Commission president to take forward the reforms that we want to see, the new Commission is not yet in place. Once it is, we expect it to proceed on the basis of the reforms that we and others have put forward. Those reforms will include terms and conditions for Commissioners and future appointments to the Commission. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be constructive on the issues. Their manifesto for the European elections would lead to a massive loss of influence for Britain, whereas, at the moment, we are leading the debate—and I welcome that.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on discussions with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. [R] [83508]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): British and Argentine delegations will meet in the UK next week to discuss issues of common interest in the south Atlantic. The UK delegation will include members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Council.
  Mr. Borrow: When taking part in those discussions next week, will my hon. Friend emphasise the importance to the Falkland Islands of the fishing industry and the sale of fishing licences? The islanders are concerned that the Argentine Government on occasion use the sale of their fishing licences in a predatory way to seek to undermine the economy of the Falkland Islands. Is it possible to raise with the Argentine Government the issue of co-operation on the problem of illegal fishing in the south Atlantic?
  Mr. Lloyd: Although the agenda is open, I would be surprised if the issue of fish stocks was not a major part of the bilateral discussions. In particular, it is already a matter of record that the Argentine Government and the Falkland Islands Government have agreed on mechanisms whereby the catch, especially of important stocks such as the whiting and the illex squid, will be kept this year to similar levels as last year. That spirit of co-operation is important because it makes sense to adopt conservation measures for migratory stocks only if they are agreed by all parties.

  We look for co-operation from the Argentine Government on illegal fishing. Indeed, over the weekend, the Falkland Islands fisheries protection vessels were in action against Taiwanese illegal fishing, and a clear message was sent to those who poach in those waters when one of the vessels used its 20 mm cannon to fire warning shots, in accordance with the rules of engagement, and subsequently fired on the poaching vessel, again in accordance with the rules of engagement. That gave an important signal to that vessel, which immediately left Falklands waters, and to other poachers, that we will take tough action.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is difficult to see how the Falkland Islanders can trust this Government when they have not looked after their interests well during their time in office. For example, it took 21 days from the Chilean Government saying that they would order the cessation of flights between Chile and the islands before the Foreign Secretary even bothered to raise the issue with the Chilean Foreign Minister.
  Let us be clear: the discussions with the Argentineans are on the initiative of the Falkland Islanders who are coming here next week. I would like the Minister to give assurances to the House, and to the Falkland Islanders, that the position on flights is non-negotiable. What will the Minister tell the Argentineans about flights to the Falkland Islands?
  Mr. Lloyd: One of the less endearing features of an Opposition who flounder in their foreign policy is their decision always to attack the innocent bystanders.
  868
  Why attack the Falkland Islands Government when it is they who asked the British Government to play the suspension of Lan Chile flights in a low-key way in order not to politicise it? We agreed to that, but of course the Opposition did not.
  The issue was raised at official level, in accordance with the wishes of the Falkland Islands council, long before my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it. That is a legitimate and sensible way forward. My right hon. Friend has now raised the matter with Foreign Minister Insulza and I raised it with Deputy Foreign Minister Mariano Fernandez last week. We will continue to raise it, because the Chilean Government are profoundly mistaken in their decision to suspend the flights, which is bad both for the islanders and for the Chilean economy. It is not, however, a matter of narrow party politics.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) is right: illegal fishing is a serious problem for both the Argentinians and the Falkland Islanders. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about equipping a fisheries protection vessel with a 20 mm cannon, which is useful, but why are his officials so hostile to the idea of using gear-cutting equipment of the kind that was used so effectively by Icelandic coastguard vessels against our fishermen in the so-called cod war? Why cannot the Falklanders be supplied with that very effective equipment?
  Mr. Lloyd: We have tried to make progress in devising ways of deterring illegal fishing. We will consider technical means of deterrence as well as diplomatic pressure. Taiwan is one of the principal offenders and we regularly raise the matter with the Taiwanese Government. As well as the effectiveness of the deterrence, we must consider the risks, not only to the fishermen on the poaching vessels but to the sailors on the fisheries protection vessels. We have a duty to ensure that the regime, while being effective, guarantees minimum acceptable safety levels.

  Gibraltar
  Rev. Martin Smyth: What representations he has received from the Spanish Foreign Minister concerning alleged irregularities in the financial sector in Gibraltar. [83512]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Spanish Foreign Minister made a number of allegations that companies registered in Gibraltar are involved in money laundering, and some material in support of the allegations was handed over. The material has been investigated, but the allegations are either too vague for us to be able to act on them or they refer to cases already going through the courts. Gibraltar has money laundering legislation that conforms to United Kingdom and European Union standards. Both the British and the Gibraltar Government are strongly committed to the fight against crime.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that the general allegations are not specific enough to merit consideration? What court will deal with them, and are

  869
  the Spaniards prepared to recognise the courts in Gibraltar? Is it not time we stopped playing with the Spanish as they seek continually to intimidate the Gibraltarians?
  Ms Quin: As the Spaniards are members of the European Union, they have to accept that Gibraltar has introduced legislation to conform to European Union standards, and we have made that point very strongly. The allegations are indeed too vague to act on, and we have made it clear that unhelpful, vague and sweeping allegations do not help and are unfair to Gibraltar.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The allegations are unfair to Gibraltar, but do they not also traduce the Foreign Secretary? Is it not time we were much more robust in complaining to Spain that its widespread and ill-founded allegations are a slur not only against the Gibraltar home Government but against the Foreign Secretary, who has ultimate responsibility for the police, courts and financial regulatory process in Gibraltar? Is it not time for a more robust seeing-off of the Spanish Government over Gibraltar than we have experienced of late?
  Ms Quin: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, like all members of the Government, takes his responsibilities extremely seriously. We have protested strongly about those issues, and we shall continue to do so. There has been no lack of robustness on our part.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Lady not entirely right to fight the unhelpful, vague and sweeping allegations of the Spanish authorities? Does not that vagueness contrast with clearly orchestrated delays on the frontier with Gibraltar perpetrated by the Spanish, which continue, notwithstanding the Anglo-Spanish summit attended by the Prime Minister on 10 April? Is not the Spanish legal jurisdiction one in which no fair-minded person can have confidence?
  Ms Quin: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first few words. The border delays were sometimes as long as six hours in February, but are down to an hour or 45 minutes—
  Mr. Mackinlay: That's all right then.
  Ms Quin: I not saying that it is all right, but the line that we have taken and our robust protests have made a real difference.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Lynne Jones: What progress has been made to date in achieving a nuclear weapons-free world. [83513]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): United States and Russian arms control agreements have brought the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers down dramatically from the cold war heights. The Government last year announced substantial reductions in our own nuclear deterrent. In 1997, Britain and France became the first nuclear powers
  870
  to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The entry into force of that treaty, and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, are among the highest priorities.
  Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. At the nuclear proliferation treaty preparatory committee discussions currently under way at the United Nations in New York, the head of the British delegation stated that we have a clear view of our goal of global elimination of nuclear weapons, and that we know how we want to achieve it. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Foreign Office intends to achieve the aim of ridding the world of nuclear weapons once the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations have been successfully concluded?
  Mr. Lloyd: Britain has already taken significant steps. Announcements made in last year's strategic defence review mean that we have the lowest number of nuclear deterrents of any of the nuclear weapons states. We have also introduced new transparency into nuclear deterrence, and more is known about our nuclear weapons systems than has been known of any nuclear power in the history of nuclear weapons. Those are important steps.
  While the fissile material cut-off treaty is the next step on the way to dismantling nuclear arsenals, we have not yet arrived at that point. One of our ambitions at Geneva is to ensure that an ad hoc commission on the treaty is assembled and gets to work. We want equally to be among the states that have ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty that will come together to put pressure on states which have signed but not ratified, and to persuade states that have not signed to do so. The two treaties could be significant steps on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister said that more is known about British nuclear weapons than ever before. That may be so, though perhaps not for the reasons that he meant. Can he comment on the loss of information about Trident to the Chinese in the recent spying incident? Can he reassure the House that the Trident nuclear deterrent is safe in his hands?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would not seriously expect me to comment on security matters. The deterrent is safe in our hands, and allegations about leaks are not allegations about actions by the British Government.

  British Council
  Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the funding for the next three financial years of the British Council. [83514]
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have been able to secure for the British Council £133.1 million in the first year, 1999-2000, rising to £136.1 million in the second year and £138.9 million in the third year. That means a real increase of about £2 million for each of those years. The British Council now has the resources to continue the excellent work that it does and to develop further programmes in line with the FCO's and its own objectives.
  Ms Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the British Council and the BBC World

  871
  Service play an important part in representing Britain abroad and thus require stable and adequate funding for long-term planning? Is he also aware that, because the BBC World Service needs to be a quality service, it requires additional funding? Will he give an assurance that he will look into those matters?
  Mr. Hoon: I do agree with my hon. Friend and, for that reason, I am particularly pleased that the comprehensive spending review settlement has been able to secure for the council a real increase in line with the FCO's own settlement uplift of about 2 per cent. That will give the British Council a period of stability and some real money with which to plan ahead. Clearly, at the end of that CSR period, the Government will consider further funding again.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Would it be possible for the Minister to agree that more resources ought to be given to the BBC World Service at this time to assist it in the work that it is doing in Serbia to bring the true story of the NATO action to the Serbian people, and to assist it in its interlink programme, the aim of which is to link refugee families who have been split up throughout Europe and among the three receiving nations?
  Mr. Hoon: I agree; that is precisely why the Government have been concerned to ensure the stability of funding for the British Council so that it can plan ahead in the way that I have described.

  Albania
  Mr. Tony McNulty: If he will make a statement about relations with Albania. [83516]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Our relations with Albania are good. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Albania today. We are grateful to the Albanian Government for their support for the current NATO air strikes and for their humanitarian relief efforts.
  Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Can he assure me that real contingency plans are being put in place to recognise Albania's efforts in dealing with the refugees and the impact on the country's economy of the conflict in Kosovo? Will he assure me
  872
  that those efforts will be recognised and that Albania will get the just rewards that it fully deserves—the rebuilding of its country and economy—given its support for those actions?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Albanian Government have taken the biggest number of refugees—it now stands at 430,000—and their efforts have been prodigious. They have been widely welcomed not merely in the region but throughout the world. There is no doubt that the strain on Albania's fairly weak economy has been enormous. In recognition of that fact, the European Union has already transferred significant sums of money both for the balance of payments and for the direct pressures on budgets.
  Of course, in the longer run, one of the realities of the situation in that part of Europe is that we must look for new and quicker ways to lead all the parties—Albania, of course, and Yugoslavia itself—towards greater stability, which will lead them to ever-closer relations with Europe. That is the ambition of the stability pact that the European Union has already begun to discuss.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Would the Minister draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the sayings of the Albanian President, Mr. Berisha, as reported in The Times today? Mr. Berisha, as well as saying that the KLA are a bunch of feuding gangs and racketeers, recommended that NATO should negotiate with Mr. Rugova. However, the House will be shattered to learn that, shortly after that, Mr. Rugova's henchman, Mr. Fehmi Agani—of course, all those names will be familiar to the Foreign Secretary—was assassinated. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Berisha attributed the murder to the KLA.
  Do not all those facts illustrate that another civil war is building up in Albania? When that war breaks out, to which side does the Foreign Secretary wish to provide an air force?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is difficult for me to give the right hon. Gentleman a history lesson, but Mr. Berisha has not been President of Albania for some time. As one who knows about feuding gangs of racketeers in his own party, he may be the right person to give advice on such matters. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary heard him directly, I need not comment further except to say that we will work closely with the Government of Albania to achieve the stability that Europe needs.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I would like to make a short business statement. Following the events of yesterday, the business for Thursday 20 May will now be as follows: consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, followed by the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken at a later date.
Sir George Young: Last night, the Government panicked and ran. Their arguments on bereavement allowances were mauled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government could take no more punishment. Will they use the time between now and Thursday to reflect on their incapacity benefit proposals? Does the right hon. Lady really believe that the time now proposed for debate is sufficient for all the important issues that remain? In particular, will the House have an opportunity to debate amendment No. 10? Are not the Government losing support in the House, their friends outside and now their nerve?
Mrs. Beckett: There was more than a reek of wishful thinking about that question. Far from panicking and running, the Government took a sensible decision to have a proper debate on issues of considerable importance in prime time in the House. The Opposition wanted to debate them in the middle of the night. We prefer to debate them in the clear light of day so that we can make it plain that our balanced package is fair and right. As for the adequacy of the time offered, we had 13 hours yesterday, much of which the Opposition chose to waste. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have twice announced to the House that one day would be provided for this business. At no point did anyone, himself included, ask for more time.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House state for the record how much time she proposes to allow under the guillotine motion for a debate on incapacity benefit? Not only her colleagues, but the whole House will want to reflect between now and Thursday on the time that she proposes to allow for that so that we can gauge the extent to which the Government are prepared to allow free and full debate on such issues, and so that her colleagues can express their views openly.
Mrs. Beckett: It will be a matter for the House how it uses the time available. I am confident that no matter how much time the Government make available, it will not to be enough for the right hon. Gentleman, who has clearly set himself the job of being a filibusterer in this Parliament.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Do the Government intend to table a motion that will give adequate time to each major issue, including the Third Reading debate? Will they have the final vote at 7 pm or 10 pm? Do they recognise that there is concern throughout the House—I was here for much of the debate through the night—about the issues? There are not clear, partisan views,
874
but genuine differences of opinion on both sides on the House as we represent the real concerns of our constituents. Acting like a bulldozer will do the Government and the House great discredit.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government will provide the time that we believe can be sensibly used to debate those matters. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that time was available yesterday. There is substance for genuine debate on both sides of the House. I shadowed social security for five years, during which I never filibustered a debate. I always sought to structure debates so that adequate time was available, especially for proper consideration of the most important issues. I have not much time for people who are less skilful in opposition than that.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: As the debate on incapacity benefit is now to be fixed for a convenient hour, will the right hon. Lady tell the Prime Minister that it would be a good idea if he were in his place on Thursday so as to listen to the views of his Back Benchers, rather than ducking the debate by being in Bulgaria, as he was last night?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a pathetic observation; I do not propose to dignify it with a response.
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the time allocated will also allow for any statements to be made to the House? Will she tell the House whether the Home Secretary intends to make a statement on freedom of information? If he does, how can the House and the country give any credibility to what he says when the right hon. Lady cannot even tell us how much time the Government propose to allocate under the guillotine motion?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are keeping all those issues under careful review. As I have just pointed out, we are anxious to ensure that there is good time, in prime time—in daytime—for the House to debate those issues.
Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, had there been any filibustering, or any attempt to filibuster, last night, the occupants of the Chair would have ruled it out of order? Will she further confirm that much of the time that we spent debating the Bill last night was taken up with Government amendments, introduced late in the Bill's progress? Those matters could not have been discussed in Committee because the amendments had not been tabled at that stage. Will she ensure that, on Thursday, sufficient time is allowed under the guillotine motion for her internal opposition and the official Opposition to debate matters that cannot be encompassed by Government new clauses or Government amendments?
Mrs. Beckett: First, it is my understanding that no issues were tabled that had not been flagged up in some way—including, for example, in the Budget. Secondly, I take no strictures on these matters from the Opposition. I well remember when a Government guillotined a Bill and then introduced entirely new clauses dealing with benefits that had never been mentioned before. That was the Conservative Government whom the hon. and learned Gentleman supported.
Mr. Graham Brady: Having been present throughout last night's debate, I am

875
astonished at the right hon. Lady's suggestion that filibustering went on. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out, the Government introduced three amendments at the last minute; that occupied a considerable time. Government Back Benchers spoke for extremely long periods and we heard some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The suggestion is an insult to Labour Members as well as to those on the Conservative Benches. I hope that she will withdraw it.
Mrs. Beckett: No, I will not. I understand that a total of about four hours was taken up on relatively minor, technical issues which had been discussed in Committee and were not a matter of great anxiety or contention.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Secretary of State for Social Security be present for the debate on Thursday? He certainly did not attend for more than five minutes last night, despite sounding off on the "Today" programme this morning.
Mrs. Beckett: Oh dear! I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that I can well recall that, when the most enormous package of social security changes ever to come before the House was produced in 1985–86, the then Secretary of State, who is currently the shadow Home Secretary, was not present at all. When that was mentioned in debate, even his own Ministers collapsed in mirth.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), will the right hon. Lady reconsider her view on that subject? Given that, last night, while he was in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, the Secretary of State for Social Security spent more time outside the Chamber than inside the Chamber, does she not accept that, when the debate resumes, he should spend more time in the Chamber and less time outside it?
Mrs. Beckett: No. The duties of Ministers are many and various; they do not always require Ministers to be present for every item of debate before the House. It is a
876
sensible division of labour to apportion matters between Ministers; that is precisely what is done by every Government.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to give further consideration to the point that I put some time earlier about the need for the House of Commons to have a role in discussing, debating and deciding motions relating to the war? The American Senate has voted several times on the matter yet, although the House of Commons has been allowed to ask questions of Ministers and to debate the matter, as today, we are totally excluded from playing any role whatever. It would appear that all the decisions on the war—relating to the bombing, to the possible use of troops and to the approach to the United Nations—are being taken personally by the Prime Minister, and to do that is to deny not only the House, but the people when we represent any say whatever in the possibility of arriving at different conclusions. The view I express is shared by senior figures on the Conservative and Liberal Benches—
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the business statement is very narrow and does not relate to the business of the House today. If the Leader of the House wants to reply, she may do so, but right hon. and hon. Members' comments and questions must relate to the business statement.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall simply say that it is self-evident that hon. Members are not in any way excluded from playing a role in these matters. My right hon. Friend's reference is to his continued desire, which I accept is shared by right hon. and hon. Members in some other parts of the House, for the House to be asked to take a decision on a substantive motion. I say again what I have said repeatedly to him and to others who have raised the matter: it has long—for generations, as I understand it—been the tradition of the House that, once British troops are engaged in conflict, the House, while offering every opportunity for hon. Members to raise their voice and to make whatever points and comments they want, does not take decisions on a substantive motion that might cast doubt on our support for our troops in the field.

Points of Order
3.44 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help the House by confirming that a substantial proportion of yesterday's business was, indeed, Government amendments to their own Bill; and that it is impossible that time was wasted yesterday, as you and other occupants of the Chair would have ensured that no such thing could possibly happen?
Madam Speaker: Anyone—hon. Members or those outside the House—who reads Hansard will find that the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct, in that there were Government amendments which were debated.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House has made what appears to be a misleading statement, and I am sure that she will want to correct it. She said that there were no new clauses or amendments tabled of which the Government had not given notice and that were not foreshadowed by the Bill, yet there were five new clauses and 30 amendments that were not mentioned in Committee. She needs to make it absolutely clear that that was why serious discussion was needed at the beginning of the debate: the new provisions had been nowhere near the Bill and so represented an abuse of the House.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am happy to make clear what I said, which is not what the hon. Gentleman says I said. I said that it is my understanding that no issues were raised yesterday of which people had not been previously aware in other ways: for example, they were in the Budget, if not in the Bill. As for misleading the House, the hon. Gentleman himself yesterday gave the House wrong information when he said that none of the matters had been before the House, so there had been no opportunity to comment on them—
Mr. Duncan Smith: Thirty amendments.
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good his shouting at me—what he said yesterday was not true. The new clause on maternity allowances to which he referred yesterday was
878
known to the House and had been tabled prior to the last business statement. The hon. Gentleman is trying to defend himself. This business has been before the House for two weeks—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no more comments from sedentary positions.
Mrs. Beckett: This business has been before the House for two weeks. At no point has any member of the Opposition asked for extra time or said that fresh matters were being raised, or drawn attention to concerns about time needed for debate. If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is too incompetent to realise when he needs more time, that is his problem, not ours.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now into debate and I shall not allow debate on points of order. Hon. Members have pressed me to get a debate on Kosovo today and an enormous number want to speak in the debate, but half of them will be disappointed. I have the business of the House to safeguard. I shall take two more points of order in the hope that that will be the end of them.
Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not the first time that the Leader of the House has said specifically that there are no historical precedents for debating motions of substance when British troops are in action—
Madam Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me, but I said earlier that we are considering a very narrow business statement. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye during business questions on Thursday, I will certainly call him. If he can cite a precedent now, I will listen to him.
Sir Peter Tapsell: The famous munitions debate in 1916 and the Wardlaw-Milne motion of censure against the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, in 1942 are two famous parliamentary examples of substantive motions debated when British troops were in action. Therefore, the right hon. Lady's comments are simply not true.
Madam Speaker: We shall now proceed to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Rural Transport
3.46 pm
Mr. David Prior: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for rural transport partnership schemes, administered and operated by voluntary groups, parish and town councils, to supplement bus services in rural areas.
The lack of adequate public transport in the countryside is one of the main issues facing Members of Parliament with rural constituencies. There are no easy answers, and it is disingenuous to pretend that there are. I do not believe that it has been helpful to produce new broad-brush slogans such as "integrated transport"—which is much vaunted by the Deputy Prime Minister—which have had the effect only of raising expectations. It is better to come up with practical schemes that address real problems and to recognise that people living in the countryside face problems that are different from those faced by people living in towns. There can be no single solution to this complex issue.
My constituency is typical of many rural constituencies. There is only one town, North Walsham, with a population of just over 10,000, and population density is fewer than one person per hectare. Many parishes have no regular bus services and, without motor cars, people living in small villages are literally cut off. Only last weekend, I met in the lively village of Great Snoring a constituent whose bus service had been terminated at two days' notice, thus preventing her from shopping in Norwich.
To make matters worse, the loss of many local community services, post offices and village shops, and the decline of farming jobs has meant that people who live in the countryside can continue to do so only if they own and use private cars. In North Norfolk, as in many other rural areas, a car is a necessity, not a luxury, and money will, if necessary, be diverted from other household expenditure in order to run it.
In spite of that fact, taxes on petrol and car ownership continue to rise. Such taxes hit rural people far harder than their city counterparts, not only because of the lack of public transport and local services, but because of the distances that must be travelled. Those taxes are beginning to make it difficult for retired pensioner couples to afford to run their own car. For many rural pensioners, the private car is the only realistic way of interacting with the outside world. Moreover, it is virtually impossible for anyone living in a small rural parish to hold down a full-time job without access to a car. That makes it particularly hard for young people and school leavers who are looking for work, but who do not have the money to buy or run a car or motorbike and cannot travel to work without one. Isolation is a serious issue in the countryside.
Some 20 per cent. of the population of Norfolk is over retirement age. In some areas, the proportion is much higher than that. Combined with the fact that wages in Norfolk are 15 per cent. below the United Kingdom average and that public transport is poor, it means that people potentially suffer social exclusion, missing opportunities for employment, training, leisure and shopping, and even find it difficult to access medical services. A survey conducted last year for the new deal and undertaken by jobcentres across Norfolk revealed that some 32 per cent. of those seeking work in rural areas experience problems with transport.
880
The Government need to remember that, by trying to solve urban environmental and congestion problems by continually raising taxes on petrol and car ownership, they are significantly contributing to the social exclusion and deprivation of rural people. Further tax increases on petrol should form no part of the Government's rural transport policy.
The Government have claimed that their tax policy is part of an attempt to increase the use of public transport, but real choice can be achieved only when there is good public transport. People will be persuaded to leave their cars at home only when they have the alternative of cheap, reliable public transport that does not involve significantly longer journey times.
"The Better Deal for Norfolk" report, issued by Norfolk county council in August 1998, stated that Norfolk had received a Government grant of £1.6 million for new and improved rural bus services. That was welcomed at the time with a great fanfare. However, that subsidy is not working satisfactorily; indeed, a number of bus routes have been cut or reduced.
Some services run only in school term time, which is not much help to a pensioner with a weekly shop to do. Buses have been rerouted and many elderly people find that they have to walk a considerable distance to get to the bus stop. There is little cohesion between various providers of public transport. Timetable changes are made without warning or any apparent consultation with users. Fares have gone up by as much as 40 per cent. instead of the expected 5 per cent.
Some 75 per cent. of the parishes in my constituency do not have a daily bus service. Those parishes that are lucky enough to have such a service find that it is often unsatisfactory. Many bus stops are not in a convenient place, and the timetables are incomprehensible, out of date or do not integrate with other forms of transport. In addition, many of the buses run at inconvenient times, making a half-hour shopping trip last three or four hours. On top of all that, the buses are unreliable. Routes are changed without notice, and many of the vehicles are in poor condition and of a size unsuitable for small country lanes.
Moreover, the subsidies have had two unfortunate side effects. First, because the subsidy is not available for existing routes, the new routes are competing with the existing commercial routes on an unfair basis. Many of the new routes overlap considerably with the old routes. Secondly, the new routes are not prime because they cannot support a commercial service, so the buses are often under-utilised, and many of them are of a size that cannot be catered for on small country lanes.
On some routes, a subsidy has seriously undermined existing commercial structures. It would be far preferable to subsidise, if necessary, existing routes by making them more frequent and regular than to direct all available investment to new routes.
The aim of my Bill is similar to that of the rural transport partnership scheme for King's Lynn and West Norfolk district council and Breckland district council, which was announced last week and which aims to promote the social inclusion of rural people by enhancing rural transport services and securing a long-term improvement in people's access to jobs, services and social activities in rural areas.

881
My Bill would support local community-based projects, such as minibus brokerage schemes—which make better use of vehicles—rural dial-a-ride programmes and group hire. Flexible feeder taxi buses, community car schemes, post buses, local bus services and rail feeder services, coupled with vastly improved local publicity and marketing of all types of public and community transport, can make a vital difference to people's lives at relatively little cost. It is therefore crucial that funding is made available to encourage those community schemes and is not concentrated only on new bus services.
Decision making should be left to local voluntary groups and town and parish councils, which should have the resources to facilitate various schemes, such as car links, community car schemes, hospital car services and others that I have mentioned. As Norfolk county council said, when welcoming the rural transport partnership:
"The exciting element of this new approach is that for the first time it gives many grassroot organisations the chance not only to identify their particular problems but to be part of an action plan to provide practical solutions."
To conclude, the car will remain a necessity in the countryside for the foreseeable future, and the Government should review their policy on the taxation of cars and petrol for rural drivers. The subsidies paid to new bus routes are not achieving the desired results, and the allocation of the subsidy should be reviewed to enable it to be used to improve existing routes. Finally, part of the bus subsidy should be reallocated to community transport schemes to provide the cost-effective, flexible local service required in small villages and the countryside.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Prior, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. John Hayes, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Archie Norman, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Andrew Tyrie and Mr. Desmond Swayne.

Rural Transport
  RURAL TRANSPORT
  Mr. David Prior accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for rural transport partnership schemes, administered and operated by voluntary groups, parish and town councils, to supplement bus services in rural areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 103].

Kosovo
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1998–99, on Kosovo: The Humanitarian Crisis (HC 422) and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28 April 1999 (HC 188–iii).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Madam Speaker: We now come to the Adjournment motion on Kosovo. I have to inform the House that I have imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
3.56 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I begin with a personal reflection on the evil that we are fighting in Kosovo.
Hon. Members who were present at the close of Question Time will recall the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) referring to the death of Mr. Agani. I knew Mr. Agani well and I had met him on many occasions during the Rambouillet peace talks and before. I had a private dinner with him in Skopje in the spring, when he praised the steps that we were taking to force the Serbs to negotiations.
From the start of the Serb offensive in Kosovo, Fehmi Agani knew that the Serbs were looking for him. He spent the time since then in hiding, moving—always in disguise—from house to house. About two weeks ago he heard that the Serbs were clearing his neighbourhood of Pristina as part of the new wave of expulsions to Macedonia. He thought that that would provide his opportunity to escape from the country. He boarded the train in disguise in the thick of the crowd of deportees.
Unfortunately, perhaps because of a tip-off, the train was halted 20 miles south of Pristina and turned back. It was searched, and Fehmi Agani was found and forcibly removed. When his wife came to the police station in Pristina to ask after her husband, she was beaten by the police. Two days later, she was asked to come back to the police station to collect his corpse. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea is correct at least in that the Serb police told Fehmi Agani's wife that he had been shot by the KLA, presumably while in police custody. A more plausible explanation is that he was shot 48 hours after his arrest by the Serbs—just long enough to get the instructions from Belgrade and act on them.
Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the record will show, it was Mr. Berisha, a highly respected senior Albanian politician, who attributed the murder of Mr. Agani to the KLA.
Mr. Cook: Yes, and Mr. Berisha was echoing what has been put out by the Serb propaganda machine. Mr. Agani was an entirely different politician and an entirely different quality of man from Mr. Berisha. He was a gentle, elderly man. He was not a threat to anyone. Throughout his political life, he had urged the path of non-violent protest. His death has a much bigger impact on those of us who knew him, but his murder carries a

883
message to all of us in the Chamber. It demonstrates the brutality of the regime that we are fighting, and the butchery that it practises on those who cannot resist it.
When we enter Kosovo, we will take with us the investigators of the International War Crimes Tribunal as a vital element of the international presence. There cannot be security and peace for those who have survived the terror, unless there is justice for those who have been killed in it. Already, Britain is doing more than any other single nation to help the International War Crimes Tribunal. We are sharing with it all our information on war crimes, including reports from intelligence sources, and our defence personnel in Macedonia are helping to record the evidence from refugees.
We are also ready to help the International War Crimes Tribunal on the ground in Kosovo when the time comes. There will be an immense job to be done in examining the many sites of suspected massacres.
I can announce to the House today that the Foreign Office and the Home Office have agreed that we will provide from the British police force a scene of crime team to work alongside the tribunal. They will be forensic experts with experience and expertise in exhuming bodies, gathering evidence about cause of death and looking for evidence of sexual assault before death. We will put their forensic skills and technology to the service of the war crimes tribunal in preparing the evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: I will, on this occasion, but a lot of ground has to be covered and I am conscious of the fact that, as Madam Speaker said, many people hope to speak.
Mr. Leigh: Will all that happen? The Foreign Secretary said, "when we enter Kosovo," but will bombing alone do the trick? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what the German Chancellor said in Bari today:
"Germany believes that sending in ground troops is unthinkable. This is our position and it won't change in the future."
Does he agree with that point of view?
Mr. Cook: Just before I came into the Chamber, I heard that such remarks had been attributed to Chancellor Schröder, but I am bound to say that I know by now not to respond to something that has been reported in the press without checking what was said in the original. Many of the remarks that have been attributed to me over the past few days confirm me in that view. Yes, I am confident that our air campaign is making a serious impact on the forces in Kosovo. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will hear exactly what I have to say on that point.
Whatever view hon. Members take of the current conflict, I am confident that they will all, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), want to see war criminals brought to justice, and we will secure the entry of the tribunal and the return of the refugees under our protection only if we maintain and intensify the military pressure on President Milosevic.
For a year before the present military campaign, we tried every approach short of military force to persuade Milosevic to stop the repression in Kosovo. Indeed, the
884
frequent complaint of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) until we commenced military action was that we had not done it sooner.
I have read some recent articles complaining that the Rambouillet peace accords were too harsh on Belgrade and that it was unreasonable to expect the Serbs to agree to them. Looking back on Rambouillet in the light of the bloodshed that the Serb forces have visited on Kosovo, I am amazed at the moderation of the Rambouillet proposals, and that we were ever able to persuade the Kosovo Albanians to sign up to a package that required them to give up their demand for immediate independence and accept the continuing presence of a large Serb force.
Mr. Frank Cook: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the situation at Rambouillet immediately before the 10-day adjournment was such that the Serbs were all but signed up to the proposals—apart from the nature of the military force for monitoring the agreement—and that their whole attitude had changed when they returned? Is that correct or not?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the Serb side indicated broad consent to the political accords at Rambouillet. The Serbs returned to Paris with a long list of changes that they wanted made to those very same peace accords. I also have to report to the House that the leader of Serb delegation said to me that it wanted a break in the negotiations in order to sell the agreement to its people. It used the interval not to do that, but to denounce the agreement and take a more hardline position than it had at Rambouillet. There is no doubt that the Serb side refused to make peace through negotiation, and even the Russian negotiator was blunt in putting the blame on the Serb side.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: I will, but I must make progress.
Mr. Blunt: There was a story—emanating from Germany, I believe—that the military annexe to the Rambouillet agreement contained clauses that would have allowed NATO forces to go all over Serbia and to do virtually anything that they desired to do. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether those reports are correct?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the reports are wrong. All that was included in that text was the standard status of forces agreement, which used identical language to the status of forces agreement that the previous Government, with his advice, agreed for the forces in Bosnia. I tell the House that not a single complaint was raised by the Serb side at Rambouillet about that annexe. Complaints have been raised only since then.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I must progress with my speech, if I may.
We still make every effort to find a diplomatic solution, and explore every possible opening. We have made good progress in building an international consensus on the

885
diplomatic track. Since the start of the crisis, we have maintained regular dialogue with Russia and kept open the door to Russia. Two weeks ago, we achieved a breakthrough when we secured Russia's agreement to a G8 text that is consistent with the objectives that we and our allies have set.
Yesterday, I met the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who confirmed that the new Government of Russia remain equally committed to the principles that we approved in the G8. The great advantage of the breakthrough with Russia is that it can unblock the road to a resolution in the Security Council, the great majority of whose members support our approach.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are making a solemn pledge to the refugees that they will return to Kosovo? Given that pledge—which is a serious thing—can my right hon. Friend explain what, if the bombing fails and the American, German, Greek and Italian Governments refuse to send ground troops, will be the strategy for securing the objective that he has announced?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure whether my right hon. Friend is now arguing in favour of ground troops as well as an air campaign. That would be a substantial shift in his position.
My right hon. Friend reeled off a list of other nations. Every one of those nations shares the pledge to which he referred. Germany, Greece, and Italy unanimously supported the Washington summit communiqué, which commits us to our key objective—that the refugees will return under our protection—and adds for good measure that there will be no compromise. I assure the House that one of those who spoke most forcefully in support of the pledge to the refugees was the Prime Minister of Italy.
We are also active in our diplomatic efforts with the neighbours of Serbia. Today and yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Bulgaria and Albania; two weeks ago, he visited Macedonia and Romania.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: He should be here.
Mr. Cook: I do not honestly think that the House can ask for a report on diplomatic initiatives, and then complain when the Prime Minister goes abroad on such a diplomatic initiative. My right hon. Friend is there to demonstrate Britain's commitment to a new start for the region.
Yesterday, I presented to the Foreign Ministers of the European Union our plans to put real substance into the proposed stability pact with the region. We want a Balkan regeneration plan that will enable the countries of the region to share fully in our standards of democracy and freedom, and an open trading area that will guarantee those countries access to the wealthy markets of the European Union, and an opportunity to share in our prosperity.
We are determined that the Kosovo crisis must be a turning point for the region, but there will be no stability and no fresh start for the Balkans if we do not first defeat the ethnic cleansing of Milosevic, which belongs to the fascism of yesterday and not to the Europe of today.
886
We want a political settlement; we are working for a diplomatic solution; but we do not want a settlement at any price. We have repeatedly stressed that there can be no compromise on our objectives. Those objectives have not changed, and are clear. There must be an immediate and verifiable end to violence and repression in Kosovo. Serb military, police and paramilitary forces must withdraw from Kosovo. All refugees must be guaranteed a safe return under the protection of an international military presence with NATO at its core. There must be progress towards a political framework for Kosovo, based on the Rambouillet peace accords.
Last week, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe demanded clarity on NATO's objectives. I have restated those objectives for the umpteenth time. They are clear, precise and unchanging. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he addresses the House, to confirm that he understands those objectives, and supports the agreed objectives of the whole alliance.
Sir Peter Emery: Members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are not always popular with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but, last week, two of them were in two ex-communist countries: Armenia and Georgia. It was interesting that the presidents of both those countries were absolutely definite that we were correct to continue with air strikes until we could bring about a solution to the problem, which they thought was immense and had to be solved. We would not normally have expected those countries to take that view. The President of Georgia, Mr. Shevardnadze, an ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs in Russia, supported our action.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When we met the partners of NATO and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Washington, it was striking that the countries of the former Soviet Union were often the most forthright in their criticism both of Belgrade and of Russia, for its tacit support of Belgrade. One of the reasons why we are now making progress in diplomacy with Russia is that it has recognised its isolation even within its own region.
Our objectives are, of course, in flat conflict with the objective of Belgrade to clear Kosovo of its population and to seize it for Serb occupation. Some have argued that Yugoslavia is a sovereign state and that it can do what it likes with its citizens. I totally reject that view. I would not care to explain to the Kosovo Albanians the theory that aggression against them by a neighbouring country would be unacceptable, but that the aggression that they are experiencing is acceptable because it is being carried out by their own Government. I share the view that was forcefully expressed by Kofi Annan that the international revulsion
"against the violent repression of minorities will and must take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty."
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: All that my right hon. Friend has said—I agree with him—

887
on the question of the refugees from Kosovo is exactly paralleled by the position of Serb refugees from Krajina, of whom there were 280,000, according to an answer, to me from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and who were purged from Krajina in the sovereign state of Croatia, which is recognised by this country. What is the difference between them and the refugees from Kosovo? If there is to be a Balkan conference, should it not cover the Krajina refugees, or are we going to turn around and bomb Zagreb?
Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend will recall, that was condemned by me and by others in the House at the time. It is totally false for anyone in Belgrade to claim that the expulsion of the Krajina Serbs in some way justifies what the Serbs are doing to the Albanians in Kosovo, but I agree that the future for the Balkans must lie in accepting the principles of the modern Europe: not only respect for national boundaries, but ensuring that national borders do not become barriers between people in terms of trade and mobility. We will not establish those values in the Balkans unless we first end the ethnic cleansing that Milosevic has practised—my hon. Friend is right to remind us—not just in Kosovo, but, for 10 years, throughout former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way this time, but then I must conclude my speech.
Mr. Prentice: Are there any circumstances in which the removal of President Milosevic from power would become a policy objective alongside the five that the Foreign Secretary has already enunciated?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend asks a question that has been put to us on a number of occasions. I have stated the objectives of our campaign. As I have said, they are unchanging. They do not include the withdrawal of President Milosevic from office; nor do we intend to make that a campaign objective. Our objective is to ensure that the Kosovo Albanians are returned under our protection, that Milosevic's policy is reversed and seen by his people to have been reversed. That will carry with it a firm message to those in Belgrade.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No.
Mr. Robathan: I will be brief.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman may well be brief, but I will be in danger of making a long speech if I continue to give way on every occasion.
We are not going to halt President Milosevic or secure the objective of reversing ethnic cleansing if we simply, by dialogue, point out to him the error of his ways. He will abandon his plans to pocket Kosovo for the Serbs only if he knows that we are determined to maintain the military campaign until we prevail.
888
I say to all my colleagues who want a diplomatic solution that we will get one that they would accept only if we keep up the military pressure. Ending the bombing now would not give an opportunity for diplomacy, but would knock away the best lever of diplomacy. It would enable Milosevic to regroup, rebuild and re-equip his forces—and that would prolong, not end conflict on the ground.
Meanwhile, while we continue with the air campaign, we also develop our preparations for the military force that will be necessary to maintain security and to enforce a ceasefire when the Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo. At the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that another 2,300 troops from the Parachute and Gurkha regiments are being placed on standby to move to Kosovo. At Rambouillet, we envisaged a NATO presence of 28,000 troops. After two months of conflict, it will require a larger force to undertake the task of reconstruction. That is why Javier Solana has been tasked with reviewing how many more troops will be required, and we expect his report to NATO this week.
Meanwhile, our air campaign is making its mark. We have now destroyed in Kosovo more than the equivalent of the weapons and equipment of an entire brigade. In the past week, we have had our highest tally yet of strikes against the military assets that are doing the killing in Kosovo. We are certain that we have now destroyed 160 tanks and armoured personnel carriers, more than 60 artillery units and more than 130 trucks and other military vehicles. We believe that the real running total could be even higher.
Mr. Robathan rose—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Foreign Secretary allow me?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dalyell: Presumably, the tanks are being destroyed by depleted uranium shells. The depleted uranium health hazards in Iraq are well known. What is the assessment, in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, of the long-term health effects on the population of using depleted uranium weapons?
Mr. Cook: No depleted uranium is in use with British forces—[Horn. MEMBERS: "NATO".] With respect, I am speaking in the British House of Commons of the British Parliament, and I am assuring the House that there is no depleted uranium in use with our forces. As for studies of health in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has had a considerable look at what may have happened there, and we are confident that depleted uranium poses a very small risk to health. Regardless, however, none are being dropped by RAF airplanes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Robathan: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: No. If I may, I shall continue with my speech.

889
As I said, our air campaign has had a real impact in Kosovo. That impact is known throughout Serbia, not only in Kosovo. Yesterday, in Krusevac, 3,000 protesters stoned the town hall and booed local officials, demanding the return of reservists from Kosovo. They did so under the slogan, "We want sons, not coffins."
On Friday, I spoke by satellite telephone to Hashem Thaqi, the political spokesman for the KLA. He confirmed that the effect of our air campaign had been to keep the Serb forces divided, to prevent them from regrouping or concentrating their forces. They have to spend more and more of their time digging in and hiding, rather than carrying out offensive action.
Hashem Thaqi was unequivocal in his conclusion. He said:
"without the NATO bombing the situation in Kosovo would be even worse. If the bombing stops, we would simply be back at Square One."
That is the voice of someone who knows the realities of war at first hand.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, while no one disputes that the air campaign is beginning to take a toll—and so it should after more than 50 days of bombing—troops on the ground will be required to secure Kosovo for the refugees to return? What would happen in the unlikely event of Mr. Milosevic buckling in the next few days? There are not enough troops on the ground to secure Kosovo because of the disastrous decision taken before the mission started that no troops would be used on the ground. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to secure the number of troops required for the operation?
Mr. Cook: The decision was taken before the conflict began that we would require troops for the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman outlines. We need to put a NATO presence into Kosovo to secure the peace. That is why Britain has already deployed 4,000 troops in Macedonia as part of the 20,000 who are now in Macedonia and Albania. As I said at Question Time, we have provided another 2,300. We are by far in the lead in the NATO forces for Kosovo. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should do it all and that only British troops should go in. We shall require a contribution from other alliance members. We shall discuss that this week in Brussels when Javier Solana reports on his proposals for the enhanced KFOR.
I was referring to my conversation with Hashem Thaqi. I had that conversation with the leader of the Kosovo Albanians on the ground the day after the NATO attack on the command post at Korisa, in which Kosovo Albanians were killed. I deeply regret any loss of life among the Kosovo Albanians as a result of our campaign. The UK takes great care to minimise the risk of any attack resulting in civilian casualties, but, as I have told the House before, we cannot guarantee that there will not be any civilian casualties if NATO is to wage a campaign of the intensity and strength necessary to win.
I reject with contempt the crocodile tears with which Milosevic has sought to manipulate the death of the refugees at Korisa, particularly given the track record of his army in using civilians as human shields. International
890
monitors have documented separate reports from refugees of 80 occasions on which they or their neighbours have been used as human shields. At Klina, 500 men were forced to lie in front of Serb artillery as it attacked the Kosovo Liberation Army. At Orahovac, 700 men were forced to stand with their hands tied for two days in front of Serb tanks.
In village after village across Kosovo, Serb forces have massacred civilians at point-blank range. They may now have killed 20,000 to 30,000 men, women and children. None of those was killed by tragic accident. All of them were killed deliberately and callously.
The bald statistics cannot convey the terror of those who have been evicted at the point of a gun; or the anguish of those who have been separated from their husbands and children and are left with the fear, but not the certainty, that they are now dead; or the pain of the refugees hiding without food on the hillsides throughout Kosovo and then injured without surgery by the shelling of Milosevic's guns. The tales of individual victims speak more eloquently than the statistics.
Some of those individuals are now in Britain as a result of the air bridge that we have built between Britain and the camps in Macedonia. Leeds was one of the first towns to embrace refugees from the camps. I visited them on Friday, after the funeral of Derek Fatchett. When I left, one of the workers there reminded me that it was easy to be misled by the smiling faces and happy children I had seen—to understand their suffering I should also hear the sobs that continued through the night.
The endurance that many of them showed in escaping from Kosovo is a measure of the depths of the terror from which they fled. One woman now in Leeds fled from her home towards the end of a pregnancy. She walked for days through the mountains carrying one of her other children. She gave birth to her son on the road, then got up and moved on again until she reached safety.
Another young woman told me how she had left her husband fighting with the KLA and had fled on foot with her two young children. In one village in which they stopped on the way, all the young men were rounded up and taken by the police to an ammunition factory. Throughout the following night, the woman heard gunfire from the factory. She removed herself the next day, but she heard later that, on the next night, the Serbs came back and raped the young women there. It is difficult for us to grasp what must have been endured by those women who, on the first night, lost the men of their village, and, on the second night, were humiliated by their murderers.
I want every hon. Member to understand the evil that we are fighting, and the brutality to which we would abandon Kosovo if we were now to give up. Today, I am placing in the Library a chronology of over 100 atrocities of which we have reports from refugees and other sources within Kosovo. All those atrocities are crimes born of ethnic hatred and fostered by the daily propaganda of the regime in Belgrade.
In the middle of this century, we believed that we had finished with fascism. At the end of the century, we cannot tolerate the revival in Europe of the doctrine of ethnic superiority, or the practice of mass deportation of a whole people.
That is one reason that strengthens our resolve to press home our military campaign, but there are other reasons too. First, we must succeed because NATO guaranteed

891
the ceasefire of last October, and because NATO has committed itself to enforcing a ceasefire in Kosovo. The security of our country depends on the credibility of NATO, and that credibility depends on securing our objectives in Kosovo.
Secondly, we must succeed because our promises to the countries of the region can be fulfilled only if Milosevic is forced to reverse his policy of ethnic cleansing. There will be no turning point for the region, and no stability in the Balkans, if Milosevic gets away with his aggression in Kosovo.
Most of all, we must succeed because we cannot abandon the bombing without abandoning the refugees themselves. On Friday, I stood before the refugees in Leeds, and I assured them that Britain would not abandon them and that we would not slacken the pace of our diplomatic effort. I told them that we would not weaken the resolve of our military campaign until they could go home under our protection. This Government will stand by that commitment.
4.27 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: It is now two months since the Prime Minister first came to the House to tell us that military action was being taken by NATO in response to the atrocities committed by the Milosevic regime. For the whole of the period since then, the Opposition have supported the Government on the fundamental issues at stake. We have supported the original NATO objectives, and we have supported the decision to take military action to achieve those objectives. We continue to support the Government in those crucial respects, and we shall continue to support them. Those inside and outside the House who have suggested that we intend to withdraw that support are mistaken.
We support also, as we always have done, our dedicated service men and women, some of whom I was privileged to meet when, in the company of the Secretary of State for Defence, I visited Gioia del Colle, HMS Invincible and Albania. The work that they are carrying out on the ground, in the air and at sea is second to none, and we are entitled to be proud of them.
I condemn, of course—and without reservation—as we always have done, the Milosevic regime in Yugoslavia and the atrocities for which it is responsible. For my part, I am perfectly prepared to accept that those atrocities include the tragic killing of Mr. Agani. With each day that passes, those atrocities worsen. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about the decision to use British police officers to help assemble evidence of war crimes. I share the Foreign Secretary's disgust at the events that he has described.
All those things are important, and they need to be said. However, accounts of atrocities are no substitute for an explanation of the strategy. When all those important things have been said, the essential task of an Opposition in a parliamentary democracy remains: it remains our duty to scrutinise, to question and, where justified, to criticise. That responsibility is more, rather than less, important at a time of armed conflict. It is to the Prime Minister's credit that he recognised that when, last Wednesday in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), he expressly dissociated himself from the criticisms that had been made earlier in the week
892
by his official spokesman. I trust that others, including those sitting beside and behind the Prime Minister on the Government Benches, will follow his example.
It is against that background that I wish to put questions to the Government today. Some of them are questions that I put to the Foreign Secretary last Monday. He did not answer them then, but I hope that he will answer them today. First, I have questions about NATO's objectives. I listened carefully to what the Foreign Secretary said about NATO's objectives today; I hope that he will do me the honour of listening carefully to what I have to say about them this afternoon.
My basic question is whether the Foreign Secretary is still of the view that the peacekeeping force in Kosovo should be led and commanded by NATO and that NATO-led troops remain a fundamental condition for a settlement. Will he acknowledge that the language has changed since Rambouillet and that Ministers now prefer to speak, as indeed he did this afternoon, not of NATO-led forces but of forces with NATO involvement or with NATO at their core?
We have to press those questions because the statement agreed by the G8 Foreign Ministers on 6 May did not mention NATO. It is reported that the draft text of the proposed United Nations Security Council resolution will make no mention of NATO either. Those are not minor points of terminology. Communiqués and United Nations resolutions are the product of careful and prolonged negotiation and their wording is significant. They are expressed in a particular way for a reason, and mention of NATO is a fundamental question. It was, after all, one of the key obstacles to an agreement being reached at Rambouillet. Is the Foreign Secretary now prepared to accept an agreement under which the forces that eventually go into Kosovo are not NATO led? If he is not, why do not the resolutions and the communiqués make that clear?
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, 10 weeks ago, his strongest criticism was that threats had been made back in September but not carried out?
Mr. Howard: No. I made the criticism for the whole year that preceded the decision to take action. I said repeatedly that there might be a case for not making threats and doing nothing, or for making threats and following them through, but there was no case for doing what the Foreign Secretary did for a year—making threat after threat and giving Milosevic final warning after final warning, but then doing absolutely nothing about it. That gave the wrong signals to Milosevic and his evil regime. If action had been taken much earlier, it might have saved many lives.
Mr. David Heath: I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Does he agree that there are two real risks of de facto partition—either by a zonal deployment of the international force or by a partial withdrawal by Serbia?

893
Does he agree that either of those actions would be disastrous for the future of Kosovo, and will he reject them?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree that that would not be an acceptable outcome, and the Prime Minister has said so unequivocally. He has made it clear that no partition of Kosovo would be acceptable.
Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Milosevic was given too much time. He attacks the Government from one side while others, including some Conservative Members, attack them from the other, saying that no military action should have been taken in the first place. Whatever the Government did at whatever time—I believe that they acted for the most excellent reasons—they would be attacked for one reason or another.
Mr. Howard: Of course it is true that different views have been expressed by hon. Members of all parties, and I have repeatedly said that all those views need to be listened to with respect. I was openly giving my opinion in response to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
There are some vital questions about the means of achieving NATO's objectives. That is the crux of the matter, because, with the best will in the world, it is no use repeating the objectives and accounts of the atrocities time after time if we are not making sufficient progress in achieving those objectives. It gives me no pleasure to say that. I dearly wish that the objectives had been achieved long ago, but it is no use pretending, in the eighth week of the action, that they have been achieved or that we are close to achieving them when, alas and alack—I hope that the impression is a false one—all the indications are that that is not the case.
I repeat to the Foreign Secretary a question that is entirely relevant to the conduct of the conflict: what is the current position, eight weeks after bombing started, on the oil embargo? Has such an embargo been implemented, and if not, when will it be? Why was it not until five weeks into the conflict—five weeks during which there was repeated bombing of oil depots in Yugoslavia—that NATO's political leaders asked for advice on whether such an embargo would be legal?
Is it the case, as the newspapers say, that any such embargo would consist of a visit and search regime and would depend on the consent of the countries in which the ships were registered, and that a NATO source was reported to have said that, if that did not work, we would have to think again? I hope that we can have clear answers to those questions today.
Somewhat similar questions arise concerning the announcement by the French Government on Friday night—amid a flurry of mutual self-congratulation between the French and British Governments—that 12 British Tornados were to be moved to Corsica, enabling them to reach Yugoslavia without refuelling in flight. I am delighted that it will be possible for the Tornados to operate more effectively but, if that is the purpose of the move, why on earth has it been decided on only now and why are the Tornados not to arrive in Corsica until 1 June, nearly two weeks from now?
894
There has been a steady change in the Government's position on ground troops, and it does them no credit to pretend, as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday, that there has not been any change. At the beginning, the Government's position was clear: bombing would do the job; there was no need for ground troops to fight their way in; and any ground troops that went in would be there to keep the peace after an agreement had been reached, and not to fight the Serbs.
Bit by bit, there was a change in that position. First, ground troops would go in if there was a permissive environment—a term that was never defined. Then the formula was changed to a semi-permissive environment, which was equally undefined. On Tuesday 20 April, the Foreign Secretary told the House that troops would go in on the ground only when they would no longer face organised resistance. The very next day, 21 April, the Prime Minister changed the language again and said that troops would not go in until the Serb forces had been sufficiently degraded, and he refused three times to explain or expand on that formula. Those phrases are not plucked at random out of the air. They clearly signify changes in the Government's position. There is nothing necessarily wrong with those changes—they may well be justified—but, if confidence is to be inspired in them, it is essential that they should be explained, not denied.
Mr. Benn: I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as it is right that the Opposition should put questions to the Government. Will he clarify his own position and that of the Opposition on ground troops? Is it their view that, if it is not possible to find a permissive environment for entry, and if the Americans refuse to supply ground troops, Britain—alone or with other NATO countries—should be prepared to enter Kosovo by force to realise our objective?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to consider a hypothesis that has not been advanced by the Government, who have not said that that is the basis of their military assessment. They have not—in private or in public—told us the nature of their military intelligence or that they believe that they can achieve their objective in the way postulated by the right hon. Gentleman. We have no access to intelligence or assessments. We have no basis on which to suppose that an action of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would succeed, and it would be the height of folly to take any action that did not succeed.
Our position is perfectly justified, is the only position that a responsible Opposition can take and has been repeatedly raised with the Government. It is that the Government should tell us why they have changed their position and tell us the justification for that change. If we find the explanations convincing and compelling, the likelihood is that we will support the Government. We have supported their objectives and their decision to take action, but we are not in a position to support their various changes of position because they have never been properly or convincingly explained. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will make a convincing case when he winds up this debate.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend has sketched the Government's change in position over deployment of land forces, which seems more probable

895
than once it was. Does he share my concern that there is no ample provision of ground forces in the area? If we are told that we are winning the conflict and that Mr. Milosevic may buckle in the nearish future, I can foresee that we shall have an opportunity to go in without the resources to do so. Is not that the situation in which the maximum disaster is likely to occur?
Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend may well be right, but I can give him no categorical answer because I have not seen the intelligence that would tell us the latest state of the Serb forces in Kosovo. I am in no position to judge how many men would be needed to go in. From what I have read and heard, my right hon. and learned Friend may well be right, but, alas, further than that I cannot go.
Mr. Bill Rammell: All of us have a responsibility to explain our views clearly and to explain any change in them. At the beginning of this conflict, the Leader of the Opposition made it absolutely clear that the Conservative party was opposed to the introduction of ground troops; yet, at Prime Minister's Question Time last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) implicitly supported the use of ground troops. Can the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) explain what has changed to alter the stance of the Conservative party?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman frequently intervenes on these subjects. I suggest that he does some homework. If he does, he will find—I have the quotation here, if he is interested—that, when the action started, the Chief of the Defence Staff said in public, in a signed article in a newspaper, that the course on which the Government were embarked offered the best prospect of achieving the Government's objectives. If he says that, who on earth is the Leader of the Opposition to gainsay the Government in those circumstances?
I will show how the Chief of the Defence Staff has changed his position. Unfortunately, the position now is that there is confusion at the heart of Government policy. Let me explain. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he thought that the current bombing campaign would achieve NATO's objections in full—
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Objectives.
Mr. Howard: I am sorry, objectives. The day before, General Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that it would be very difficult even to stop the current killing in Kosovo—far less achieve the other objectives—with the current campaign. Both those statements cannot be right.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will give us an unequivocal answer when he replies to the debate. I hope that he will also be able to give the House an assurance that the Prime Minister did not give last Wednesday, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him to assure the House that General Guthrie and his fellow officers in NATO have the men, equipment and freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed.
896
That was a critical question. It is a question that any British Prime Minister at a time of armed conflict should be able to answer unequivocally and in the affirmative. It is a question to which the only acceptable answer is yes. However, the Prime Minister did not answer it. All that he would say was that the Government have throughout
"worked extremely closely with our armed forces."—[Official Report, 12 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 311.]
I would rather hope that that went without saying. The prospect of a conflict in which the British Government do not work extremely closely with our armed forces does not bear contemplation, nor does the prospect of a conflict in which our forces do not have the men, equipment and freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed. That is the assurance that we seek. It is the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition sought last week. It is the assurance that we must have.
One further point must be made about the Government's conduct of this conflict. We appear to be seeing the application to this conflict, in which lives are at stake and are being lost and in which the most dreadful suffering is taking place, of the worst of the Government's addiction to spin-doctoring. It is entirely unacceptable that we should read reports in our newspapers that are said to come from senior figures in the Ministry of Defence, which state that the Government's media campaign is being allowed to take precedence over military considerations.
We read of moves that are seen by media strategists as "symbolically important", but that the services feel are militarily unnecessary and impose too much strain on the personnel concerned. We are told of a perception that
"commanders are not being allowed to make decisions. It is all being run by the press people. They are the real War Cabinet."
We have all grown familiar with the situation in which the Government are run by the press people—we have been told about it often enough—but we do not want a war to be run by the press people. If that is happening—there is a shrewd suspicion that it is—it must stop immediately.
Nowhere is the influence of those shadowy spokesmen more evident than in the current confusion over ground troops. While the Prime Minister tells us that he believes that the bombing campaign will achieve NATO's objectives in full, we read account after account denying that in our newspapers. The accounts are attributed to "unnamed Ministers", "Government sources", "a source in Downing Street", and "senior Government sources". That is no way to wage a war and that, too, must stop.
We are reaching a critical time in the conduct of the conflict. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked last Wednesday whether, if we wished to assemble and deploy troops to allow the refugees to return home before the winter, NATO needed to take any decisions on ground troops in the very near future. The Prime Minister agreed. The Foreign Secretary was, to put it politely, not very forthcoming, on the point this afternoon. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will tell us more.
There are also questions about the care of refugees. The Foreign Secretary talked about a regeneration plan. That is welcome, but can the Secretary of State for Defence confirm that it was not until last week that the European Union finally approved the release of £168 million of aid

897
for refugees and the Governments of Albania and Macedonia that had been agreed as long as ago as the beginning of April? Can Ministers confirm that that money has still not been released? Can they tell us when it will be?
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tabled a written question asking for the appointment of an inquiry by Privy Counsellors into the circumstances that led up to the conflict. It is precisely the kind of inquiry that was requested and granted at the time of the Falklands conflict. Of course, we do not expect the inquiry to commence its work until after the conflict is over, but the establishment of an inquiry was agreed before the Falklands conflict was over. The inquiry into the Kosovo conflict should also be agreed now. I hope that we will hear a response on that from the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Dalyell: I gave evidence to the Franks committee for 85 minutes, so will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take it from me that there are certain deficiencies in that form of inquiry, such as having to consider matters retrospectively? If there is to be a serious inquiry, should not a High Court judge be appointed now to avoid all the difficulties that Lord Franks and his colleagues faced in examining things that were blurred in the past?
Mr. Howard: There may be much merit in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
There are many serious questions to be answered, a large proportion of which can be answered now. I hope that we get answers when the Secretary of State for Defence replies.
4.53 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted that the consensus has been maintained across the Floor, although anyone who had left to have a cup of tea three minutes after the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) began would, on returning, not have shared my view. If one criticises almost every element of the Government's policies, it is difficult to maintain the fiction that what is upheld by those policies is worth supporting.
I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House totally oppose what the Government are doing. I understand the frustration of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe at mistakes and the slowness with which the Government and NATO have done things. It is the same frustration that I felt at the prevarication of the previous Government in getting our forces to Bosnia. When they got there, they were put in blue helmets and were almost innocent bystanders as Bosnians were slaughtered by hundreds and thousands. I understand the frustration that was expressed about our perhaps not having the forces that we would like to go in with. It is the same frustration that the Defence Committee felt while the previous Government were cutting defence expenditure from more than 5 per cent. of gross domestic product to 2.5 per cent. If the Government in exile had fought this campaign as brilliantly as they fought their election campaign, we would now be having our
898
Franks-type inquiry, following a catastrophic defeat. Yes, of course there have been mistakes, but have wars ever been fought in which endless mistakes have not been made—even by the victorious?
I welcome this further debate. The House of Commons does not decide policy, but we can influence it. We are reflecting enormous public support for what the Government and NATO are doing. I believe that I was right when I supported this campaign on day 1; I was prepared to support it on day 55 and, if it goes on until day 100 or day 155, I shall support the policy. Wars do not proceed according to paths laid down by analysts, progressing swiftly towards the ultimate objective. There have been mistakes—political, strategic, tactical and intelligence mistakes—and hon. Members on both sides of the House will elaborate on them.
Perhaps we were wrong to misjudge Milosevic's ability to hang on to, and to exploit, weaknesses, but he misjudged our resolve. He has been most successful in exploiting an adversary consisting of 19 nation states that were clearly not exactly calibrated. However, when the leader of the Greens in Germany, Herr Fisher, made his courageous speech and stood there splattered with paint and blood, I realised that I had misjudged him. I wish that more people in the alliance were prepared—publicly, enthusiastically and at some personal risk—to stand up for what the alliance is doing.
Clausewitz offered the advice that, if one fights a war, one should fight it seriously and fight to win. Perhaps few alliances ever fought a war keeping in mind what is almost a paranoia about putting their own forces at risk. Even fewer wars have been fought in which adversaries have been so careful to avoid killing non-combatants and even the other adversaries. We have retained alliance cohesion, but perhaps that cohesion has been achieved by fighting the war less enthusiastically, robustly and efficiently than is desirable to achieve our military objective. Even though the air war is being stepped up, the rate of bombings and the number of sorties are less than such deployments during the Gulf war.
I very much hope that the present strategy of using air power alone will succeed. However, it is possible that it will not do so. If it does not succeed, let us think the unthinkable: Milosevic will survive and be emboldened; and he will start to unpick other agreements and interfere in developments made after he lost other wars—not least in Bosnia. The Kosovans will be dispersed for decades—if they can even return then. Milosevic will certainly begin to cause even more problems in the Balkans. What will happen to the credibility of NATO, of the European Union and of the Labour Government? What will happen in future conflicts? Will others be emboldened by NATO's failure to defeat a tinpot dictator? Merely pondering those possibilities will surely encourage people to the view that we must be successful.
Will the insertion of ground forces be required, as some have argued—many of us inconsistently? It may well be that they are. If we are prepared to use ground forces, and if they are dispatched, that might have an influence that would make deployment superfluous; however, it is not possible to beam over to the region and instantaneously deploy 50,000 troops. I remember how long it took to deploy adequate forces in the Gulf, and Opposition Members will also remember that protracted period.

899
We have to maintain diplomatic initiatives and try to get some agreement with the Russians and the Chinese. We have apologised to the Chinese, so perhaps they should now apologise for pinching all of NATO's secrets. If they are as contrite as we have been, some success will have been achieved. It is important that we try to sustain, as far as is possible, a consensus in this country, even though there are those who want to remain outside that consensus.
With the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I visited Kukes and saw the refugee camps. I read the report of the Select Committee on International Development and saw its criticisms of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Kukes might not have been a Butlin's holiday camp, but it was an example of what could be achieved fairly swiftly and I compliment those involved, including the Italian Government, who have done what they can to house fleeing refugees.
I was also gratified to see what NATO is doing, for NATO is not only a military force, but a co-ordinating force for voluntary activities. I was impressed by what is being done at Tirana airport and the work to develop infrastructure and port facilities to enable humanitarian equipment to be brought in. I agree profoundly with Medecins sans Frontieres—an organisation which I admire deeply—that combatants should keep a distance between fighting and humanitarian assistance.
There is a sense of frustration and a belief that things have not gone well. It is right that the Opposition point out the failures that have occurred, but I should like them to give more enthusiastic support for the action so far. On both sides of the House, some hon. Members have been given wholehearted support, others have prevaricated, some have remained silent and yet others have expressed clear opposition. We know that the stakes are high: the price of failure for the Kosovans, for the region and for the alliance would be incalculable, so it is of primary importance that NATO gets its act together. Once NATO has decided on what the end game is to be—it may be the military defeat of the Serbs—we have to act with such commitment that that end is achieved.
5.3 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: We have had a few sombre moments in the past 12 months and I suspect that we shall have a few more, but today is certainly one of the most sombre, for we now stand at the crossroads between success and failure. If we had a moral obligation to intervene in Kosovo, we now have an even more compelling responsibility to bring that intervention to a satisfactory military and political conclusion. Anything short of autonomy for Kosovo, the unfettered return of the dispossessed and the unequivocal recognition of their right to live in peace will be a failure.
If that failure arises out of an unwillingness to subject ourselves and, more particularly, our forces to some of the risks that we have imposed on the Kosovar Albanians, we shall have no right to claim any moral credit. NATO's air campaign is being conducted at heights which are safe for air crew and aircraft, but which put the people whom we want to help into the front line. Whether they are there by accident or by the sinister fiat of a regime that is using them as human shields, the risks are equivalent and the results as horrifying. NATO's intervention was soundly based on the acceptance of moral responsibility. However,
900
that soundness of principle may be readily undermined if it is not matched by equal moral integrity in implementing a burden that we took up freely.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify for the benefit of the House whether he is advancing the war aims to a greater degree than are the Government? He referred in his opening remarks to "securing the autonomy" of Kosovo. Is that the Liberal Democrats' objective?
Mr. Campbell: The autonomy of Kosovo was the principal political proposal of Rambouillet and of Paris, and I have always understood it to lie at the very heart of the international community's efforts to seek a political settlement. I also understand that it lies at the heart of the G8 settlement, to which reference has already been made during the debate. In that respect—although I differ from the Government in other areas to which I shall come later—my position and that of my party is exactly the same as the position of those on the Treasury Bench.
When you embark on a course of action based on ethical values, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have a duty to reflect those values in the diligence with which you pursue that course of action. If one wills a moral end, one must show moral commitment in providing the means of achieving it. I believe that NATO is on the cusp. I disagree with the Treasury Bench in this respect: it is clear beyond doubt that an air campaign of the kind being prosecuted will not on its own achieve NATO's five principles for settlement. Those who always opposed the air campaign will argue that it should now cease. However, let us consider for a moment some of their alternative solutions.
Economic sanctions, Security Council resolutions and Russian diplomatic initiatives have been tried against the Milosevic regime without the compulsion of military action and with a consistent and depressing lack of success. What evidence is there to suggest that, if military operations were to cease unilaterally, those measures, either singly or in combination, would achieve now what they have so signally failed to achieve in the past? Why do we think that the displaced citizens of Kosovo set no store by those solutions and are willing instead to suffer the loss of life and limb, the cynical brutality of paramilitary thugs and the violation of their wives and daughters—sometimes before their very eyes?
Why do the Kosovar refugees say, even after devastating civilian casualties among their number, that NATO should not cease its military operation? They say that not out of some sense of masochistic guilt, but because they know their enemy. They know of what he is capable and what price he will exact if he is not checked. Those of us with any recollection of the Bosnian conflict should know our enemy as well. Srebrenica should not have faded from our memories. We should be haunted every day by the ruthless extermination of 7,000 men while United Nations forces with an ambiguous mandate and inadequate resources stood by, appalled but powerless. When, as it will, the searchlight of scrutiny falls upon Kosovo, I suspect that we shall see the results of a brutality that is far beyond anything that the disjointed accounts of traumatised refugees have been able to describe.
In our last Kosovo debate, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—I gave her advance notice that I might refer to the comments that she

901
made then—expressed entirely justified reticence about urging the sending of other people's sons, and increasingly their daughters, to war. She was correct: it is too easy for us, at risk of only political embarrassment, to ask others to risk their lives for our political judgment. However, while paying due regard to the hon. Lady's reservations, we must acknowledge that ours are professional forces: there are now no pressed men or women. That does not entitle us to be profligate with their lives, but it means that, when considering whether to send them into action, we are dealing with those who have accepted voluntarily the risks of service.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in telling me that he intended to refer to my speech. He has set out what he says are alternatives, but I find some of them frightening. If he is saying that we should now commit a professional army—a British Army—to Kosovo, I will ask him several questions. Is he convinced that this is what the British people want? Are they prepared to accept the considerable casualties and the damage that the action would do to them? Above all, is he convinced that it would produce any result? To send a British Army into hostile territory without proper preparation, certainly without proper back-up and with extremely muddled control by a number of nations at the top, would be to murder many British men and women. I would find it wholly unacceptable if the House of Commons supported that.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Lady raises three points. My response to the first is yes. On the third point, I think that it would be right to send in British troops, subject to proper preparation. I shall deal with the second point during my speech because it is right that those who, like me, urge this course of action, accept the consequences. It is right also that those who write editorials in newspapers urging that course of action should understand what would be its consequences.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I want to make progress.
It is imperative that military pressure on Milosevic be maintained. Without such a continuing sanction, diplomatic efforts are likely to flounder in deception and ambiguity. We had a ceasefire less than 12 months ago, but no sooner had Richard Holbrooke got back to Washington than the Milosevic regime began breaching the spirit and every letter of that ceasefire.
If our continuing military effort is to be effective, it must include the mobilisation of sufficient ground troops, properly configured and able to impose NATO's will, to effect a forced entry into Kosovo and to operate in a hostile environment. The very act of assembling a force of such credibility which could make a forced entry would be disconcerting for the Milosevic regime.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I shall make progress.
902
If NATO does not have the will to assemble such a force and, if necessary, to use it, I fear for the future of NATO itself. What do we make—more importantly, what does the Milosevic regime make—of a NATO that sends Apache helicopters, which are the most sophisticated attack helicopters in the world, to the region, but then is unwilling to use them for fear of the impact on domestic public opinion in the United States if they or their crews are lost other than in training?
There is too much of a belief that modern warfare can be sanitised and that we can fight war rapidly and win without casualties. Our experience in the Gulf misled us about what modern warfare consists of, and what its consequences may be. Those who argue so blithely in the editorial columns of national newspapers for ground forces able to make forcible entry into Kosovo should understand that there would be a price to pay, which would test the Government's resolve much more than even the substantial embarrassment and political damage occasioned by the bombing of refugees or foreign embassies. Every life should be worth the same, but when the bodies are those of our countrymen and women, there is no doubt that they make even greater demands on our resolve.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Yes, there would be a price to pay for forced entry. If I understood the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), she was asking what would be the continuing price year after year, for how many years those forces would remain and what would be the ultimate outcome. It was, after all, a great Labour Prime Minister who decided in 1948 to withdraw from Palestine because, after three years of our troops being shot at from both sides, we realised that we could no longer sustain 100,000 men there.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to say that we are in for a long haul and that the commitment will be lengthy, I gladly say that, because I have said it several times before, including in the House. We have a continuing commitment to Bosnia, which the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported were, in my judgment, entirely right to bring about. We have a continuing commitment to Cyprus, which has lasted for nearly 30 years. We are talking about long-term commitment to Kosovo, and we should understand that. When we quote public opinion as being supportive, we should always enter the qualification that the public are rarely asked how long they think that commitment should be.
Even the threat of ground forces would aid the air operations, for the forces on the ground in Kosovo would have to come out of hiding and be so concentrated as to meet a potential attack by land. In that form, they would be much more susceptible to attack from the air.
Such air attack is said to be pressed home at levels determined by military considerations only. I wonder whether that is the case. Surely the military advisers have given a range of options. Surely it is time to consider whether, in the light of some of the events of the past fortnight, and in the interests of seeking to prevent civilian casualties, air attack should be pressed home at lower levels. There would be an increase in risk. Let us be in no doubt about that. It would increase in direct proportion,

903
but there ought to be a diminishing risk to civilians. Should that not be the correct formula for such operations?
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Campbell: No. I shall make progress.
There is now a rash of diplomatic initiatives. They require to be pursued with the same intensity as the military operations. The involvement of Russia is essential. Because of the inexcusable error that led to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, it will be possible to buy the engagement of China only at a diplomatic and economic price. We shall have to pay for that error. We shall have to use up some of our political and financial credit.
Let me say a word about the role of the official Opposition and of the United States. I do not subscribe to the view that Opposition parties must preserve an unquestioning acquiescence. Twice in this century, parliamentary opposition has brought a change of Prime Minister because of energetic challenging in the House of the way in which war was being waged. Asquith and Chamberlain were both removed from office for their failures.
However, in asserting the right to question and challenge, there is an obligation incumbent on me and others on this side of the House. We have a responsibility to do so with judgment and without partisanship. I regret to say, and I do not say this lightly, that I do not believe that the Conservative party has always done so, since we began the exchange of statements and debates with which we have been concerned this year
Mr. Keith Simpson: Give us an example.
Dr. Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Simpson: Give us an example.
Mr. Campbell: I shall give way in a moment.
There is a deep division of view among those on the Conservative Benches. It is a long—
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like most hon. Members, I understood that there was a 10-minute limit on speeches. Under what circumstances are you extending that limit? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for 14 minutes, but he is using the extra time to attack the Conservative party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can clarify the situation immediately for the right hon. Gentleman. The Standing Orders are quite clear. One spokesman from the minority Opposition party is exempt from the 10-minute rule or any other limit.
Mr. Campbell: There is a deep division of view among those on the Conservative Benches. It is a long way from Bridgwater to Kensington and Chelsea but, occasionally, there seems to be a temptation to provide a rallying point
904
for all shades of opinion round vociferous challenge of the Government. It is not so much what is said as the form and style in which it is expressed. Being supportive, but differing from the Government where that is necessary or appropriate, seems to me to be entirely possible. That serves both national and party interest, and the Leader of the Opposition himself appeared to recognise those matters last week at Prime Minister's questions when the tone that he used was in sharp distinction from that which we have previously heard from the Conservatives on occasions. He was wise to do so. [Interruption.] Let me make some progress. He would be wise to continue to do so.
The Leader of the Opposition appears, of course, to have changed his view about the role of ground troops. There is considerable difference in emphasis between what he said on 23 March in the House and what he said last week, on 12 May. That is to be welcomed, but some indication of whether the Opposition have an alternative strategy would also be welcomed. As I understand it, the only proposal that they have made so far—apart from questioning the proposals made by the Government, which I have supported in the past—is that there should be a committee of inquiry.
As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) relied on something said by the Chief of the Defence Staff in a written article. That sits slightly uneasily with the fact that a Conservative member of the Defence Committee called for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff. Had such a call been made by any other Member of any other party during the Falklands war or the Gulf war, I wonder whether people would have regarded it as being something other than unusual.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that, for all Members of Parliament, it is not easy to criticise Government policy when British troops are deployed in action. I asked him, from a sedentary position, to give examples, but he was unable to do so, apart from talking about tone. Does he not agree, in retrospect, that he is making a highly partisan point? I ask him to bear in mind the fact that, on a number of occasions, he was unable to make his mind up, as the spokesman for the Liberal party, whether he should be sitting on the Treasury Bench, vis-a-vis a Cabinet Sub-Committee, or whether he was speaking as a member of the Opposition.
Mr. Campbell: In this—
Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: One at a time, if I may make so bold, although I suppose that I could take two at once.
I am speaking on behalf of my party. I believe that I have said nothing today that I have not said on the two previous occasions on which we debated this matter. Nothing I have said today is inconsistent with my response to the eight statements that have been made from the Treasury Bench. If the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for whom I have great personal regard, examines Hansard, he will find that my speech contains many points of difference between myself and those on the Treasury Bench.

905
If the hon. Gentleman reflects further, he will consider that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has been particularly prominent in the debate in general, has been extremely critical of the Government on occasions. I believe that it is my obligation and responsibility to do that, and that is what I am trying to do at the moment.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Campbell: I agreed to give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I shall then give way to the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Blunt: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflects on the tone of his speech, he will wish to withdraw his ascription of my remarks—which were made as a Back-Bench Conservative Member of Parliament who has the right to express his views freely and fearlessly—as the official Conservative position and the official Opposition's attitude to the Government. I hope that he will now do so.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have mistreated him in the way that he describes, I withdraw any suggestion that, in writing in the way that he did to The Times, he was writing on behalf of his party's Front Benchers, but he is a member of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons. I know of no occasion on which any member of that Committee who disagreed with Government policy suggested that the Chief of the Defence Staff should resign.
Mr. Blunt: I know of no occasion on which the Chief of the Defence Staff has written newspaper articles supporting a military strategy that is patently failing.
Mr. Campbell: I think that my earlier response covers that.
Mr. Howard: I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now accepts that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) were not my views, and have never been expressed by me.
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to say which of the questions that I put to the Government earlier he regards as improper?
Mr. Campbell: It is not simply a question of substance; it is a question of form, and of style.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Creep!
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman continues to call me a creep, I may have cause to revise the view that I expressed earlier.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has provided an unfortunate amplification of something that I did not hear. Let me say to the House that I think that a grave subject of this kind is best discussed in terms of issues rather than personalities.
Mr. Campbell: I apologise if I gave an unfortunate amplification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for responding to provocation.
906
The Foreign Secretary is to visit Washington this week. I hope that he will say frankly to those whom he meets, both in the Administration and in Congress, that, among friends of the United States, there is some concern, bordering on dismay, about apparently contradictory views being expressed.
The United States is the leading member of NATO. Its political leadership of NATO is unchallenged and, until Europe has achieved a much higher degree of defence cohesion and a more effective use of its resources, its military leadership will be essential in operations of any substance, and certainly in operations such as those being carried out, or proposed, in Kosovo.
Colin Powell, who is not notorious for risking American troops, recently challenged the assumptions behind the White House's insistence that an air campaign will be sufficient. For the reasons that I have given, that is part of the area of disagreement between Ministers and myself. Patently, an air campaign is not sufficient. For the Administration to continue to ignore the military realities not only imperils the mission, but puts intolerable strain on NATO itself.
During the Bosnia conflict, NATO's very survival became an issue, to the extent that the United States Defence Secretary William Perry, addressing the Defence Committee of the House of Commons in Washington, said, "NATO is more important than Bosnia." The fact that it was necessary to say something of that kind-showed the extent to which NATO was at risk.
NATO needs clear political objectives, adequate military resources and courageous leadership. The people of Kosovo need NATO to have those qualities; otherwise, their fate will be not political embarrassment, but participation in a diaspora that no one would have expected to find in Europe at the end of the 20th century. The Foreign Secretary should employ the frankness to which a close ally is entitled, and tell the President, Congress and the American people what we and the people of Kosovo expect.
5.29 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who was doing very well until he was distracted by that little spat a moment ago. I am happy to be associated with just about everything he said, including some of what he said during the spat.
I welcome the robust terms in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary restated our objectives. I accept that he and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister are doing all in their power to inject some backbone into our allies, and I entirely understand why they are not able to be as frank as we might like about that in public.
For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that I have supported intervention from the outset? We cannot allow ethnic cleansing in Europe when we have the means to prevent it, as we do. The only point at issue is whether we have the will, but we certainly have the means. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said the other day, this is a defining moment for our generation—are we able to stand up to what is happening in Kosovo?
I supported the intervention in Bosnia; I thought that it should have come a lot earlier than it did. The main lesson of Bosnia was that, had it come a lot earlier, the lives of many innocent people would have been saved.

907
I have not supported many interventions by the United States, but I did support the one in Somalia, which is perceived in the United States as a failure because some American lives were lost. However, it is often forgotten that, when the United States went in, the people of Somalia were dying of starvation at the rate of 1,000 a day. When it came out, whatever else had gone wrong, it had ended that situation. In the balance of history, that intervention should be regarded as a success, not a failure. It should not be quoted as a reason for doing nothing in relation to ground troops in the case of Kosovo.
There should have been—to our great shame, there was not—effective United Nations intervention in Rwanda. That is one of the most shameful episodes in recent years—perhaps in my short political life. It was clearly a case where a modest outside intervention by countries with the relevant—
Mr. Dalyell: Under the UN.
Mr. Mullin: Yes, under the UN. In that case, it might have been possible to get agreement in the UN. That was clearly a case where UN intervention might have been possible but, personally, I did not care where the intervention came from, providing the job that needed to be done was done. It could and should have been done in Rwanda. That is another lesson from the past that comes back to haunt us.
It has never been my view—indeed, it has never even occurred to me—that bombing alone will do the job. I am firmly of the view that bombing alone will not work. The Americans have always been big on bombing because they have never been bombed themselves. They do not always appreciate the effect that it has on civilians and, indeed, on the resolve of the people who are bombed. They have always been surprised.
The Americans flattened North Vietnam, without having any noticeable effect on the will of its people to resist. I was there some of the time and I saw what happened. The Americans are always surprised that bombing does not produce the results that they hope for. I hope that we will not get ourselves in the same position as the Americans; indeed, I know that we have not.
The Americans have always had a rather casual attitude to any casualties but their own. It is perhaps forgotten that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is not the first foreign embassy that they have bombed. They killed the French consul general in Hanoi in 1972 and bombed the Swedish embassy. I was in Cambodia in August 1973 when a B52 carpet bombed the town of Neak Luong, which was on their side, killing more than 150 people. It was the biggest accident of the war.
I remember that, first, the Americans lied about it. Then they were rumbled by an American journalist, Sydney Schanberg. Those who have seen the film "The Killing Fields" may remember that it starts with that incident. They lied again about what had happened. Then, eventually, they put it down to a computer error in Honolulu. After many months, they docked the pilot's pay by ․240, and they gave ․50 dollars in compensation to each of the families who had lost a relative. At that time, ․50 dollars was a new high for a Cambodian life.
Although I do not want to make too much of it, occasionally, when accidents have occurred in Kosovo or in Yugoslavia and I have heard spokesmen twisting and
908
turning to avoid having to face up to what has happened—we all accept that accidents of this nature happen in war—I have been reminded of the attitude that I heard American spokesmen expressing at the time of Neak Luong, in Cambodia. When we make mistakes—we have made some very bad ones—they should be faced up to squarely. If we do not do so, we risk rapidly losing the moral high ground.
We have to have grounds troops in Kosovo. If we cannot persuade the Americans or the rest of our allies to come in with us, we must prepare either for an unpalatable compromise or for prolonged stalemate.
Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mullin: Forgive me; I have only 10 minutes, and I have already had most of it.
We cannot continue bombing indefinitely. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said that we were at a crossroads. We are at a crossroads. We have to persuade our allies to come with us on ground troops. We now have absolute air supremacy, and we have cut off supplies of food and fuel. Now, we must start assembling a ground force and be prepared to use it.
I should like to hear from Ministers some clear estimate of what the Government consider to be the appropriate number of ground troops effectively to take Kosovo. Currently, a figure of 50,000 is quoted but, only a few weeks ago, I heard some of our spokesmen talking about 150,000 or even 200,000. I should like to hear a clear assessment of the situation.
The only point that I want to make is that, if we cannot bring ourselves to raise a credible ground force and, if necessary, to use it—it might not be necessary to use it; perhaps the pressure we shall apply merely by assembling it will be sufficient to lead to some type of diplomatic solution—we have to face the fact that we shall be locked into either an unpalatable compromise or a long stalemate. What we cannot and should not continue to do—as we have done in Iraq—is to bomb indefinitely, drawing up ever more irresponsible lists of targets, creating ever more civilian casualties.
This is the crunch point. I hope that we shall rise to the occasion. If we fail, the consequences are very terrible, most of all for those who are the victims of this great catastrophe. Whatever happens, we must not walk away from them. We have a debt of honour to those people, and to the Governments of the surrounding countries, who risk being destabilised by events.
In the long term, if we fail here—the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife touched on the issue—we shall have to reconsider completely our defence relationship with the United States—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
5.39 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: If I agree with some of the points made in the debate and—particularly after the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—sound repetitive, my intention is simply to try to establish greater consensus on

909

the issue. Nevertheless, I respect the views of those who disagree with Government policy and some of the views expressed by my hon. Friends.
I should like to make some specific criticisms, and to consider NATO's future if we get out of this mess. First, I want to make it clear that I fully support the action taken by the Government. I understand the problems and I do not intend to snipe at them about some of the difficulties that they face. I recognise that the United States is part of the equation that leads to the problems that we face.
The public—those who can remember that far back—well understand that the Rambouillet talks unquestionably went on long enough, with three adjournments, in a vain attempt to achieve a temporary settlement that could pave the way to a more peaceful arrangement in the Balkans, particularly over Kosovo. There is plenty of evidence to support the view that the behaviour of the Serbs towards the refugees and the use that was made of them started long before our bombing attacks.
The resumption of talks would lead to no more than a shabby deal. People of my generation remember digging trenches when we were at school and then, only a few years later, digging them in a more serious mission. The calls for a resumption of talks revive memories of Mr. Neville Chamberlain's Munich agreement, when he referred to the situation in Czechoslovakia as a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.
Those who say that we have got in a bit of a mess—and we have—should say how we can get out of it, and should define the end game. I do not think that it is possible to answer that. The same question could be put to those who opposed military action and insisted that dialogue should be continued. We have tried that. It has failed and I have seen nothing since that would lead me to believe one word from Mr. Milosevic or any of his henchmen. Following that course of action would be a failure to stand up for human rights and our democratic traditions. So much for that.
There are lessons to be learned. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly discussed the issue at a special meeting in Brussels only a week or so ago. The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—all recent members of NATO attending their first meeting—played a vigorous part in drafting the resolution. They had no doubt that we had to stick with the resolution that we have bound ourselves to and see the matter through to the end. They have learned the lesson of history—that appeasement to dictators never gets us anywhere, even though the situation may be dreadful and we may be unsure of our moral position.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I did not even note the time when I started, so I am not sure when I have to finish.
I have some military criticisms. I think that we all agree that ruling out the use of ground troops as a matter of principle was a bad decision. It was also wrong not to call up some troops and give the impression that they were there to do some business. Advance parties could have
910
been sent on special exercises to show Milosevic that we are ready to back up the rhetoric and that we are serious about destroying his army.
Unfortunately, bombing infrastructure from such great height, with all the collateral damage, has lessened the difference between our military activities against the Serbs and their activities against the Kosovars. That has led to some loss of the moral high ground. We should press on with all the speed that we can muster to threaten the Serbs not just with bombing, but with ground attacks.
The terrain offers great difficulties, although the troops are not likely to face the difficulties that the German Nazi battalions found in the second world war. In our campaign of bombing from 15,000 ft, we have been slow to pick up some of the new technology. We should have shown a greater sense of urgency and placed orders for new all-weather precision munition. The Secretary of State for Defence knows that Boeing has some kit that could be fixed to our laser-guided munitions so that they do not miss their targets and so that the planes do not have to return to base because they cannot bomb through cloud without damaging the effectiveness of the attack.
Incidentally, what is the point of having Apaches if we do not use them? That is where we must put pressure on the United States. We know perfectly well that they could be used with the help of specially positioned troops or fighter control teams, which could go into so-called "enemy territory" and help steer the Apaches on to the target. I have been in Apaches, and I know what they can do. They pop up, lock on to a target and disappear in a few seconds, before coming back up again, but they need help from those on the ground. However, the risk of loss of life there would be frequent.
Those matters lead me to conclude that NATO as a whole has not lived up to its reputation. It has not shown urgency in the measures that I have described, which would not cost much but would increase the efficiency of our forces.
It is all very well blaming the United States. However, we must recognise—I say this as delicately as I possibly can—that it is not led by a man with the highest of reputations. He may think that, by saving American lives, he will increase his own reputation and leave his office in better repute. That may be one reason. However, there is more to it than that.
At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, one of the Americans whom I have got to know well—a distinguished Congressman—made it clear that many in the United States are not keen on getting involved. There are those, keen or not, who think that the Europeans do damn all—that is how they put it.
We can argue until the cows come home, but the fact is that we do not pull our weight. We are not efficient at getting together as allies in NATO. There are two countries alone that could deploy efficient troops—France and ourselves. Germany spends next to nothing on its defence and, in any case, has a conscript army. I could go through a whole list. If I were an American, I would say, "This is a European problem. Of course, we can help, but if you want NATO to remain as an efficient alliance, you must do more yourselves." I accept that.
We must face the challenge, and the new NATO faces a great opportunity—that of creating a new, democratic security and political structure from the Atlantic to the Urals. If we fail in the Balkans, I fear not that we shall

911
write the RIP for NATO, but that it will destroy our ability to create the new structures that are necessary if we are to prevent, for the third time in a matter of two generations, a severe threat to the security of European civilisation.
That point means establishing also on a sustainable basis a better relationship with Russia. I have been to NATO headquarters and, as a result of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, there are Russian generals, service men and civilians working with NATO people. That is where we can begin to solve the problems that affect the structures of security and the democratic institutions of Europe.
I believe that we can do that if we recognise, first, that we must overcome the problem in the Balkans, and then range further in the peace to establish stability. If we can do that, I feel that we can hold our heads high about the future of NATO and of European civilisation.
5.49 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I begin with what has become, unhappily, a necessary incantation. My opposition to the war—which is profound, and has been as consistent as the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) throughout its 60 or so days of duration—is not based on any sense of pacifism. I am a pacifist neither by conviction nor by inclination. Nor is my opposition based on any approval or approbation for the ghastly tyranny in Belgrade, as I know my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would accept. If my right hon. Friend were here, he would know that we—certainly I—require no lectures or lessons on the scale of this humanitarian catastrophe, or on the tidal wave of human misery, pain and death that it has unleashed.
I know also that my right hon. Friend will accept that I defer to no one when it comes to a loathing of authoritarian government in any of its manifestations, be it foul tyranny on the one hand or the manipulation of the democratic process on the other. I have few hopes so fervent as to see Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic brought before the book of judgment in this world, as Senator Pinochet will be, rather than waiting for the vagaries of the next.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he says that we have reached—or should have reached, because such a state is long overdue at the end of this millennium—a time when we require to live in a new legal international framework, which means that we will no longer have to stand idly by wringing our hands and listening to the screams in our neighbour's house, unable to intervene because of the rules of sovereignty. My opposition to the war is based on the fact that the unilateral action taken by NATO is more likely than anything else to defer the growth of such a world order and will, in all probability, put back its inception for decades.
The first thing to understand is that this is an illegal conflict. Whether that matters is another issue, and I shall come to that in a moment. However, there is no point in continuing to pretend that this conflict has some form of legality. United Nations Security Council resolution 1199, which was once prayed in aid, gives no power to the United States or NATO to intervene militarily in Yugoslavia. There is no fiat from the Security Council, and article 7 of NATO's own treaty precludes it from acting outside the aegis of the Security Council.
912
More to the point is the question whether it matters that the conflict, based as it undoubtedly is on humanitarian motives and principles, is illegal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, for whom I have boundless respect and admiration, said that he did not care where the intervention came from. 1 cannot think of any statement more calculated to cause international chaos.
How far does NATO's writ run? I hope that that question will be answered in the response to the debate. Does it run only to Europe? Does it run to the Urals? Does it run into Russia or into north Africa? Does NATO's writ run into the centre of Africa? I remember a comment recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for whom I also have boundless admiration and respect, when she said that the time had come when we would see no more Rwandas. Is NATO's writ to run to Rwanda? If so, who is to decide in the counsels of NATO which conflict we will pick in which to intervene?
What about south-east Asia? Who polices south-east Asia if NATO polices Europe and north Africa? There is only one candidate. What happens if China, in the not-so-distant future, moves into Cambodia, Vietnam or Ladakh to stop—or so it claims—civil war or ethnic cleansing in those areas? When we protest against it, what will we say when China points out that we took the unilateral step of intervening in Kosovo without the international mandate of the Security Council? The road on which we have embarked is one of desperate danger.
Who is Jamie Shea? Who elected him? To whom is he accountable? When Jamie Shea tells less than the truth—and he has, on one or two occasions, told much less than the truth—who is responsible? On the question of the bombing of convoys—I accept that convoys will be bombed in a war, because catastrophes happen—Jamie Shea said that the Serbs did it. It was the same with the Chinese embassy. The first thing we were told was that a Serb double agent had deliberately misled the Americans. It was only later that we discovered the truth about the seven-year-old map. To whom does Jamie Shea answer? With our spin doctors we can get at their puppet-masters, but we cannot get at anybody who controls Jamie Shea.
The way in which we are waging this war is part of its illegality. I am no militarist. There are plenty of Biggleses on the Back Benches, but I am not one of them. I am no expert on the efficacy of weapons, but I do know that common sense says that, if bombing is carried out from long range or high in the air, it will transfer the risk from combatants to innocents on the ground. That is a deliberate policy.
Why are we embarked on an air war rather than on an invasion? I suggest that nation states are naturally inhibited from invading other nation states because they know that it is an act of wanton illegality. That is the box in which we are caught. Does legality matter? Of course it does, because acting legally gives one's actions coherence. Legality is not merely a question of the right to intervene: it is also the duty to intervene. If there is a legal duty to intervene, there is no debate about whether to commit ground troops because one's duty is to intervene to the maximum extent.

913
The radicalisation of support for Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade has occurred because, although he tells his people many lies, he can tell them with complete candour and truth that the action taken against them by NATO is illegal. They will believe him.
Mr. Peter Bradley: My hon. and learned Friend has spent a long time convincing us that he is a highly paid lawyer, and I am sure that he is good at his game, but will he spend the rest of his time telling us what he would do to protect the Kosovars from genocide?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: In debates such as this, I dislike personal invective. I have not indulged in it and I hope that other hon. Members will not do so. What would I do? I would take not 1,000 refugees a week but 10,000 refugees a week. I would welcome them to this country as the victims of a civil war, with all the inherent generosity for which this country is justly famed.
I suggest two precepts for a new international order. First, we have a duty to take refugees. The second duty attendant upon intervention is that it should be carried out only by nation states ruled by a democratic process—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.59 pm
Sir John Stanley: I shall address the bulk of my remarks, as most right hon. and hon. Members have so far done, to where we go from the situation in which we find ourselves. However, it is right to cast our minds back and ask whether we should have got into this situation. That question can be answered only when the conflict is over, and it will require a full and lengthy examination of the entire foreign policy and diplomatic process for at least a year before the start of the conflict in March this year.
Admittedly, with the benefit of hindsight, it can now be seen with stark clarity that the foreign policy that was pursued over the 12 months to this March rested on one enormous gamble: that it was possible to replay the Dayton formula that had produced peace in Bosnia to resolve the situation in Kosovo. The idea was that it would be possible for the western powers, from outside, to devise their own solution to the problems of the Balkans and force the Serbs to accept it under the threat of bombing.
That idea took little account of the profound difference between Bosnia and Kosovo in the minds of Milosevic and of the nationalist Serbs. There was always a hugely greater likelihood of failure in applying the formula to Kosovo and there was never any doubt that those most exposed by that failure would be the 2 million Kosovo Albanians. They have been the real victims of the failure so far. Deeply serious questions need to be asked about why more account was not taken of their vulnerability and the risks that they faced.
Why was not more done to try to deter Milosevic from applying a Hitlerian final solution to the Kosovo problem? Why was he given a partial green light by declaring in advance that there would be no use of ground forces? Those are serious questions that require an answer.
914
The central issue is what we should do from here. I find this moment extremely sobering and distressing, and I am sure that that feeling is shared by hon. Members of all parties. At the start of the conflict, three objectives—humanitarian, diplomatic and military—were set. The verdict today must be that we are miles and miles from achieving success in any of them.

The Prime Minister clearly stated the humanitarian objective at the very outset. He said that the action was
"to avert … a humanitarian disaster".—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 161.]
There has been no averting, and the humanitarian disaster has been catastrophic—way beyond anything that anyone expected would happen two months ago. On the humanitarian question, we have produced a total failure.
The diplomatic objective was that the start of bombing would make Milosevic climb down and accept the terms from which he had run away at Rambouillet. There again, two months on, we have total failure. We are nowhere near achieving the diplomatic objective with which we started. We hope that that will change, but that is the position today.
On the military objective, the Foreign Secretary has once again reeled off the list of destruction of Serbian armour in Kosovo, but the real test is what is coming out of the mouths of the refugees crossing the Macedonian and Albanian borders day after day. They report daily that the ethnic cleansing is continuing, with murder and rape and any number of people being taken away, perhaps to be sent to slave labour or rape camps, suffering every type of defilement and possibly mass murder: we shall find out only when we eventually get into Kosovo. Unhappily, the military action has not stopped the ethnic cleansing.
The House has widely divergent views on where we should go from here. My view is that, militarily, there is now an absolutely overwhelming case for the deployment—I stress deployment—of ground forces. Deployment is different from commitment. A commitment to use ground forces could be taken only at the time and on the basis of the military advice.
We are in a time-critical position, not only because of the weather factor, which is certainly important, but because of what is going on inside Kosovo. Apparently, there are still 600,000 ethnic Albanians inside Kosovo. What is their fate? Almost certainly, many more people are being murdered or driven out of their homes. The longer we delay, the more people are likely to end up as corpses in Kosovo.
The case for deployment now is not merely to try to give ourselves a military option as soon as a suitable force can be assembled, if we decide that that is the ultimate need, but to reinforce our diplomatic efforts. If Milosevic knows that troops are gathering on the borders of Kosovo, he will know that we are serious and that he risks a ground force invasion by the NATO countries. Surely that will add to the diplomatic pressure on him.
We must ask ourselves what more we can do to maximise the pressure on Milosevic to persuade him that he will be better off settling now than waiting for an uncertain future. What is the future of Kosovo itself? The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to the Rambouillet process leaving Kosovo autonomous. I think that he blurred the issue somewhat: under the Rambouillet process Kosovo was to enjoy a degree of autonomy, but within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

915
Surely we should now make it clear to Milosevic that, if NATO is forced ultimately to use ground troops, there can be no question of Kosovo remaining within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He will lose it and it will become independent. Surely we would all agree that if we went to the financial and human cost of a ground forces invasion of Kosovo, it would be unthinkable for Kosovo to remain part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I urge the Government to take steps now to increase the pressure on Milosevic. Stalemate is a victory for him. We cannot stop. We will be in serious danger of falling apart as an alliance if we do not maintain the momentum. There is a strong case for taking a decision to deploy military forces—that is separate from a subsequent decision to commit those forces—and making it clear to Milosevic that, if he wants Kosovo to remain part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, he must settle now. If we are forced to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
6.9 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I do not want to follow the line taken the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), although I agree with virtually every word that he said. The great value of these debates is that we can point out where we fear that errors may be made and hope that, by so doing, we can prevent those errors from occurring and causing the loss of lives.
Having visited Macedonia and Albania, I am extremely concerned that neither the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees nor NATO is doing the planning or taking the action necessary to house refugees over the winter, which, in the Balkans, starts in mid-October. I understand why the Government and NATO should not want to appear to plan for refugees still to be there in the medium term. It may be argued that that would encourage Milosevic, but I think that it would show our determination to see this through. It would be extremely foolish not to plan for there to be substantial numbers in Macedonia and Albania over the coming years. That would bring us in line with the realism that we should have learned from the history of refugee camps throughout the world.
The primary reason for urgency is that it would be intolerable to have hundreds of thousands of people housed in tents in a Balkan winter. There would be deaths, and appalling cruelty. The blame would fall on the international community—on us, not on Milosevic. The deaths, the carnage and the suffering would have occurred under our care, and people would have forgotten why the refugees had arrived at the camps.
If the refugees are to return, whether in winter or earlier, there must be diplomatic agreement, but there is little sign of that. Agreement must include an international force to escort people into the wasteland. I do not believe that we could make life tolerable for people in Kosovo in the full knowledge that Milosevic has sought to make their villages uninhabitable. I welcome discussions between the development ministries of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany and Italy to plan a return to Kosovo, but the idea that it will happen by October requires a huge leap of faith.
916
According to the Department for International Development, nearly 750,000 Kosovar Albanians have been expelled to neighbouring states, but another 700,000 have been displaced internally. Surely a successful outcome is likely to leave us fully stretched in meeting the medical and housing needs of people whose conditions are likely to be appalling after their treatment by Milosevic. Considerable humanitarian activity will be needed and considerable preliminary work will have to be done to prepare for returning refugees.
An enormous amount has been done by ordinary families in Albania and Macedonia who will need more rather than less support in the coming months—putting up 20 people in a small flat can be tolerated for only so long. Extra support is needed. Albanian families in both Albania and Macedonia have been unbelievably receptive.
The main challenge will come in the camps, which house hundreds of thousands of people. They were built in a huge hurry. We often failed to stay ahead of Milosevic's purges. Survival came about only through miraculous work by NATO to erect canvas townships. The Cegrami camp, for example, was built by German NATO, and its population went from 2,000 to 30,000 in a week. The camps are for the short term. They are often in the wrong places, being placed where people crossed the border rather than where they can be adequately catered for. They were a remarkable effort by NATO and by non-governmental organisations, but will NATO be able to construct winter dwellings, or will troops be needed for the central task of freeing Kosovo of Milosevic?
Unfortunately, winter means beginning all over again on housing the biggest refugee movement in Europe since the second world war. It may be possible in a few limited cases to harden the tents sufficiently to provide more protection. However, the camps are often three to five times more crowded than they should be. They are totally inadequate. They were erected in a great hurry, often in the wrong place, and some are running out of space for latrines.
The extra population is putting a huge strain on the existing infrastructure—roads, water and sanitation—of the host population. Oxfam has had to supply enough water purification chemicals to safeguard all of Macedonia's water supply for the next three months. Oxfam has had to purify the water for a whole country. The short-term camps have inadequate provision for health, education or anything else. People are herded together in large numbers, and all the normal problems—disease, prostitution, violence and public order problems—will break out. In addition, the Kosovo Liberation Army is likely to use camps as recruiting grounds.
We cannot take a laissez-faire approach, hoping that the problem will be tackled by success in the war. I have seen no sign that nation states or UN organisations adequately realise the scale of the rebuilding that must be done now if we are to get the refugees through the winter. I hope that the Government can reassure me that serious planning is taking place to avoid what will be another humanitarian disaster unless we act now.
6.16 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I do not wish to repeat what has already been said but, as we are returning to a matter of the utmost seriousness so that we may update ourselves on current events and look towards the future, I should recap on recent events.

917
The western powers, particularly the United States of America, seriously believed that they could undertake this war without anyone but the enemy getting hurt. That idea has shown through press reports of United States policy, and we cannot agree with it.
It is all very well standing up in the House of Commons to sound off about a war; it is another matter to go to see what is happening. I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for taking me to Macedonia last week to see what was happening on the ground. It changed my attitude to the war.
We visited our air, sea and land forces, and refugees. For the air forces, we began at Vicenza—COMAIR South—and heard from the American air force general in charge about the air strikes. The general has overall control of implementation of NATO decisions. I was surprised and shocked to hear that it takes 72 hours to achieve agreement within NATO on what strikes are to take place. The main problem lies in the White House. Suggestions from the military go there for approval, and it takes a long time to persuade the American President to agree to what is to be struck. Once decisions are made by the White House, matters move more swiftly; but 72 hours is too long a wait in this sort of war.
The American general made a further point that all of us would support with the benefit of hindsight. Having decided to launch air strikes against Serbia, we should have hit Belgrade far harder earlier in the campaign. The piecemeal air strikes that have taken place, dotted around the country, have not been effective. Had we been far more aggressive and concentrated more on Belgrade at an earlier stage of the war, it would have had a more profound effect, not only on Milosevic but on the civil population.
Another matter that has remained clear is that, although we have air supremacy in this war, the danger of surface-to-air missiles means that many of our aircraft have to fly at high altitudes—flying at 15,000 ft is not what Harrier pilots are trained for or would want to do. The Harrier is a ground-strike bomber and it is preferable to operate it at lower altitudes.
Even though we may have air supremacy, the point is that we have lost the initiative in the war. I say that we have lost it, but I do not think that we ever had it. From day 1 until now, the initiative has been in the hands of Mr. Milosevic. Only by re-establishing the initiative will we have any chance of success.
We then moved to Ancona and talked to our Harrier pilots. Morale is good, notwithstanding some of the difficulties with the airborne warning and communication system at the moment. We ended up at Isole del Colle in the south, where we talked to some of the American pilots and the people responsible for reporting on the weather. In general, morale within our air forces is very good indeed. They believe that they are doing a good and effective job.
As for sea forces, we visited HMS Invincible and HMS Newcastle. I was surprised to find that 10 per cent. of the crew of Invincible is now female. As the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), said when announcing that women would serve at sea,
918
the senior service really has risen to the occasion. The crews were performing magnificently and there is no doubt that women make a very effective contribution to crews in the Royal Navy at sea.
Both HMS Invincible and HMS Newcastle were happy ships, although the crews are getting slightly bored with steaming in circles. They know precisely what they are there to do and they are doing it effectively.
Mr. Blunt: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what the Invincible is doing in the Adriatic? Surely, more effective air bases are to be found in Italy. Why have a small aircraft carrier that is carrying aircraft that are not as capable as those based in Italy?
Mr. Colvin: It is true to say that Italy is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, while Invincible is most definitely sinkable. None the less, Invincible is mobile and it is there to provide support. The Harrier aircraft on board are in a position to give ground support to our troops when ground troops are deployed in this operation.
We then visited our land forces in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia, where about 4,000 British troops are deployed. We spoke to the commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, General Sir Michael Jackson. We heard today that 2,300 more troops are on standby to join them. That is still nothing like enough to fulfil the role that they will be required to perform if they have to enforce or implement a peace agreement.
Interestingly, the briefing that we received frequently used the words "enforcement" and "implementation". We did not hear them used much earlier. Let us suppose that Milosevic ran up the white flag and said, "Yes. Fine. I'll agree to everything that has been suggested. The Rambouillet proposal is OK. In you come." About 45,000 troops would be required on the ground, which is almost double what is there. Therefore, we must be in a position to deploy troops rapidly to make up the number of forces that would be required for that purposes.
That raises a serious question, which no one has answered, although we have heard a number of suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said that the end game will be the partition of Serbia and an independent Kosovo because that is what people have been fighting for. My visit to Macedonia confirmed to me that that is not the end game. That would be an absolute disaster. The point is that 90 per cent. of Kosovo is Albanian. If we partitioned Serbia and gave Kosovo its independence, it would merely lead to moves by Albania to create a greater Albania. The Albanians would immediately look towards Montenegro and say that part of that country is Albanian so they should have that too. In turn, they would say that 25 per cent. of Macedonia is Albanian and that that should come into a greater Albania.
I do not think that we quite realise what hostile people the Albanians can be. They have nothing to lose by going on the offensive if we partition Serbia. That would also leave the problem of the Serbian holy places in Kosovo. I am afraid that this wretched Battlefield of the Blackbirds, or whatever it is called, is a problem with which we must be prepared to live.
As far as I can see, a partition of Serbia is out, which means that it will have to be a protectorate. Therein lies a serious difficulty. If our troops go in to implement a

919
peace agreement, the protection force will have to be strong. The force will not be fighting Serb soldiers, although they are dug in across the only route in from Macedonia at present. We will be fighting the KLA. Instead of shooting at the Serbs as the KLA is at present, it will be shooting at British and NATO soldiers who are there to deny it the independence for which it has been fighting for so long. I am afraid that the western powers must sort that problem out. The Government's view of the final solution for Kosovo is not yet clear to me.
In our discussions with the Macedonian Defence Minister, he simply said, "This is not Macedonia's war." Macedonia is terrified that it will be drawn into the war. At the moment, its economy is in turmoil and it has lost all its markets, which are to the north in Serbia. That has a knock-on effect on the Greeks, who cannot sell their goods and produce into Europe—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
6.27 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: My apologies for missing the opening speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was on a train that was delayed for more than an hour outside Brighton.
In the past few weeks, the emphasis has been on accidents. I have listened to the accounts and shared the horror that we all feel when a bomb hits the wrong target. However, I think that the British people have a more realistic assessment of the nature of war than many of the critics of those actions in the United States of America, who sometimes seem to think that one can have a war in which there are no casualties, in particular no American casualties.
I was born in 1945 and I grew up listening to the stories of my parents and my friends' parents. They had all been through the war and experienced accidents. The accidents that are happening now are not new or unique. Everyone who went through world war two had horror stories to tell of mistakes and so forth, which often, tragically, cost lives. Nothing is new.
One hears the constant refrain that the bombing will not work. I remind the House that many hon. Members, including me, took the view that bombing would not be decisive in Iraq. We were wildly wrong. The bombing broke the will of the Iraqi republican guard. All the talk of the mother of all battles and of hundreds of thousands of allied forces dead turned out to be completely untrue.
Therefore, while I have no way of knowing whether the bombing will or will not work, I caution those who automatically dismiss it as impossible that they may turn out to be as wrong this time as many of us were when we were discussing Iraq.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Livingstone: I am afraid that I have only 10 minutes and I wish to make several points, so I will not give way.
Undoubtedly, there is a wide consensus in Britain that we should push America to ensure that planes fly lower and that we should prepare for ground troops. I have not
920
the slightest doubt that we should listen first and foremost to the refugees who have been driven out. Workers who are meeting, receiving and trying to treat the problems that the Kosovans have brought with them are unanimous—no Kosovan refugee from among the tens of thousands who have arrived in the west is saying, "Stop the bombing." In fact for many, their disagreement with us is that they say that we should be preparing for ground troops.
I wish that people would listen more to the refugees who have suffered rather than to many of the columnists who dominate so much of the British media. I have read some wonderfully witty, sarcastic, scathing pieces about depleted uranium shells and everything else. Did those columnists condemn Milosevic year after year? They demand peace in the Balkans now but it was not present through the past decade in Kosovo, when the ethnic Albanian community could not work or educate its children because it lived under a fascistic regime. That was not peace. Did they condemn Milosevic in their columns when he suspended the Kosovan regional Parliament? Why is it that they leap into action only when other nations say enough is enough and start to talk about stopping Milosevic? While they all carry the ritual disclaimer that they deplore Mr. Milosevic, their columns only support his position and undermine the resolve of others to stop what he is doing. I would like a better balance.
I do not condemn all columnists; some have taken strong positions in support. In reading those often witty columns, the one thing that is always absent is an answer to the question, "What would you do to stop what Milosevic is doing to the Kosovans?" In all the debates, very few answers come up. Some say that we should have a United Nations peace conference. I do not disagree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said about the action lacking the force of international law. It does not have United Nations sanction, but I never believed that we could have an international legal structure in which five states had a veto. Either laws are applied across the board or they are not. We cannot operate an international legal framework that works only when the five permanent members of the Security Council agree with it.
What chance do we have of getting China to agree to stop what Milosevic is doing in the province of Kosovo when we see what it is doing to the people of Tibet? Regimes such as China's do not want us to establish an international system of pressures, constraints and action to stop tyrannical regimes doing abominable things to the people captive under their control.
We are told that it is facile to compare Milosevic with Hitler. It is true that Milosevic has not murdered millions in death camps like Hitler, but he has made a good start. It was the broadcasting of the news of his concentration camps when he organised his appalling regime in Bosnia that finally made America begin to move.
My comparison is not with Hitler's endgame but with how he rose to power. He divided his people. He did not unite disparate groups but sought scapegoats. Milosevic has used Muslims and Catholics to unite the Serb community behind him just as Hitler used the Jews. Just as Hitler demanded all Germans within a greater Germany, so Milosevic demands all Serbs within a greater Serbia. He is driving out every minority that does not conform to his view of an ethnically pure Serbia.

921
He might not yet be fully comparable with Hitler but he is well down the road. Milosevic has started four wars in a decade. He invaded Slovenia. He invaded Croatia and Bosnia using surrogates, and now he uses troops in Kosovo. Will he really stop at four if we give up now or will he see it as a sign of weakness and develop a wider agenda for his domination in the Balkans?
We are not in an easy position. We are slowly putting into place a new world order in the aftermath of the cold war. It may take a generation to give it real form, but the deportation of Pinochet for his crimes and the action against Milosevic are both sides of one coin. We are beginning to say that, with the cold war gone, we will no longer support some ghastly little despot simply because he is on our side. Increasingly, we will try to put in place a series of checks, balances and interventions to prevent things like this from happening. The fact that we cannot intervene in Tibet is no reason for not intervening where we can. We must build and extend, and perhaps eventually the people of China will find a way of creating a Chinese regime that is not so abhorrent to those under its control.
We must consider seriously how better to co-ordinate Europe's foreign policy and defence structure so that we are not always so dependent on the United States of America. We will clearly not always be able to rely on the Americans to step in.
I have heard complaints that Britain stands alone, but it would not be the first time. We stood alone in 1940. I am saying that it is a simple comparison, but we stood because we believed that it was right to stand against fascism. It divided all parties in the House but the overwhelming majority stood firm. Even if we were the only nation arguing for the use of ground troops—I do not believe for one minute that we are—I would be proud that we were doing what was right rather than joining the chorus of the more weak spirited.
I have no doubt that the Government's stand is right. The fact that they are denounced as hawks does not mean that they are wrong but that, bit by bit, we are trying to work to a different sort of world, where lunatic mass murderers like Milosevic cannot continue generation after generation.
6.36 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: The Chamber is pretty full this afternoon, which I find reassuring and creditable. It is plain from all the contributions that there is widespread anxiety in the House touching many aspects of the war. I believe that it also attaches to what is being done in our name and in the name of this country. Probably it is seated in the paradox of Government policy.
The first paradox is the notion that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people can in some way be redeemed or offset by the putting to death of an equivalent number of non-combatants in the same country.
Mr. Frank Cook: That is absolute nonsense
Mr. Clark: I advise hon. Members who dissent from that to consider how often this frightful equation of casualty lists, this bogus equilibrium of people who have been killed, is put to the House and in the media.
922
The second paradox is more bizarre. Yugoslavia has been bombed to pieces and had its infrastructure almost destroyed. The River Danube has been polluted and hundreds of acres of pasture have been covered with depleted uranium. In spite of all that, much damage has been self-inflicted by NATO, both to its credibility and to its reputation for operational effectiveness. That was highlighted by some of the asides in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). He invited the House to consider what humanitarian progress has been made since the operation started. He left unsaid the conclusion that it is virtually nil. Where does the reputation of NATO stand now? Many people are due to be killed to save it.
I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider, when we think of NATO, one aspect of what is happening. The Prime Minister has said that the war is being fought for "a new internationalism". There were echoes of that in the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East
(Mr. Livingstone). Javier Solana, the NATO Secretary-General, has said that its purpose is to establish a precedent for the "new strategic concept" of NATO—that it should be able to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state for humanitarian reasons. By definition, NATO never had that role when it was set up as a defensive alliance, protecting the sovereign territory of its members.
I repeat my caution to my hon. Friends on this matter. What is so insidious about that argument and that doctrine is that, in place of the old system of national legal systems, creating free markets and national liberties, it is envisaged that there should be a new world order of universal human rights with the inherent problem that a bogus notion of human rights can never provide a basis for the rule of either law or morality. Universal human rights are detached from any rootedness in time or place; their application inevitably flails around capriciously, according to the latest whim of outrage or the latest fad for victimhood.
Human rights are, by definition, antithetical to the concept of national sovereignty. The concept that there can be universal human rights implies that there can be a single, global system of civil law with NATO playing the role of world government, or of world government policeman. That brings one to a point made most effectively by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell): if NATO is to be the world policeman and if it is to deserve the respect of the majority of law-abiding people in or out of international politics—the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) referred to the necessity of intervening if one heard screams in the next-door house—we expect from the police accountable, orderly and responsible conduct of their responsibilities.
Mr. Hogg: It must be proportionate.
Mr. Clark: It must also be proportionate, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. If NATO continues to behave in its present reckless, indiscriminate and brutal manner—devoid, it seems, of any comprehensible, tactical plan—which is greatly separated from the original concepts under which the organisation was set up and from the deference that it originally owed, and should owe, to the Security Council of the United Nations and

923
the resolutions thereof, the alliance will have been gravely damaged. The outcome of its activities will be uncertain and will probably give rise to disappointment, disillusion and much human suffering.
The House should be aware of those matters and of their undercurrents. I know from my own mailbag that the anxiety that is felt in the Chamber is an echo of the anxiety that is felt throughout the country as to what is being done in our name and in the name of our country.
I wholly reject any suggestion that to say those things is unpatriotic in some way. Is it unpatriotic to remind the House of Commons that members of our armed services enlist to defend British people and British interests—not to kill non-combatants? Is it unpatriotic to point out—as I have been reproached for doing in this Chamber—that, where non-combatants have been killed, it is not, and never has been, the fault or the responsibility of our armed forces? It is the responsibility of those with whom they are currently associated.
Those distinctions—that relating to global conduct and the concept of NATO and that relating to the proper, function and role of our armed forces and the debt that we all owe them, and which I gladly pay—are matters that, at all times during this hideous and hateful experience, the House of Commons must have at the forefront of its mind.
6.44 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate says much about democracy in this country in that, 60 days into the bombardment, there has been no substantive vote in the British Parliament on the authority of the Government to proceed with the bombardment of Yugoslavia. There has been no vote on whether there is to be a declaration of war, nor on the appropriation of vast amounts of money for this programme and there will not be a substantive vote either today, or, I suspect, on any other day. It ill behoves us to lecture the rest of the world on the rule of law and democracy when we have the archaic system of the royal prerogative handled by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to decide whether this country is at war.
Under the cloak of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, there has been a vast expansion of the work of that organisation. NATO knows no democratic control whatever; at any one time, 90 per cent. of British troops are under the control of NATO generals, answerable only to the President of the United States. Legislation under the Visiting Forces Acts removed many powers that we held; the expansion of NATO has done so entirely. Those people who hoped that the end of the cold war would bring about a more rational system of peacekeeping and security in Europe and, indeed, a more rational world order, and who now support the bombing of Yugoslavia, should think very carefully.
At the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact collapsed; NATO should have been collapsed too. Instead of promoting NATO and the massive armaments that that involves and instead of joining up other countries, we should have been promoting the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe as a way of maintaining peace and a sense of security in Europe. Now, we are undergoing a massive armaments campaign.
Likewise, there has been a systematic denigration of the peacekeeping powers of the United Nations and of its ability to promote peace throughout the world. It is
924
ludicrous that a system has pertained since the end of the second world war in which the five victor powers of that war hold the power of veto over the United Nations. It is time that the veto system was ended and the United Nations was treated with the respect that it deserves, so that it becomes the centre point of world government and world peacekeeping. The actions of NATO, the expansion of NATO and the way in which the British and American Governments, in particular, have systematically undermined the work of the UN Secretary-General during this conflict bode ill for a good future for the United Nations.
I am fed up with Prime Ministers and Presidents of extremely powerful countries who go to the UN, praising UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—UNESCO, the environment summit and all other things to do with the UN, but who completely ignore the UN on the crucial issues of war and peace and send in NATO instead. It is time to do something different in that respect.
The idea that the agreement on offer in Rambouillet would ever bring about peace is laughable. No country would ever have signed up to anything under the Rambouillet agreement. Despite the Foreign Secretary's earlier remarks, it is clear, from information that was published after Rambouillet, that there was never any intention of achieving an agreement; it was always to be an ultimatum to Yugoslavia and the start of the process by which the bombardment would take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) referred to the rule of law in the future. He conceded the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that there is no legal basis whatever for the bombardment of Yugoslavia that is taking place. If there was a legal basis, presumably Britain and the United States would have returned to the Security Council to try to obtain it. They knew that they could not do that, so they bypassed the matter. That is not the way to show respect for the rule of law. What is going on is illegal. Indeed, the International Court of Justice in The Hague—I visited that city last week to attend a peace conference—is currently hearing an application from the Yugoslav Government in respect of the bombardment. If that court finds against Britain, America and NATO, what will happen to the whole fiction and to the fig leaf of legality that surrounds the arguments that have been made?
As a parallel, some hon. Members have referred to the question of General Pinochet. I spent 25 years campaigning for peace, democracy and freedom in Chile. A great deal of progress has been made, but at no stage did the Chilean opposition ask people to bomb Santiago or to invade. No; at great personal risk and danger, they campaigned to get rid of Pinochet. They have campaigned ever since to have him brought to trial. To me, that, rather than the NATO bombardment, is the way forward.
We have to recognise the way in which Yugoslavia, which stood out as part of the non-aligned movement and stood out against the cold war in the 1950s and 1960s, was not supported. It was allowed to get into enormous debt and to develop huge economic problems, on the back of which petty nationalists such as Tudjman and Milosevic rose to power. The ghastly process of ethnic cleansing commenced and has continued ever since. We hold some responsibility for the way in which those people rose to power, just as we are responsible for the

925
way in which the treaty of Versailles resulted in fascists rising to power in Europe. We should think carefully about how we treat other countries' economies.
After 60 days of bombardment, we have to ask: what has been achieved? A ghastly situation in Kosovo has been made worse: hundreds of thousands of people have been forced out of Kosovo and into refugee camps in Albania and Macedonia, with regrettably few being offered places of safety in other parts of western Europe. We were told that the bombardment of Yugoslavia would be over in a short time and that only military targets would be bombed. Since when was a television station a military target? Since when was an oil refinery a military target? Since when was a bridge a military target? Since when were all those civilian casualties who have suffered as a result of the bombardment of Yugoslavia military targets?
Our actions have resulted in a brutalisation of the people of Yugoslavia that will unite them behind Milosevic—a people who, two years ago and less, demonstrated in their hundreds of thousands to remove the Milosevic regime. We have created a polarised society in that state, with which we shall have to deal. Then, we have the problems created by the bombardment itself. I mentioned the bombing of oil refineries and other targets, but the depleted uranium used in the bombs being dropped by NATO will pollute the whole region and kill people in every country in the region. The fall-out from depleted uranium does not respect national boundaries, any more than it respects the colour of a soldier's uniform.
I spent last week at an international peace conference in The Hague—the centenary of the 1899 attempt at peace. The British media reported not one word about it, despite the fact that 5,000 people attended and Kofi Annan, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others spoke, overwhelmingly in condemnation of NATO's action. They did not in any sense support the actions of Milosevic and his regime, but demanded a search for a peaceful solution. Everyone must recognise that we cannot go on bombing for ever: at some point, there has to be a ceasefire; at some point, there have to be talks; at some point, there has to be agreement; at some point, there has to be respect for human rights and the right to live in the region.
I hope that a message can go out that many people in this country are horrified when they see the refugees, but equally horrified when they see the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia. Instead of continuing the bombing and threatening to use ground troops, why do we not bring in Kofi Annan, who is the one person who might be able to negotiate a satisfactory ceasefire and a settlement? We must support the principles of the United Nations, rather than NATO's military intentions, behind which lie economic interests, as demonstrated by the demands made of Yugoslavia at Rambouillet.
We in this House have the opportunity to declare ourselves for peace, not war. Although my colleagues and I are a minority in this place, I do not believe that we are a small minority in the population as a whole.
6.54 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is customary to refer to earlier speeches, and I shall do so in a couple of cases.
926
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) summarised some of the confusion to be found among those on the Government Benches. I agreed with much of the thrust of his argument, but I believe that I heard him say towards the end of his speech that, even if we were the only nation that was proposing to use ground forces, we should nevertheless do so. The problem with that is that we are not proposing to use ground forces. We are hearing a dual message from the Government: on the one hand, we are given literal statements that it is not intended that ground forces should be used, but, on the other hand, we hear inspired leaks that suggest that the Prime Minister is out there in Washington, bravely campaigning to get a reluctant Bill Clinton to put his money where his mouth his and send his troops into battle. Those messages cannot both be true: if one is true, the other is not, but both cannot be true simultaneously.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) rightly deplored one Member's use of personal invective against another, but, sadly, that did not prevent him from employing a great deal of personal invective against Jamie Shea. He asked to whom Jamie Shea is responsible—
Mr. Alan Clark: He is not a Member of Parliament.
Dr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend is quite right—Jamie Shea is not a Member of Parliament. My point is that the hon. and learned Member for Medway is applying a double standard, in that those who are Members of Parliament may not be criticised, whereas those who are not may be.
I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that Jamie Shea is responsible to someone who is easily identifiable—the Secretary-General of NATO. Since taking his doctorate in relevant studies, he has spent his entire adult career working for the safety of the west. I remember him working as NATO's youth officer 15 or more years ago, when many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches were trying to dismantle NATO's nuclear defences in the face of the Soviet threat. A man such as Dr. James Shea need not fear criticism from some hon. Members present in the Chamber today.
It has been said that we should leave everything to the United Nations, but the UN was deliberately designed not to be able to resolve conflicts in which major powers were involved. It exists as a structure to enable major powers to get together if they want to resolve crises between themselves, and to enable major powers to resolve crises between minor powers, but the veto was established for a good reason—in recognition that conflicts cannot be wished away by a simple vote if the powers involved are large enough to impose their will no matter how many hands are raised in the air. Democracies cannot, and should not, depend on the UN for all initiatives to go to war.
Hitler attacked Poland in 1939—he did not attack Britain in 1939, because he did not want to be at war with Britain in 1939. Nevertheless, we went to war with Hitler on behalf of Poland, even though we knew that we could not do anything practical to prevent the Poles being overrun. We went to war, albeit belatedly, for a principle. I believe that the Government are right in their action and in their motives, because they are going to war—they do not call it a war, but they should be more open about such

927
matters—for the same principle. If a structure such as the United Nations had existed in 1939, it would not have been technically permissible for us to declare war on Hitler in the way that we did.
For a democracy to go to war, three things are necessary: the motives must be justifiable, the aims must be realistic and, above all, the methods must be effective. I was one of only three Conservative Members who, from an early stage and throughout 1998, consistently called for military action to be taken against Milosevic if necessary. I draw some comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), the last Conservative Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, was one of the other two.
I was also one of a somewhat larger group who consistently said that to rule out the use of ground forces at the outset was a naive and counter-productive act—an act that was aimed, not at our potential enemy, on whom such acts should be targeted, but at our own democratic electorate. Taking that step did our domestic electorate an injustice. It enabled Milosevic to disperse and hide many of his forces, which he would otherwise have kept concentrated and thus vulnerable to air strikes. That is the view not just of an armchair ex-academic strategist like me but of Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon—the most recent ex-Chief of the Air Staff. His view was published on 9 May in The Sunday Telegraph, and it is absolutely correct.
We have four basic options. In dealing with Milosevic, we could aim, first, to remove him and to put him on trial. Secondly, we could try to contain him in Serbia but drive him completely out of Kosovo. Thirdly, we could try to compromise with Milosevic, either by returning Kosovo entirely to his rule with agreed conditions or by returning part of Kosovo to him. That would mean partition of the province. Finally, we could close down the NATO operation completely after a decent interval. Interestingly, on 31 March, the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta gave an assessment of the strategy suggested by Primakov when he and his team visited Milosevic. That rather influential Russian newspaper suggested that the Russians had called for the partitioning of Kosovo into a Serb region and an independent region.
Depending on which option we choose, we will have to use one of the following methods. If we decide to remove to try Milosevic, air power and a full-scale invasion of Serbia will be required. If we are not prepared to do that, we should stop talking about putting Milosevic on trial and bringing his regime to justice because it ain't going to happen. If we opt for containment within Serbia, it will require air power and a full-scale invasion not of Serbia but of Kosovo. If we opt for compromise, it will require air power and the genuine threat of at least a limited invasion of Kosovo—if not by NATO forces, then by other local forces, as occurred in Bosnia. Finally, if we opt for an exit and decide to close down the NATO operation after a decent interval, that is a form of gesture politics involving limited risk and effor—which may indeed be achieved by air power alone.
The Government must decide whether they are engaged in a limited or a total war. They keep using the rhetoric of a total war while employing the methods of a
928
limited war. Professor Sir Michael Howard, the eminent strategic historian, has defined the two approaches in the following way. He said:
"A limited war is one fought for a limited objective and ends with a freely negotiated peace with an adversary with whom one can then renew normal relations."
That is what occurred with Argentina over the Falklands. Sir Michael continued:
"A total war is one fought to overthrow the adversary, render him powerless, and dictate peace to him on one's own terms."
That is the approach that characterised world war two. This conflict started as the first type of war, but it seems set to end as the second if the Serb forces refuse to withdraw. As a member of NATO, Britain is advancing aims that sound limited but, in reality, is demanding concessions that can be achieved only through a total war.
The Prime Minister must make up his mind: he must recognise either that Milosevic will stay in power—in which case he must do a deal—or that this is not a limited but a total conflict and that he will have to go all out for the overthrow of Milosevic.
7.4 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I begin by paying tribute to the United Kingdom armed forces, which have once again demonstrated their excellence both in military operations and in their humanitarian efforts. I pay tribute also to their families who, more than anyone, would have hoped for a peaceful solution by now. Their support and their courage is a lesson to us all.
I shall try not to cover the same old ground in highlighting some issues and responding to some of the points raised by other hon. Members. My first point concerns collateral damage and civilian casualties. Like other hon. Members, I deeply regret the loss of innocent life. However, we must recognise that no war or military engagement has not incurred civilian casualties. Mistakes have occurred and they always will. Those who argue for the immediate dispatch of ground troops to the region must recognise that civilians are still likely to be killed in that conflict. If troops who are under attack see an unexpected movement, they will not wait to inquire politely who it is. I also have no doubt that Milosevic and the Serbian forces will use civilians as human shields.
That brings me to my second point. While not urging NATO to dodge its responsibility for civilian casualties—it is not blameless in that regard—I believe that some of the responsibility lies with Milosevic and the Serb forces. For example, the most recent tragedy could have been caused by Serb forces deliberately grouping together large numbers of civilians in an area that they knew was likely to be bombed. I am certain that, if and when ground troops are sent in, the Serb forces will place civilians in the direct line of fire. The Serbian military apparatus became adept at utilising deception and concealment to great effect during the long years of Tito's reign. When troops are finally sent to Kosovo and begin to find the bodies, I have no doubt that Milosevic will claim that those people either died fighting or were killed by NATO bombs because it is in his interests to do so.
My third point is addressed to those who say that the civilian casualties are a good reason to stop the bombing. I do not think so. We all supported the dispatch of OSCE troops to Kosovo in an attempt to monitor a peaceful settlement. However, that mission did not prove effective

929
as the slaughter continued even as the peace talks proceeded. I do not think that the present slaughter will stop until we defeat the Serb forces and secure their withdrawal.
The 200 or so civilians killed so far by NATO action are 200 unwanted deaths. That contrasts starkly with the cold, calculating and deliberate murder of 250,000 people in Bosnia. According to reports, more than 100,000 men of fighting age may have disappeared in Kosovo in the past few weeks, and almost 5,000 of them are almost certainly dead. We have also heard reports of serial rapes and other savagery perpetrated by the Serb forces.
To those who urge NATO to stop the bombing and start talking now, I would reply that we tried and failed to reach a satisfactory end to ethnic cleansing through dialogue. No one can accuse us of not having travelled that route. I believe that Milosevic has no interest in humanitarian causes or a humanitarian settlement. Anyone who watched the recent repeat of the BBC television programme "The Death of Yugoslavia" will have seen clearly and forcefully Milosevic's determination to pursue his power through a deliberate policy of territorial acquisition and ethnic cleansing. His involvement in peace talks was a pretence, just as his offer of partial withdrawal is a pretence. If NATO had done nothing but talk, even when talking was achieving nothing, it would certainly have looked cynical and irrelevant to Europe's security and stability. There is no possibility of security and stability in Kosovo and the Balkans until we make sure that we have defeated Milosevic's policies of ethnic cleansing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) talked about respect for human rights, including the right to live. What respect for those rights has Milosevic ever demonstrated, and how can we reach a peace agreement by talking to somebody who has no regard for, and in no way shares, those values?
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said that there were mixed messages involved in using ground troops, and I would not pretend that that is not the case. Like other hon. Members, I certainly support openness and accountability, but I am also aware that, in dealing with situations such as that in Kosovo, full openness is not always in the best interests of our armed forces or those of NATO.
I make the same point to those who constantly push for a full debate in the House and a vote on a substantive motion before we agree to any military action by our troops. I wonder how our troops would feel if they had to sit on the front line for 24 hours while we engaged in a full debate about whether they should move into Kosovo.
Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because time is very short and I want to make a number of other points.
There are those who argue that sending in ground troops would be a quick solution. I do not have a military background, but I do not think that we should assume that such a solution would be quick, easy or bloodless. What I have heard about the terrain in Kosovo suggests that it has been given much consideration by our military
930
personnel. I suspect that Serbian military forces are already dispersing in small units in forested and mountainous areas to engage in the kind of guerrilla campaign that they would be so well placed to conduct. I strongly feel that the ultimate decision on the use of ground troops has to be referred to the military.
Russia has a key role to play—I hope that, in spite of all its instability, it will accept it—not only in solving the problems in Kosovo, but in helping us to build a stable, secure Europe for the future. I welcome the involvement of the President of Finland. The fact that Finland will shortly take over the presidency of EU is useful and welcome because that country is uniquely placed to deal with Russia.
I hope that one of the results of the situation in Kosovo will be a reformed, stronger United Nations with an effective peacekeeping force that can deal with the likes of Milosevic and enforce agreements. I hope also that, in celebrating NATO's 50 years, we shall all recognise its contribution to our entering the new century with a peaceful, stable and secure Balkans.
7.14 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I oppose the bombing, first, because sadly it has not achieved, and will not achieve, the objective of safeguarding the Albanians resident in Kosovo. I predicted that it would not do so. Indeed, I calculate that Milosevic has succeeded in his ethnic cleansing of the 1.6 million Albanians who were in Kosovo at the beginning of the action.
There are 900,000 Kosovan refugees in Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro, as well as those who have been flown out to friendly countries including our own, Germany, France and Australia. Before the war began, there were 200,000 displaced persons—we cannot call them refugees if they are inside Kosovo—and probably double that number of people are now wandering around in the mountains and forests, fearing for their lives because of Serbian soldiers. That adds up to many more than 1 million refugees whom we shall have to look after. We must look after them because that was one of the original objectives of the war.
On 23 March, the Prime Minister said:
"We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe—from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship—and to save the stability of the Balkan region, where we know chaos can engulf the whole of the European Union."—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 162.]
Sadly, at least one of those objectives—the humanitarian objective—has not been achieved; in fact, we have spectacularly failed to achieve it. That places a heavy responsibility on this House and all those engaged in the intervention in Kosovo.
The NATO bombing led to another humanitarian disaster because it meant that all the humanitarian agencies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which are usually present in wartime to look after the civilian population who have been displaced by bombing or the movement of military forces in their country, had to withdraw because they were in fear of their lives. The Kosovans who were still in Kosovo were left bereft of any assistance as a direct result of our decision to bomb.

931
I want to describe the humanitarian situation endured by the refugees for whom we went to war, for whom we began bombing and for whom we shall, we say, introduce ground troops. Incidentally, the Prime Minister said that we would never do that. That statement was not believable, and I pointed that out to the House. If we are gung-ho and send in ground troops, which I believe we must do to secure Kosovo, where will they enter Kosovo? They cannot enter from Albania or Macedonia, which are the obvious ways to go in, because the Greeks and Macedonians will not permit it. The only alternative, therefore, will be to enter through Serbia, which would mean taking on a huge responsibility and creating an extra dimension to the war.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wells: No, I am sorry, I will not.
Confronting and fighting the Serbians would, if we were to be successful, involve not only the NATO forces that are presently envisaged, but a vastly increased army.
The present camps are a disgrace. In Macedonia and Albania, they are four to five times overcrowded. Those camps should have been properly placed by negotiation through the UNHCR, who had been warned of the problems that would result. The World Food Programme took action, but the UNHCR did not, as we learned when the Select Committee on International Development went to Macedonia and Albania only two weeks ago. We have issued a report that is tagged to the debate.
The present camps are very unsatisfactorily overcrowded. They are muddy. In Macedonia, they are surrounded by barbed wire, with Macedonian soldiers pointing their guns towards the refugees to make certain that they do not come out and mingle with the Macedonians in the towns and villages—to prevent a political crisis overtaking Macedonia, which the Serb element in Macedonia would probably take as a coup. Those are the conditions under which the people whom we went to war to look after are living.
In Albania, we visited a camp that was totally wrongly placed between a garbage dump and a chemical factory, on flat land that is impervious. That means that when it rains, it floods. It also means that sanitation—drainage from septic tanks or other means of disposal of sewage—cannot seep away into the ground. The camp is along a very rough 12-mile track, which means that, as there is no drinkable water supply, all water, as well as fuel, has to be trucked in over that difficult track. The camp is entirely unsatisfactorily and will have to be closed, otherwise it will undoubtedly be overtaken in the summer months by water-borne diseases such as cholera. It is also unsatisfactory because it cannot see the people through the winter.
Let us consider the winter. The refugees were driven from their homes before they could plant their crops and their homes have been destroyed. They will not get back to Kosovo in time to rebuild their homes before winter and connect them up to the infrastructure that we are busily destroying by bombing—the roads, the bridges, the water supply, the fuel supply and so on. Therefore, we must accommodate them through the winter in Macedonia, Albania or a neighbouring country—or in Kosovo itself.
932
How is that to be done? No planning is taking place. We learned from the Evening Standard tonight that consideration is being given to a proposal to put the refugees into disused buildings in Albania, most of which were destroyed in the civil war of 1997 and are in a decrepit state. The NATO general in Albania has suggested that the refugees should be put in prefabricated buildings which, when the time comes, can be moved from Albania to Kosovo and re-erected in the villages and towns, providing accommodation that can overwinter them safely.
The House must realise that winter in Kosovo is extreme. Temperatures fall to minus 20 deg, and babies, children and old people die in those circumstances unless they have adequate protection, which they do not have at present. Even reinforced "winterised" tents will not provide adequate accommodation.
Some kind of planning must be done, and the UNHCR is the only agency that can do it. I beg the Government, if they are serious about their humanitarian objectives, to send the Secretary of State for International Development to the UNHCR with a team to boost the management and to do the work that is necessary to provide co-ordination, security, management and forward planning in the camps, so that we can fulfil at least one of the objectives that we set out to achieve, and save the lives and the future of the people of Kosovo.
7.23 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The question raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) must be addressed. There is a proposal to put ground troops into Kosovo. How? Through Greece? The mayor of Athens has said that not a finger will be lifted by dock workers in the port of Piraeus. The Greek railway workers say that they will make it impossible to go through Thessaloniki.
Through Macedonia? Those of us who have talked to the Macedonians know that they say that they have to live with the Serbs, and in no way will their country be used as a springboard for an attack on Kosovo or on Serbia.
Through Hungary? There are 350,000 ethnic Hungarians in the northern Yugoslav plain.
Through Albania? The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has been there. Do not the roads peter out, and are there not mountains 6,000 ft high? Sending in ground troops will entail either an assault on Serbia, presumably through Montenegro, which would mean massive forces and ferocious opposition—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: No; sorry; time limit.
The other possibility that has been suggested is an airborne landing. That would be Arnhem mark II, so it is totally unrealistic.
Let me ask some specific questions. One concerns the use of cluster bombs. I am glad that the Minister of State for Defence happens to be on the Front Bench. I quote from William Rees-Mogg—not exactly one of the awkward squad—who wrote:
"Mr Mandela has long been the hero of British progressives. They should listen to his judgment now. The Nato defence of the steadily increasing number of civilian casualties caused by the bombing is

933
that Milosevic intends to kill his victims but Nato only kills people by accident. However, as these accidents are now occurring regularly, Nato can scarcely claim that they are anything but the foreseeable consequences of the bombing. Anyone who drops cluster bombs on imperfectly identified objects from 15,000 feet must reasonably expect innocent civilians to be killed. In the last stage of their drop, the cluster bombs are in free fall by parachute, liable to be carried by the wind to unintended targets."
What is the position regarding the use of cluster bombs? It is impossible to use such a land-mine type weapon in a war that is said to be fought on humanitarian grounds. The two do not go together. What is the policy?
What is the policy in relation to depleted uranium—a matter on which I interrupted the Foreign Secretary? I understand from Alex Kirby, the environment correspondent, that as the debate intensifies over the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Balkan conflict, a former Pentagon adviser has come out against them. He is Dr. Doug Rokke, who says that he now has symptoms of radiation cancer. He is a US health physicist who led the depleted uranium clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq immediately after the Gulf war.
In 1994, Dr. Rokke, an army reserve captain, was appointed director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project, a job that he left in 1997. He helped to develop an education and training programme and conducted tests on DU explosives in the Nevada desert.
The Pentagon has confirmed that A-10 aircraft are using DU rounds in the war with Serbia. They are extremely heavy, and are used for their armour-piercing capability. Veterans from the 1991 conflict believe that depleted uranium, which is both radioactive and toxic, may help to explain the existence of Gulf war syndrome.
With regard to levels of radioactivity, reports from southern Iraq point to much higher levels of stillbirths, birth defects, leukaemia and other child cancers. God Almighty, having seen with my own eyes the results of such child cancers in Baghdad and Um Kasr, I cannot begin to convey the horror.
I do not know—nor does anyone else—what is likely to be happening in the attack on the tanks in Kosovo. It is all very well for those on the Front Bench to say that the British are not doing it. If it is claimed that NATO has knocked out a large number of tanks, it is a legitimate guess that that could have been done only with depleted uranium armament. I can imagine a headline in the tabloid press saying, "British squaddies face cancer risk". The question is, who cleans up afterwards? Are they at risk?
Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: No, I am sorry—time limit.
Dr. Rokke makes it clear that 18 of his team of 100 have already died and many are ill. NATO says that depleted uranium is no more dangerous than any other heavy metal. Its spokesman, Major Dan Baggio, says that a DU round contains about as much uranium as would go into
"a glow-in-the-dark type of watch"
and the Rand Corporation says that its study of depleted uranium
"found little documented evidence of adverse effects"
from either radiation or toxicity, but Dr. Rokke told BBC News that it had been misled by Major Baggio and that Pentagon officials have made a political decision and are
934
totally unwilling to recognise that there are health consequences of the use of depleted uranium. He says that force of impact converts much of a depleted uranium round into a spray of burning uranium dust:
"Consequently, we have DU dust which is a radioactive, heavy metal poison on or within the equipment",
and it is scattered up to 25 m or 50 m away. Anyone who inhaled or ingested that dust, or let it enter a wound, would need immediate medical attention. Either that is without foundation or, as I suspect, it has considerable foundation.
I broaden my question: what assessment have the Government made of the environmental effects, if the bombing is to be intensified or if it is to go on for the 155 days mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence? What will be the results in terms of ammonia, benzine, chlorine, mercury, phosgene and all the other chemicals that will inevitably get into the atmosphere? Chemicals of that kind know no frontiers. The question has to be addressed: what environmental assessment has been made of going on and on with the bombing?
Finally, I am very concerned about Rambouillet and the assertion, which has been made throughout the debate, that everything possible was done to bring Milosevic to his so-called senses. The accord contains provisions that would have subjected the whole of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation. The official presentation, repeatedly stated, is that it was a matter of autonomy for Kosovo, which would be secured by the stationing of a peace force in Kosovo. However, appendix B of the Rambouillet accord, which is entitled "Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force", grants NATO freedom of movement "throughout all Yugoslavia"—Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo.
The text of article 8 of the appendix reads:
"NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet and utilisation of any areas or facilities as required for support, training and operations."
Article 6 guarantees the occupying forces absolute immunity, stating:
"NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offences which may be committed by them in the Federal Yugoslav Republic."
How could any Government, Yugoslav or otherwise, accept that?
7.34 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I begin by endorsing the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) at the start of the debate. The hon. Gentleman remarked that, although it is welcome that we are debating this matter, it is regrettable that we are not doing so on a substantive motion. I entirely agree. That point has been made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as well. If a Government decide to go to war in pursuit of stated objectives, surely it must be right that they come to this place for express authority. That, they have not done, and that, they have not received.

935
I also endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) about the duty of Members of Parliament to speak their mind. I entirely reject the notion that it is unpatriotic or otherwise improper for hon. Members to speak their mind. We have a duty to the House and to the country to give our views honestly and clearly and to give this country the best counsel that we can. In parenthesis, that is what happened at the time of the Norway debate—Chamberlain was forced subsequently to resign and was replaced by Churchill—and when Asquith left office in 1916. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not been in his place, for at least part of the debate, to hear what the House feels.
I am one of those who believes that there are substantial criticisms to be made, about the fact of war and about the conduct of this war. I recognise at once that Milosevic has pursued brutal and evil policies, and they lie at the heart of the problem, but that is not of itself sufficient reason for war. During the past 10 years or so, brutal and evil policies have been pursued in many parts of the world. One need only cite Sudan, Sierra Leone, Nagorno Karabakh, Lebanon—
Mr. Wells: Rwanda.
Mr. Hogg: Rwanda, as my hon. Friend says. A number of examples can be identified. No vital western interests are engaged in this matter—or at least they were not, although they now are, because the credit of NATO has been so heavily pledged. I do not believe that there was good or sufficient cause for launching a war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is not alone in making the point that the objectives on which we embarked have not been fulfilled, nor could they be. The Prime Minister declared, from time to time and in various ways, that our objective was to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, but that catastrophe has occurred and was always going to be a fact unless we were prepared to use much more force than in reality we were.
I regret to say that it is my belief that Mr. Milosevic used the air campaign as cover and an excuse for policies that he might not otherwise have pursued.
Mr. Frank Cook: Nonsense.
Mr. Hogg: No, it is not nonsense. Withdrawing the monitors and embarking on an air campaign gave Mr. Milosevic cover to commit crimes that I am by no means persuaded he would otherwise have committed.
I share the view of many hon. Members that this war has been badly managed. I am no military man, but I was in the Foreign Office for five years and I have a certain experience of what happened in Bosnia. We did not have enough air assets in place when the war started. We renounced the ground option so that Mr. Milosevic knew full well that he had only to weather the air campaign to survive. By faulty targeting, we have killed many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of non-combatants—civilians in Serbia and in Kosovo.
It is also wholly plain that we failed either to predict, or fully to provide for, the mass emigration of refugees that has been the appalling consequence of the action in Kosovo. We should have foreseen and guarded against that.
936
Moreover, our strategic interests are now being gravely impaired and we face serious challenges to our long-term interests. In respect of our strategic interests, we have greatly damaged our relations with the Russians and the Chinese. For the Chinese, the bombing of the embassy was a deplorable act of incompetence; for the Russians, once again, as we have done far too often, we have been unduly insensitive to their views and their requirements.
I say this, too; we are placing a very great strain on Anglo-American relations. The posturing of the Prime Minister is damaging to those relations. He goes to Washington, and elsewhere; he gives briefings through No. 10. The broad message is this: the British want to deploy ground forces, but the faint-hearts in Washington will not permit it. We must not be surprised if people in Washington deplore that message, and remark on the mismatch between the extravagant rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the much more substantial contribution that, in reality, the Americans are making.

I am bound to say that I think the prognosis is bleak. We are told that we can win if we intensify the campaign—so we will intensify the campaign, and as a result many civilians will be killed and the infrastructure of Kosovo and Serbia will be laid waste. I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews): this raises serious questions of morality and proportionality on which I do not think that we have focused sufficiently so far.
If the air campaign does succeed, and if Milosevic yields, we shall face pretty onerous consequences. No one really disputes the fact that we will have to deploy tens of thousands of troops in the region for many years, and to spend billions of dollars putting right what we have done. If the air campaign does not succeed—if it does not cause Mr. Milosevic to yield—we will face the unpalatable choice outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis): either we enter into an undesirable compromise and agreement, or we deploy ground forces. Those are the only two realistic options, and they are urgent.
Let us be clear about one thing: the consequences were always predictable. They stem from two fatal mistakes—the decision to go to war in the first place, which I believe to have been wrong, and the failure of the strategy. If force is to be used, that force must be overwhelming in impact and nature. We should have done what we did in the Gulf: we should have mustered tens of thousands of ground troops before we embarked on an air campaign. That would have enabled us, had we so determined, to take and hold territory. We failed to do that; we embarked on a war unthinking, and now we are where we are.
We must now make an urgent decision. We have only one choice. We can make a deal that will achieve less than our stated objectives, or we can seek to achieve the entirety of those stated objectives, in which case we shall need tens of thousands of ground troops, and we shall need them now. Personally I favour an agreement, knowing that it will fall short of our full and declared intentions, but I would understand the reasons for the alternative decision. One thing is certain: the choice must be made very soon.
7.44 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I am delegated by the House to serve on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I am Vice-President of the Assembly, and Vice-Chairman of its Defence and Security Committee.

937
I could take issue with two thirds of what has been said by two thirds of speakers today but, given that I have only 10 minutes, I want to make some more sensible points.
We are in a mess, and one that will not be solved by the shadow Foreign Secretary's getting his lines mixed up as he has over the past few months. He confirmed today that he had criticised the Government for not carrying out the threats that were made last year; in fact, he took great glee in confirming it. He did not, of course, remind the House that those threats were not exactly withdrawn, but were left in abeyance because of United Nations Security Council resolution 1199, which required Milosevic to desist immediately and withdraw his troops—a resolution to which Milosevic agreed. Had we not withdrawn the threat, and gone to war in any event, we would have been damned anyway. That is typical of the opposition that is being launched here by some Conservative elements; yet, in his opening speech, the same shadow Foreign Secretary protested that he fully supported the policy. If that is the kind of support that he gives, I do not want to find myself in a lifeboat with him.
A mess like this is hardly helped by the remarks of armchair soldiers, a phrase that has been used in earlier debates on this subject. I remind the House that we all sit here as armchair soldiers—that is why we are paid, why we must consider these matters and why we must express our opinions candidly and forthrightly, as I hope that I am doing now. Nor is the mess helped by the fact that we have rapid reaction forces. Today's display certainly demonstrates that we do not have rapid reaction politicians: so many rationales have been advanced in favour of no action that I feel ashamed of the standard of some of the debate.
Questions of legality have been raised by, for instance, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). In terms of morality, I am convinced that we are doing the right thing; as for legality, I merely ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the genocide convention. The United Nations charter was endorsed in 1948, and the genocide convention was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1951. Does the fact that the convention is not part of the charter mean that the UN can ignore it? Does the convention not become part of its remit? Anyone who tries to convince me that what Mr. Milosevic is trying to achieve in Kosovo bears no relation to genocide will have a serious argument on his hands.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to proportionality.
Mr. Hogg: And morality.
Mr. Cook: I have already referred to morality myself.
The Yugoslavian Government claim that 1,200 lives have been lost through NATO air strikes. I think we can safely assume that they would not underestimate the figure. That is 1,200 lives lost in 12,000 sorties. Some of my colleagues have accused NATO of bombing civilians deliberately. I must say that if NATO can kill only 1,200 people in 12,000 sorties, that does not say much for its strike capability if it is acting deliberately. The suggestion is farcical.
938
The House should also compare the loss of 1,200 lives—assuming that 1,200 people were killed—with the many tens of thousands who have been displaced, the many tens of thousands who have been raped and the many tens of thousands who have been assassinated, not by accident but, as it were, by deliberate accident. People have been sought out, hounded, pursued, persecuted and eventually killed; so do not give me any arguments about proportionality—those arguments are absolutely false.
Let me briefly tell the House about a Greek diplomat whom I met at the NATO summit. We met at a function. He followed me around like a gun dog, nagging me about the wrongness of NATO's action. He pursued me for 20 minutes, finally commenting that what was wrong was that Albright and Holbrooke—it sounded like a firm of solicitors—had run out of ideas. Because they had no ideas left, they had embarked on the bombing. I said, "Oh, is that what you think?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Excellency, you may be right; but if ideas are so plentiful, give me one." You would have thought that I had kicked him in the most tender part of his anatomy. He said, "What?" I said, "Give me one. If they are so plentiful, give me an alternative." He could not, but I said, "There was an alternative, Excellency." "What was that?" he asked. I said, "The alternative was to allow Milosevic to go on doing what he had been doing for the previous 18 months, and indeed for the previous 10 years." I have visited Bosnia six times, and I have seen the results of Milosevic's action—along with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is nodding now.
My son received a commendation for his conduct in Gorazde, from where, using a satellite telephone, he called me on my car telephone as I was driving into the House. Of course, I was overjoyed and surprised. I said, "What is it like son?" He said, "Pop, it's a real shit hole. We are here as a peace force, but everyone is shooting at us and we are not permitted to return fire." Is that the sort of role that we are going to give our ground forces if we send them in? Not in my book.

We have talked about putting troops in. I should like to put forward an alternative. We have an agreement in Bosnia: it is called the Dayton agreement. It has several elements: a military element, a civilian element and a restitution element. The military element was concluded on time—which was very good—thanks to the fact that the Americans finally came in. Before that, it was a hotch-potch of nations, principally ourselves, the French and the Spanish, with a lot of others, including Maoris. The Americans came in, we had Dayton, and we got the military element. We are finally near to achieving the civilian element. The thing that we have not done is reinstate the refugees in their places of origin.
At a conference in Washington that I addressed and that was run by the Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, I discussed that matter with Richard Perle. If we insist now that we return the refugees from Bosnia to their places of residence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it emphasises the fact that we believe in applying the agreements that have been reached. It says to Mr. Milosevic, "You were a signatory to the agreement. Get it done brother."
We have 27,000 troops there, who are heavily armed, well trained and now fully knowledgeable about the terrain. It is a high-risk strategy, but it is an alternative to allowing Milosevic to determine the agenda, as he has for the past 10 years. The strategy may or may not work,

939
but it puts pressure on Milosevic and it changes the emphasis of the public relations game, at which he is so good.
The Chamber has been very good. We have been able to debate and to express our opposition as, democratically, we should be able to. I guarantee that the content of the debate that is reported in Belgrade tomorrow will have nothing to do with the sort of contribution that I have made tonight.
7.52 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: It is just over four weeks since we had the previous debate on Kosovo in the House. Since then, we have witnessed further death and persecution of ethnic Albanians as a result of the bloody actions of the Serb so-called police and the Yugoslav army; further deaths of Yugoslav civilians, both Serbs and Albanians, as a result of NATO's actions; and further deaths among the Serb police and Yugoslav troops. One could say that they have reaped the harvest that they have sown, except that we have heard from one hon. Member that many in the Yugoslav army are reluctant conscripts.
We have witnessed the deaths of third parties, especially in the bombing of the Chinese embassy, which has not exactly enhanced the prospects of a diplomatic solution. We have witnessed the deaths of NATO personnel due to accidents, so there has been much death and misery since the previous debate, but we can be certain of one thing: by any criteria, there has been little progress towards a resolution. We in the Chamber can only guess at the true magnitude of the suffering that is being endured by the displaced and terrified refugees. Evidence of the appalling atrocities magnifies and increases as each day passes.
I am sure that the House welcomes the actions and statements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, former President of the Republic of Ireland, whose office sent human rights monitors to gather and document evidence of human rights violations and war crimes in Serbia, and who has directly challenged the Serb Foreign Minister with evidence of his Government's policy of ethnic cleansing. But if hon. Members are impressed by Mrs. Robinson's determined opposition to Serbia's policies of brutality and aggression, and if we support her beginning to bring the perpetrators of those deeds to justice, should we not be equally impressed by her comments on the scale and direction of NATO's on-going bombing campaign?
The real debate that is going on in the House, in the country and throughout the world has to rise above some of the sanitised soundbites that sometimes seem to serve as sufficient justification for the policy that we are pursuing in the Balkans. Our Government are in danger of being regarded as the so-called hawks in the affair, becoming more hawkish as the evidence mounts that the strategy has had serious flaws from the beginning.
I do not believe that the Government embarked on the bombing campaign lightly, but they have made a serious miscalculation of the consequences. I hope that they will go no further in trying to escalate the conflict but, instead, give some of the peace efforts that are slowly beginning a chance.
Too much of the Government's time is spent trying to drum up support for the current course of action, while it is others who tour the capitals trying to find a way to
940
negotiate a solution. There have been peace feelers from the Finns, which have already been alluded to, the Germans, Italians, Greeks and so on. Perhaps we should join them more convincingly.
In recent days, the debate has been joined by General Colin Powell, who has correctly questioned the long-term strategy behind, and the tactical approach to, the campaign. The growing consensus emerging from NATO briefings, Pentagon sources and alliance Governments is that a bombing campaign on its own cannot work, and there is almost a consensus in the House as to that fact. The Government would have done well to recognise that some weeks ago. Instead, they have become mired even further in a bombing-only campaign, which, in recent weeks, has drawn an increasingly heavy price—a price paid by civilians and others who are not directly involved in the conflict.
At successive stages over the past few weeks, NATO has said to itself, "What we are doing is not working." Its conclusion is not that the strategy is wrong, but that it is not being implemented vigorously or sufficiently enough, so the campaign has been ratcheted up again and again. However, it has still not achieved its objectives.
It is simply not sufficient for us to have the endless repetition of the mantra, "Milosevic is a terrible person. We must do something. We cannot sit back and do nothing." That is no substitute for the development of a credible policy that will work.
As an aside, we have heard some references in the Chamber to NATO's credibility. We should not determine our policy on the basis of whether it will damage NATO's credibility. The Foreign Secretary suggested that we should; it was one of the three points that he made in summing up. NATO's credibility, one way or the other, should be entirely subordinate to other factors. Whatever other reasons the Government have to put forward to justify their actions in Kosovo, surely NATO's credibility should not be near the top of the list.
I have spoken already of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. The House may wish to hear some of her comments, particularly those on the bombing campaign. In the Irish Times yesterday, she was quoted as saying:
"The dropping of cluster bombs knowing they will drift into civilian areas does not serve a human rights cause".
She was also reported as saying that she had seen children playing near unexploded cluster bombs. She said:
"There was no visible sign of a military target."
The report continued:
"Mrs. Robinson said that human rights defenders in Yugoslavia felt undermined by the bombing. 'They told me, we don't see the rule of law in the bombing campaign'".
This afternoon's reports on CNN have talked of Yugoslav Foreign Ministry briefings indicating some movement on the Serb side, and of the Finnish President and the Russian peace envoy both playing a key role in those events. We have every right to be very cynical about the posturing of President Milosevic, and to treat with extreme reservation any proposals emanating from Belgrade. We all know that he is a past master at deceit and procrastination. However, NATO's actions in past months have diminished rather than enhanced the prospects of our dealing with anyone else in charge of Yugoslavia at the end of the campaign.

941
We have to wish every success to those who are searching for a solution. I hope that we shall find a course of action in this conflict that, for the first time, not only takes into consideration the Kosovo refugees but delivers a solution for them.
8 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I was in the House of Commons, on 4 May 1982, when news came through from the south Atlantic that an Exocet missile, which had been launched by a Super Etandard aeroplane, had hit HMS Sheffield. I should like to quote what was said about the incident in a book, "Battle for the Falklands", because I think that the description bears great similarities to what is happening now. It states:
"As news filtered through to the Commons, MPs poured into the chamber to hear Nott announce the loss, a stunned Mrs. Thatcher by his side. Only the far left seemed to take any grim pleasure from the news. The bragging and self-confidence of the campaign so far evaporated. Suddenly there was doubt on every side: so much so that Mrs. Thatcher uncharacteristically ordered Lewin to go on television to allay public fear. Newspapers whose enthusiasm for the war had known no bounds now discovered its price. The Daily Mail brought out a black border round its front page. In Downing Street, the Prime Minister surprised her staff by the emotion with which she received the news. She had always told them the one thing she dreaded was to hear of the loss of a ship. Now it had happened, and she was visibly upset. At such moments throughout the war, she would retreat to her upstairs room and handwrite letters of condolence to the parents of servicemen lost in action."
I read that because I think that something very similar to it happened the other day, when those missiles hit the Chinese embassy, and also when the incident occurred in which 80 or 100 people died because of a major accident. The problem with wars is that we know that those things will happen. What we have to do, however, is to maintain our resolve.
Almost 18 years ago, because we maintained our resolve, even after the incident with HMS Sheffield in the south Atlantic, we went on to win the war and to remove fascism from Argentina. That was the product of the campaign in the Falkland islands. We terminated fascism in Argentina, and, over the years since, have probably saved tens of thousands of lives. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) opposed that war, but he might well reflect on the fact that tens of thousands of lives have consequently been saved. The war brought down a dictatorship in south America, and may even have influenced the existence of similar dictatorships.
In my 20 years in the House, I have found that the same people oppose every war, and that they oppose each of them on the same basis. They opposed the war in the south Atlantic, which removed fascism from parts of South America. They opposed the war in Kuwait, which was about removing fascists from Kuwait. As a consequence of removing fascists from Kuwait, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved in the middle east.
All along the line, we find that the same people use even the same environmental arguments to oppose war. I remember debates on the Falklands war, in the early 1980s, in which speeches were made about the war's environmental effects in the south Atlantic. I remember debates on the Kuwaiti war in which they were talking about the oil fields and the war's effect on bird life in the Gulf. The same arguments are being used all the time.
942
When the public come to measure the issues of this war, I think that they should have in mind the fact that some hon. Members are simply opposed to war in all conditions, even if that war is about removing fascism. That is why the opponents of this war are, once again, just plain wrong. We have an obligation—in this country more than any other—to stand up and remove fascism wherever it is.
My argument with the Government is essentially a very simple one. I have raised it in the parliamentary Labour party, and I intend to raise it again now. It is about targeting. I am concerned about a policy that is essentially about attacking only military bases. I am also aware of the provisions of the Geneva convention, which partly restricts our latitude in the selection of targets. However, we are taking a very narrow interpretation of the convention's provisions.
Article 52(2) of the convention states:
"Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objectives which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage".
In other words, we are talking about objects that, by their use, make an effective contribution to military action and whose neutralisation offers a definite military advantage.
Ethnic cleansing is part of military action. Ethnic cleansing is carried out by military personnel. Ethnic cleansing is challenging the lives of individual people. It is therefore something that we should have in mind when considering military action and the provisions enshrined in the article of the Geneva convention to which I referred.
Which objects or facilities, might it be argued, are of use in the military campaign of ethnic cleansing? In my view, any facility that aids the process of ethnic cleansing is potentially a target.
Ethnic cleansing is aided by centres where data are held, leading to the identification of individuals or properties. Therefore, those centres must potentially be a target. In recent weeks, the Serbs have been able repeatedly simply to drive up to convoys and pull out certain people, whom they were able to identify because of the existence of recording systems. I say that that process in itself should be subject to military action, and that that action would be permissible under the Geneva convention.
Which targets would I myself add to the list? I should add targets that hold data and facilitate the process of ethnic cleansing—which is part of a military campaign. I shall list them.
The first one is vehicle registration departments, as vehicle registration is a way of identifying people. The information held by the departments has been used to identify people. When the Serbs threw people out of Kosovo and over the border into Macedonia, which documents did they take away from them? They took their property records, their vehicle registration records, their passports and their individual national identity documentation. The Serbs knew the value of that documentation. I am therefore saying that vehicle registration departments should be included in targeting.
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am very sorry, but I do not have the time.

943
I should include as targets motor vehicle spare parts depots and major computer data recording departments. Both record data about individuals. I should include Yugoslavia's national identity registration system, which holds data that are now being used by the authorities in the process of the ethnic cleansing. It provides a permissible target according to the convention article to which I referred.
I should add as targets the inland revenue and national insurance departments; the military pensions departments; and the national police records departments. Let it be absolutely clear that I am not asking for the bombing of civilians; I am arguing for the bombing of data centres. If warning is given that the centres will be targeted, we shall not be responsible for any civilian losses. I am arguing for attacks not on civilians, just on the depots where data are held.
What would the collateral advantage be? By attacking the centres of data collection, we would undermine the relationship between the Serbian citizen and the state. The war must be partly about undermining morale. If we interfere with the relationship between the individual and the state in a country that is under pressure, it is inevitable—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make no complaint about what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, but it should be pointed out that, of the three Members of Parliament whom he was obviously referring to, two were in the Royal Air Force and I was in the Army as a national service man.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair and it is taking time out of the debate
8.11 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I do not think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was in the Chamber to hear the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I commend to him my hon. Friend's analysis of Professor Sir Michael Howard's thoughts on the nature of a limited war and the linkage between such a war and the limited objectives and strategy that support it. The hon. Gentleman proposes going far beyond the objectives of a limited war. I also caution him about advocating the destruction of data centres in Yugoslavia, because the data that are being taken off the refugees as they leave Kosovo will be needed to ensure that they have some claim on their proper citizenship of Kosovo when the situation is restored.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned depleted uranium. I assure him that it is highly unlikely to have been used in Serbia and Kosovo so far, because it is used with kinetic energy rounds, which cannot be used from a height of 15,000 ft. They are used by tanks engaging other tanks or by close support aircraft near the ground.
This is a profoundly depressing occasion. Events outside the House in the past few days have shown that the only credible military strategy seems a very remote possibility. The German Chancellor has described the deployment of ground troops without an agreement as unthinkable. The American ambassador to NATO has said
944
that American forces would be deployed only if there were an agreement with Serbia. The French have been briefing that the British position is dangerous. The Italians, the Greeks and other NATO members also have well known reservations.
I particularly agree with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary about this being a war of spin doctors. HMS Invincible has been deployed in the Adriatic to no apparent military purpose. There are better aircraft with better runways in Italy and in Corsica that are better able to carry out NATO's role. There is no benefit in having one of our aircraft carriers steaming up and down the Adriatic. The Americans have indulged in the same tendency by deploying Apaches. No one has yet been prepared to send Apaches forward with no ground support. We wait to see whether they will send such highly expensive military equipment forward on to the Kosovo battlefield without the support of other forces.
I was also depressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. For the majority of his speech, he seemed to have suspended the critical analysis that has marked his 20 years on the Defence Committee. Only right at the end of his speech, when he talked in coded terms about identifying the endgame and using all necessary means to achieve it, did he speak with the authority that has marked his analysis of defence affairs over the past two decades.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) told us that the air campaign would not succeed and that he and his party were prepared for the use of ground troops. He failed to point out that most military analysts arrived at that conclusion before the bombing began.
Mr. David Heath: So did we.
Mr. Blunt: Then why have the Liberal Democrats not pointed out that glaring, shocking, disgraceful lacuna in the Government's strategy? Instead, the right hon. and learned Gentleman indulged in a foolish attack on Her Majesty's Opposition. He tried to ascribe my views on the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Opposition Front Bench. I am just a Back-Bench member of the Defence Committee. I believe that my judgment has proved correct. Our strategy has failed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) pointed out graphically.
In unprecedented newspaper articles, the Chief of the Defence Staff defended the Government's strategy as the best option available, repeating the immortal words
"to govern is to choose".
Permanent under-secretaries do not write newspaper articles in support of their Ministers' policies. Ministers write articles to defend Government policy. The Chief of the Defence Staff made a foolish, unfortunate decision to write those articles, probably prompted by pressure from the No. 10 press office.
In the early stages of the conflict, the politicians hid behind the military. The Secretary of State for Defence did so in the Chamber. Pretty quickly, the military started to distance itself from its political leaders. On day 2 of the campaign, General Wesley Clark made it clear that it was impossible for the use of air power alone to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe and the eviction of Kosovar

945
people from their homes by the Serbian military forces. General Naumann made the same point when he retired as chairman of the military committee. Now General Colin Powell is making clear the dissatisfaction of the American military establishment with the conduct of the war, as has General Shelton, the American Chief of Staff, in front of the Senate committee.
The central failure of the Chief of the Defence Staff was his inability to persuade the Prime Minister that the military strategy had precious little chance of success and was a disgraceful gamble that should not have been made. The central failure of the United Kingdom was in not persuading President Clinton of that glaring truth, which we are now all too familiar with.
Two months later, as the ground option evaporates, we urgently need an exit. It is too late for the Prime Minister to wake up to the military truths. Force should never have been used except in the pursuit of clear and achievable objectives. It is a modern military maxim to get inside the enemy's decision-making cycle. Without ground troops, it is no good the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary coming to the House to tell us that they have destroyed a brigade worth of artillery or tanks. The destruction of that equipment is not related to the decision on when to abandon Kosovo. That decision will be taken by President Milosevic and our strategy will not force him to take it.
We do not have an objective that we know that we will achieve. We are committed to a strategy of endless bombing and Serbia is committed to a strategy of the endless absorption of punishment. What a policy to pursue against a country with a myth of heroic sacrifice at the core of its national identity. We are stuck with a strategy as creditable as that pursued at Passchendaele, but this time it is not the generals leading a reluctant Prime Minister, but the reverse.
It is clear that our allies want a way out. That is likely to lead to a deal in which the edges are blurred—blurred on the future status of Kosovo; blurred on whether the Kosovars will be able to return to their homes in safety; blurred on the future of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Do we expect the Kosovo Liberation Army to disarm if it is to be returned to the sovereignty of Yugoslavia?
We have fundamentally misread the nature of the conflict.
The Kosovars have resorted to what is, in effect, a war of liberation, following the failure of decades of democratic aspirations towards their route of self-determination. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who seems to believe that Kosovo is irrevocably a part of Serbia. Kosovo was invaded by Serbia in 1912, and was established as part of Serbia at an international conference in 1913. However, there has not been a majority of Serbs in Kosovo in the modern era—not for hundreds of years. Yugoslavia's status was established by the treaty of Versailles in 1919. The status of Kosovo within Serbia and Yugoslavia was the product of probably a few minutes' consideration at the end of the second world war by the Communist party of Yugoslavia.
The events of 1974 and 1979 have made sure that there is de facto and de jure a case for Kosovo that it should be allowed to fulfil its routs of self-determination. We have
946
to choose between two principles. Having broken international law in attacking Yugoslavia, let us now stand up for the principle of self-determination.
8.21 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: A number of hon. Members have referred to the recent civilian casualties as a result of the NATO bombing, and to the need for dialogue and diplomacy. They are right to stress the need for diplomacy, and I agree that dialogue must always be tried before force is used. However, in this case, all diplomatic and peaceful avenues have been exhausted. NATO has been forced by the intransigence of the Serbs into taking this action.
It must not be forgotten that the Serbs were given every opportunity to resolve the issue peacefully, but repeatedly failed to take those opportunities. In fact, President Milosevic and his troops continued to commit atrocities against innocent men, women and children. Milosevic and his forces have deliberately and brutally ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Kosovar Albanians from their homes in Kosovo. That is the latest event in a campaign of Serb nationalism and ethnic cleansing that Milosevic's regime has waged during the past 10 years in various parts of the Balkans—in Croatia, in Bosnia and now in Kosovo.
The ethnic cleansing in all those countries, including Kosovo, occurred long before NATO started the air campaign. It must be remembered that Milosevic had created thousands of refugees in Kosovo long before the NATO bombing. The 10,000 Kosovar Albanian refugees in the UK bear that out. Ethnic cleansing was happening at a much slower pace before, so it was not as apparent as it is today—particularly to outsiders.
Milosevic signed up to the October package negotiated by Richard Holbrooke, only to violate each of its main elements. The Rambouillet negotiations would have led to a democratic self-governing Kosovo, which would have remained within Yugoslavia and in which the Serbs would have been allowed to station troops. The Kosovar Albanians showed the foresight and moral courage to put their names to the Rambouillet accords, but the Serbs refused to do so, and instead embarked on yet another wave of ethnic cleansing.
Even then, the allies tried, through the person of Richard Holbrooke, to make last-ditch efforts to persuade Milosevic to agree to a peaceful solution to the crisis, but to no avail.
Milosevic has been given every opportunity to resolve the Kosovo crisis peacefully, but has refused to take any of them. If one looks at the past 10 years of Milosevic's rule in Serbia, one notices the manner in which he has manipulated ethnic differences in the Balkans to fuel conflict and to remain in power. Only by keeping Serbia and the surrounding countries in a state of perpetual crisis is he able to remain in power. There is the method in his madness.
When hon. Members say that dialogue rather than force should have been used, I say to them that, when faced with such intransigence and such wilful disregard for international opinion, the NATO countries had no choice but to use force against the Serbs. It is for that reason that, despite a number of setbacks, the reasons for military action remain as strong as ever. Tragic mistakes and

947
events must not be allowed to diminish the justice of NATO's cause or weaken the alliance's will and determination to see the crisis through to its end.
From conversations with my constituents during the crisis, I have noticed that public support for the NATO action, rather than wavering, seems to have increased as the campaign has gone on. As pictures of the victims of ethnic cleansing have appeared on our television screens, so the public has come to understand the true nature and scale of the evil being perpetrated in Kosovo and the need for military action.
The Government have the full support of the people in my constituency for military action in Kosovo. From conversations with constituents, I have noticed that not only has support for NATO action increased, but so has the awareness of the limitations of bombing alone to resolve the crisis. Support in this country for a ground invasion has increased. The air campaign has been instrumental in weakening and destroying Serbia's air defence and military capability and destroying the military and logistical infrastructure that has allowed the Serb forces to perpetrate atrocities against the Kosovar Albanians.
I am not sure that air strikes will be enough to make Milosevic back down. The air campaign so far has not forced President Milosevic to end the atrocities in Kosovo and meet NATO's demands. We have an obligation to give serious consideration to a military presence on the ground to end the humanitarian and refugee disaster that Milosevic has created. After the atrocities that the Kosovar Albanians have been experiencing, such a military presence would give the refugees the confidence to return to Kosovo.
Failure to see the crisis through to its end would give a clear signal to evil dictators all over the world that they can commit atrocities like those being committed in Kosovo and get away with it. We must not allow that to happen. We must not be distracted from trying to resolve the crisis. We must continue our military action until Milosevic agrees to the Rambouillet accords. We must see this through to the end.
8.28 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I promise to give the shortest speech of the evening, and I hope that I may be listened to for three minutes or so. It is clear to those of us who have argued from the start for the all-or-nothing strategy that the present strategy is not working. Not only is it not achieving its objectives, but the reverse is being achieved. We intended to help the Albanians of Kosovo. Unfortunately, their plight has been worsened as a result of the NATO intervention. We hoped to weaken Milosevic. My feeling is that, as far as his domestic political situation is concerned, Milosevic has been strengthened. The only others to have benefited are our military academies, which now have a textbook case of how not to wage a campaign.
The targeting of civilians worries many people, myself included. A campaign waged from 15,000 ft has to be indiscriminate, whatever its intentions. I am especially alarmed that, every Friday, with almost metronomic regularity, we appear to hand the Serbs a gift-wrapped propaganda advantage. In one case—the targeting of the television station—we attacked a civilian installation that had to have civilians in it. Civilians were bound to be
948
killed and civilians were killed. In my view, that was in breach of the Geneva conventions. Yes, the television station was telling lies, but the answer to lies is not missiles: the answer to lies is truths.
If ground troops go in, a permissive environment or semi-permissive environment is proposed. Just as there is no recorded example in history of air fire alone achieving a decisive result, so there is no precedent in the long history of the British at war of a permissive environment. Henry V did not seek a permissive environment at Agincourt, neither did Wellington at Waterloo. The beaches of Normandy were not a permissive environment, and neither was Goose Green or Port Stanley.
I have argued from the start that we either stay all the way out and work with diplomacy, or we go all the way in with an all-arms offensive. It may be too late. All I would add is that, if we wage half a war, we shall not achieve half a victory—we are more likely to achieve three quarters of a defeat.
Mr. Dalyell: How would the hon. Gentleman go in?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has finished his contribution.
8.30 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I hate war. I am devoted to the cause of peace, but I could never be a pacifist—although I respect pacifists. I was reminded of the reason why last summer when I visited the holocaust museum in Washington. The evil of armed conflict is a lesser evil than the triumph of tyranny and genocide.
We must make progress towards a new international order in which we start to resolve conflicts without resort to war, but we must do so in a world in which we have weapons of mass destruction in order to survive. Until that new order exists, we must, on occasions, be prepared to fight against crimes against humanity. It is proper, in that interest, to intervene, sometimes between nations and sometimes within nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) correctly said that we should have intervened in Rwanda and that we are right to intervene in Kosovo.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) suggested that we should intervene only where we have a national interest. We must increasingly see our national interest as included in the international interest in upholding human rights. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that human rights are a fad. I find it extraordinary that someone can care about animals but not about human beings.
I understand the feelings of those who say that it would have been better if the action had been taken by the United Nations. I would have preferred that, but the fact that it is not reflects one of the weaknesses in the United Nations. I understand the concerns of people about NATO taking action. Some people feel that the USA drives NATO too much, but, in this case, unanimous action was taken, not in the American interest, but in a humanitarian interest.
I ask critics of the action what the alternatives were. More negotiation is suggested, but we had been negotiating for nearly a decade and, as the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) cogently

949
pointed out, the killing has gone on. Economic sanctions have been suggested, but do we seriously think that they would have stopped Milosevic? After all, the bombing has caused economic damage, but Milosevic continues. He must be stopped.
I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that the problem is not only Kosovo. If Milosevic is not stopped, he will go on to more countries in former Yugoslavia and perhaps beyond. That point was cogently made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it is totally false to suggest that, if the international monitors had stayed and the bombing had not begun, everybody would have been safe. Does he forget what happened in Bosnia, where people were slaughtered while the monitors had to stand by?
Those who attack President Clinton should note the malign influence of those on the extreme right of the Republican party in Congress, who seem sometimes to make their patriotism conditional on whether their party is in power, whether on impeachment or the conflict in Kosovo.
What of our own loyal Opposition? They have a right to debate issues and to make constructive criticism. However, I concur with some of the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). There have been times when certain hon. Members have made cheap party political points and used intemperate language. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that there should have been earlier action, but some of us might feel that, if there had been earlier or more decisive action when his party was in government, some of the tragedies might not have occurred.
We must be careful not to say anything that could help Milosevic. We must be careful not to ask for advance strategic plans. I found it extraordinary that, in the previous debate, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), having quoted his great military maxim that one should
"Give no advance indication of one's intentions"—[official Report, 19 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 601.]
devoted much of the rest of his speech to asking the Government to do precisely that. We should show some common sense.
We must be prepared to allow flexibility in response to the contingencies of the conflict and the unpredictability of Milosevic. In the previous debate, many criticised the Government for not having said that we would commit ground forces, forgetting that the Leader of the Opposition had made that his overriding condition when he started. I do not say that to make a cheap point, because I am pleased that he has been prepared to change his position; but I find it strange that the shadow Foreign Secretary should criticise the Government precisely for that, because one has to change position as the situation develops.
In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) implied that, if we offered Milosevic an amnesty from war crimes charges, it would make it easier for him to negotiate with us. Think what giving such carte blanche at this stage would encourage.
950
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) suggested that we should be careful not to insult Milosevic. I am sorry, but if I thought that being polite to him would make him reasonable, I would gladly do it; but when I look at what he has done in the whole Balkan region, all I can say is that his personal tragedy is that both his parents committed suicide—after his birth rather than before.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the question of whether these debates should be conducted on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). My right hon. Friend said that an Adjournment debate reduces us to the status of a press conference and denies us any say.
Precedent—to which we pay regard in the House when we find it convenient—shows that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, debates on conflicts have been held on a motion for the Adjournment. That has been the case with the Balkans and the Falklands. Nearly all the debates on the Gulf war were on the Adjournment, but one was on a substantive motion, precisely to show the unity of the House.
Equally, although the majority of debates on Suez and Korea were on the Adjournment, there were substantive debates to show the division of the House. In the second world war, most debates were on the Adjournment, but there were some secret sittings, some of which were leaked, and some substantive motions. Those were referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle. He suggested that they were some of the great debates.
Almost the only thing on which I would agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is that the great debate was the debate of 7 and 8 May 1940. It was a debate on the Adjournment of the House. At a late stage, it was decided to call a vote, as a result of which the Chamberlain Government fell. It is not the type of debate that matters, but the vote that we have here. We have had an attempt to force a vote on the Adjournment of the House: it got 11 votes. That showed clearly that the overwhelming feeling of the House is in support of the Government, despite the fact that some may criticise details and that there have been some tragic accidents.
If it is decided that ground forces should be committed before a full settlement, I am sure that the House would support that regardless of whether we have a debate on principle first. Let us be under no illusions: the commitment of ground forces will be difficult strategically, geographically and politically. There will be a heavy cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said, it would not cut out those horrible euphemisms, "friendly fire" and "collateral damage". Accidents happen. It can be difficult to tell whether a lorry contains paramilitaries or refugees.
I have concentrated on issues that divide hon. Members. I shall finish on matters on which we are united. We all applaud the humanitarian work being done by our forces, and we believe that, when the conflict is over, we must work to reconstruct a tragic country and to try to bind all the Balkans into the life and structures of Europe.
8.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have had a candid, sometimes passionate debate, and I hope that neither Ministers nor the public will mistake criticism of some aspects of the conduct of the campaign for lack of patriotism among those who make the criticism.
There is a widespread feeling that we have not achieved our object—averting a humanitarian disaster. There is no point in going over old ground but, if we are to find our way out of the problems, it is incumbent on us to recognise that we have failed so far to secure the objective set by the Prime Minister.
We are faced night after night with an incessant stream of harrowing images on our television screens as people are driven out of their homelands and subjected to the most appalling treatment. No one can fail to be moved by those scenes; we are all horrified by them. However, those of our constituents who are urging us on to greater action should recognise that anger alone is not sufficient. As decision makers, we must try to reach balanced judgments, sometimes drawing conclusions that we would prefer not to reach.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to advice from Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon, the former Chief of the Air Staff. We should inform our debate with what Sir Michael said—that it was a grave error to rule out the use of ground forces at the outset. I do not single out the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for criticism, but there is an object lesson in what happened, and it should inform our discussions on how we make progress. That was a mistake.
The situation in the Gulf was very different. For months, we prepared a massive land force, making it clear to our enemy that we were doing so. We never needed to use the ground forces, but the fact that we were prepared to deploy them sent a clear message. Our message to Milosevic was that we would rule out the use of ground forces, and that was a mistake.
The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the difficult terrain in the Balkans. Some hon. Members have visited the region. I confess that I have not, but I have looked at the map, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and I have seen the nature of the difficulty. It is clearly inhospitable territory in which to move large formations of troops across the ground. Alternative options must be considered.
I have the privilege of representing Aldershot, the home of 5 Airborne brigade, which is comprised of the Parachute Regiment and other units. Its members are trained for precisely this type of operation. The idea that they would expect to be deployed by parachute is a myth constantly promoted by those in the service who do not like the regiment or who are jealous of it. They are dropped by helicopter—by Chinook—from a low level or on the ground. I have done it myself.
That is a possible way out and I will leave it at that, save to say that I know from talking to my constituents that they are prepared and ready to go. I talked with a member of the Parachute Regiment the other day and asked him, "What about Kosovo?" He said, "I'm not very keen, sir." I asked him why and he said, "I'm not keen on this humanitarian and peacekeeping stuff, sir. If it's a question of going to war, that's different and I'll be ready
952
to go." That attitude prevails among our service men. They have trained for war. They have seen the images on the television and we make a mistake if we do not recognise their resolve to do what the Government may call upon them to do.
Also, the House must face the reality that the United Kingdom cannot do this alone. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the fact that the Germans and French had declared themselves hostile to the idea of deploying ground forces. The United States is extremely reluctant to do so. Our bombing campaign is largely determined by the fact that the Americans do not want to go in at low level. The Royal Air Force trains all the time to go in at low level—that is what our pilots do day in and day out.
I do not want to be partisan, but it is fair to say that the Prime Minister has been going ahead of American public opinion. Unless the Americans are on side, there is no prospect of our being able to deploy ground forces. The right hon. Gentleman can be as hawkish as he likes, but he has to understand that, without the support of the United States, he is extremely limited in what he can do.
We embarked on this conflict out of a genuine and rightful affront at the inhumanity of President Milosevic. Those powerful images on the television are fuelling the desire of the people of this country for action. However, I fear that there has not been a coherent strategy from the outset to determine how the conflict was likely to develop. Of course, no one could have foreseen at the outset exactly the pattern that it was likely to take. Nevertheless, one could have foreseen the difficulties that might arise if bombing alone failed.
Although an airman himself, Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon pointed out that he believed in the deployment of balanced forces, and I entirely agree. Therefore, as I think that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, what is plan B? The apparent lack of a clear plan B is worrying some of us.
The Government and the House must now face a number of brutal truths. First, this is not a Falklands or a Kuwait campaign. In those campaigns, we were seeking to eject an aggressor from someone else's territory—in the Falklands, it was ours and in Kuwait, it was that of a sovereign state—which is an entirely different matter. In Kosovo, we are seeking to remove, if that is the ultimate objective, people from land that is in part their own and to which they are deeply committed. We must recognise the reality of what we face if we pursue a deeper military commitment there.
The other brutal truth is that we and the United States have to be prepared to commit large numbers of troops. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, it is a question not of putting in a token force, but of committing huge numbers of troops. Again, there is no way that the United Kingdom can do that on its own. We require the support of the United States.
Also, we must be clear that we are prepared to take casualties—perhaps, in large numbers. There might be hand-to-hand fighting and, while at the moment we see images on television of people who have been raped, dispossessed of their homes and so forth, if we commit ground troops and there are casualties, overnight the

953
television images will switch—it will be our lads and what are they dying for? The House and the British people must be prepared to accept that brutal truth.
Finally, we must be prepared to accept that, as in Bosnia, this will not be a short-run operation. We are going to be tied down there for years holding the ring—and the peace—that Tito held for decades and that is now threatened.
Some nasty, difficult, brutal realities must be faced. If we are going to face them, and if we are going to commit ground troops—it may be that the British people will support that—we must act now.
8.50 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I rise in support of the Government's position and their prosecution of the war. I am no military expert. It is important for us to remember when members of the public ask us whether we should use ground forces that, sometimes, the honest answer is that we do not know. I realise that other hon. Members have a military background that I do not share. However, I have faith in the British military and its professionalism. We must support it with what whatever it takes to ensure success. My message for Ministers is that, having started this, we must see it through to a successful conclusion.
I want to outline my experiences from a humanitarian perspective, following my two visits to the area with UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund. In December, I visited Kosovo and Montenegro and in April, Macedonia. I want to describe what I saw in Kosovo in December, when a ceasefire—the so-called diplomatic breathing space under the Holbrooke agreement—had been negotiated and to share with the House some of the horror and terror that existed in Kosovo. The ethnic cleansing that we have seen since the start of the bombing campaign is not new, but has been going on for a significant period. I want to consider the humanitarian case for the war and for our action.
In Kosovo, I saw villages that had been bombed. I saw deserted villages, schools that had been shelled, and health centres and hospitals that had been attacked by tanks. Children would point out where they had been on the hillside. Houses had been destroyed and families talked of the terror that they suffered from the Serb army and police.
We did not take action then. The present action is not precipitate. Some may say that we should have acted then, but the Government tried to negotiate our way out of the difficulties. At the Rambouillet talks, we tried to avert war. After the failure of the Rambouillet talks came the launch of the Serbian offensive in the spring. That offensive and the failure of all the negotiations led the Government finally to decide to commit our Air Force, in co-operation with NATO.
This question has often been asked, but if we are not prepared to act after all that time, and with all the examples of people being treated in that way, what do we do? Do we just walk away? Do we ignore the ethnic cleansing, people being forced from their homes and the schools and hospitals that have been bombed, or do we take action? If we had done nothing, we would be debating not the Government's action, but why we had a
954
Government who were not prepared to stand up for basic human values and decency to bring about the Europe that we all want. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the House would be saying to the Government. It gives me no pride and no great feeling of macho achievement to say that I think that this is a just war. Many of us feel a great sense of sadness at arriving at that conclusion.
It is important to remember that the ethnic cleansing had already started; it has continued and, since the bombing campaign began, we have seen some of the consequences—especially in Macedonia which I have visited. We have seen the squalor in the camps and the terror and abuse of children. Men are missing and whole families have disappeared; there have been war crimes. All that has gone on. When we talk to children who have been forced on to buses by hooded police, we wonder how our own children, grandchildren or children whom we know would react in such circumstances, and imagine their terror, horror and fear. I am making the humanitarian case for action. I am no military expert; I do not know the best way to prosecute the war in terms of military action. All I am saying is that we need to support our Government, our troops and our military in the action that needs to be taken.
Finally, I pay tribute to the humanitarian work of non-governmental organisations such as UNICEF and to the work of the Army in the camps. I pay tribute to the British people for the way in which they have responded to the crisis in Kosovo—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make reference to that. People have raised money in my own constituency of Gedling, in Nottingham and in the east midlands generally. I am sure that, in all our constituencies throughout the country, people have responded in that way. That makes us think that, sometimes, out of the worst that people can do to each other comes some of the best that people can do. Not only are individuals collecting money, but Governments are prepared to stand up for what is right and decent in the modern world.
8.57 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It has been a privilege to listen to so many admirable speeches—not least that of the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). He made a speech of great honesty and courage, as did the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who, typically, spoke in soldier style. The contribution of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) also springs to mind. He referred to the Falklands war. I was John Nott's Parliamentary Private Secretary during the conflict and the names Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Sir Galahad and Atlantic Conveyor are etched on my heart.
I know that success in war needs firmness of purpose. Maintenance of the aim is the first principle of war. It is sad that the aim appears to be somewhat confused but, as I said in a previous debate:
"Once our country is engaged upon war, there is only one acceptable outcome, and that is victory."
All our faculties of heart and mind must be directed to that objective now, even more than they were a month ago.
It was good to hear the wise contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). He is one of the few Members of this place who can wear the 1939–1945 star and the defence medal on

955
his tunic. He brings to our debates an understanding of coalition warfare and of what it takes to co-operate effectively with our United States and NATO allies. In Royal Air Force parlance, success will require maximum effort. We may have all-volunteer armed forces, but we shall need to mobilise our fullest resources of political will, military determination, diplomacy, industrial production and national stamina. Success will require giving our NATO commanders the fullest authority to fulfil their mission according to their professional military judgment.
I deplore the criticisms of the chairborne aces who are so critical of the actions of NATO's air and ground crews—the service men who day and night for the past 55 days have risked their lives in prosecuting operations against the foul regime of Slobodan Milosevic. They are taking the war to the enemy and they deserve our support, not our denigration, for they are the ones who will make the ultimate military victory possible. As I reminded the House on 19 April:
"The air offensive is crucial at every stage of the conflict … The key will be the will to sustain those operations and maintain the offensive."—[Official Report, 19 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 635.]
There are now siren voices, but the alliance must be deaf to calls to cease the bombing before the Serb forces are entirely withdrawn from Kosovo.
I understand that the withdrawal of Milosevic's forces from Kosovo will require the effective use of the Kosovo Liberation Army. As I said on 19 April:
"It needs to be trained, supplied and given intelligence support and all the backing that we can provide."—[Official Report, 19 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 636.]
I now add, most insistently, that that assistance must include air support. We should establish forthwith a military mission to the KLA. It reminds me of the task of building up Yugoslav resistance to German occupation in world war two. The comments of the late Julian Amery in his autobiography are relevant:
"it seemed to me to be unrealistic to pretend that Tito did not exist. He was plainly a major factor on the Yugoslav scene and his partisans seemed readier than the Chetniks to carry out the kind of sabotage and terrorist operations which SOE was designed to promote."
We must not ignore the fighting potential of the KLA, which wants to regain their homeland for its people.
I urge our Government to pursue one clear political objective: self-determination for the people of Kosovo. It is an objective that will require an allied military presence on the ground, for without it there will be no way for free and fair elections to take place. However, this goal accords with the democratic traditions of the NATO states and it legitimises the military reversal of the brutal expulsion of the Kosovars by Milosevic.
If we were to lose, what would follow? Perhaps Krajina would be subject to attack. What would happen to the settlement in Bosnia-Herzogovina? Would Macedonia be destabilised by Milosevic? Would anybody in future have confidence in the democratic alliance of peaceful nations that is NATO? No. I say that aggressors and tyrants everywhere would be emboldened and our security thereby greatly weakened.
9.4 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I come to the debate as one who has, throughout my political life, argued in favour of, and believed in, the cause of peace, yet I have never been a pacifist, for I have always believed that there are certain circumstances in which the taking of military action is justified to combat a greater evil. In that context, I have no hesitation in saying that I support the NATO strategy and the NATO bombing of Serbia. It is no exaggeration to say that, in the Serb regime's actions in Kosovo, we have witnessed the worst crime against humanity committed on our continent since the second world war. As the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees said in evidence to the United Nations Security Council on 5 May:
"Kosovo is being emptied—brutally and methodically—of its ethnic Albanian population."
That is as close to a definition of fascism as anything I know. I have opposed and abhorred fascism all my political life, and my political party and this country have a proud record of opposition to fascism. That is why the NATO action is justified.
The aims of the NATO action are very specific and very clear: a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Serbian troops, the return home of the refugees, and the dispatch of a peacekeeping force, with NATO at its core, to police the settlement. Media commentators, some Opposition politicians and foreign Governments claim that we should produce a fudge or a compromise, but I believe passionately that nothing less than the achievement of those objectives will be acceptable.
I also argue that the NATO action is the only way to deal with the situation, especially in the context of the ending of the cold war. I never want us to return to a cold war situation but, whatever criticisms we might have made of the two super-powers—many could be levelled at both sides—broadly speaking, they policed their spheres of hegemony. There was no widespread outbreak during the cold war of atrocities such as those that we are witnessing in Kosovo. In a sense, the cold war brought a kind of security. The danger for us all, post cold war is that, when atrocities occur throughout the world, there is no supranational mechanism for dealing with them.
I make that point in reply to those who assert—I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) make this comment—that the NATO action should not have been taken because it was not specifically authorised by the United Nations. They ignore the fact that a United Nations resolution specifically opposing the NATO action was defeated comprehensively. That point must be made. I ask people who hold that view to follow the logic of their argument to its conclusion: they are saying that, whatever the outrage, the carnage or the abuse of human rights, if one permanent member of the Security Council objects to action being taken—even if that objection is made for reasons of trade or historical association—no action can be taken. That is a counsel for impotence and despair and one that we rightly reject. That is another reason why I believe the NATO action is justified.
I shall deal with some of the criticisms of the NATO strategy that have arisen both in this debate and elsewhere throughout the country. The first criticism is that mistakes in the bombing campaign fatally undermine our cause. I think the mistakes are appalling: every supporter of the NATO strategy was filled with horror when the

957
Chinese embassy and the refugee convoys were bombed. The NATO alliance must do everything in its power to review its procedures and minimise the chances of mistakes occurring. When mistakes are made, we must admit and explain them honestly and openly.
However, anybody who seriously suggests that we can engage in a military conflict without causing accidental deaths is both naive and ignoring the lessons of history. Mistakes have occurred on the battlefield since warfare began. Some 23 per cent. of American casualties in the Gulf war in the early 1990s were caused by the Americans' own fire power. I do not remember those who have been very vocal in criticising mistakes making that point during the Gulf war, when they had responsibility in government. Mistakes will occur; they are tragic and we must seek to avoid them, but to pretend that they can be completely eliminated is naive and undermines our arguments.
Secondly, critics ask, "Why is Britain taking military action in Kosovo when it has not acted to deal with other humanitarian atrocities, such as those in Rwanda?" There are several answers to that. First, the practical response is that we cannot be the world's policeman. Even if we wanted to carry out that role, we do not have the resources to do so. Secondly—I make this point carefully because it can be misinterpreted—we have a greater responsibility to act on our continent, where we have a degree of collective responsibility, than elsewhere. I also passionately believe that to say that we shall never act anywhere because we cannot act everywhere is a counsel that says that we shall never in any circumstances take action, and that I wholly reject.
Another criticism is what I would describe as the neo-nationalist, isolationist position taken by the far right of the Republican party in America and the far right of the Conservative party in Britain. In the British context, the argument—which has been put forward by Conservative Members—is that military action is never justified unless British lives, British security or British financial interests are at stake.
Mr. Alan Clark: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rammell: I hear the right hon. Gentleman's support for that argument. I wholly reject that stance because it is amoral and it is based on a view that respect for human rights, decency and civilised values is felt only within national boundaries. That argument was put forward in the 1930s by those opposed to military action against Hitler; it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
A specific criticism of NATO action is that the Government have been wrong not to argue for the use of ground troops before now. Let me make my position on that clear. I believe that ground troops will be necessary to police a settlement and that they will probably need to go in while we are still faced with resistance from Milosevic's regime. We should be having an honest and open debate, in the Chamber and the country, about the stage at which we ought to send troops in and what degree of resistance we, are prepared to face. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has recently made it clear that NATO is reviewing all contingencies and that Milosevic has no veto on our actions. The briefings issued today make it clear that ground troops are still an option.
958
I ask those people who vehemently criticise the Government for not committing themselves to sending in ground troops to face the reality of the situation and ask themselves why the Government have not, thus far, made that commitment. The reason for that is that we are part of an international alliance in which we are bound by the reservations of others. That is true of any alliance and especially so in an international alliance. To have argued publicly for ground troops from the outset, as Conservative Members now claim that they have—although they did not argue that at the time—when others in the alliance would not have supported that course, would simply have highlighted disagreements within NATO, undermined our resolve and given sustenance to Milosevic.
We are part of an alliance that is heavily dependent on the United States of America for hardware and money. An element of the debate is that the Americans have—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Time is up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). May I ask for his co-operation? I want him to finish within five minutes.
9.14 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the remark made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), to the effect that I always do this to him. If he is complaining about who was called and who was not called, the hon. Gentleman should remember that hon. Members are called at the discretion of the Chair. Everyone is equal and everyone is treated fairly.
Mr. Wareing: On 2 May 1993 I was in the town of Bosanski Brod in the north of Bosnia. There I saw bodies being exhumed from a mass grave. When I arrived, 36 bodies had already been exhumed in various stages of decomposition. I will never forget the stench, the flies and the heat. Before I left, the body toll had increased to 44.
Among the people with me that day were the present Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) and the noble Lord Russell, as well as a number of Conservative Members. We notified the media of what we had seen. The British media were not interested. My right hon. Friend was asked who the people were, and he replied that they were Serbs who had been murdered by Croats. He was told that the media could not print that, as it would only confuse people.
It is hypocrisy to attack the Serbs for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, while ignoring the fact that 280,000 Serbs were brutally driven out of the Krajina. An old person, a child, a young woman—it does not matter whether they are Serb or Croat. They are all human beings. When I asked the Secretary of State earlier today about the matter, he replied that the Government deplore all that. However, there is no question of any action being taken against Croatia.

959
In another answer that I received from a Foreign Office Minister, I am informed that Croatia is allowing NATO to use its airspace for attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and is co-operating in cutting the flow of oil from Croatia into Yugoslavia. Croatia is undoubtedly an ethnically pure state, as there is hardly a single Serb or anyone of any ethnic origin other than Croat living in that state.
We are told that we have exhausted the possibility of negotiations, and that Rambouillet was turned down by the Serbs. Let me read from some of the annexes to the treaty. I have only a little time—although I am thankful for what I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The text of article 8 of the appendix to the Rambouillet treaty should be on record. It states:
"NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FYR (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet and utilisation of any areas of facilities as required for support, training and operations."
Article 6 states:
"NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the Federal Yugoslav Republic."
Article 10 refers to NATO having cost-free use of all Yugoslav streets, airports and ports—not just Kosovo, but all of Yugoslavia.
Those people who think that we can control an armed operation against the Yugoslav army and restrict it simply to Kosovo should try to imagine an invasion of Cornwall. Would the fighting stop as soon as an enemy had occupied Cornwall? Of course not. The Yugoslavs see the present campaign as their battle of Britain and they will fight on. The only solution is to get back to the conference table, and not to issue ultimatums that no sovereign state would ever accept. We certainly would not. We have to bring the Russians and the Croatians to the conference table. If we want those who have been ethnically cleansed to be returned to their territory, we must return not only those from Kosovo, but those from Krajina. Anything else would by hypocrisy.
9.20 pm
Mr. John Maples: Earlier this month, I visited Albania with the Secretary of State, as his guest, and with other colleagues in the House. We saw for ourselves some of the refugees at Kukes and spoke to them about why they had left and what they had left behind. Those ordinary, decent people, who had been expelled from their homes by violence and fear, were destitute in refugee camps. We also saw in Kukes, and on HMS Invincible and at Gioia del Colle, what a wonderful job our forces are doing. They have our admiration, our thanks and our prayers.
What is happening in Kosovo surely amounts to one of the great European crimes of the past 50 years. We are all horrified and diminished by such violence, and we all want to do something about it. We share and support the Government's objectives and the use of military force to achieve them, but emotion cannot run our foreign policy. Our objectives must be attainable by the means that we are prepared to use. Objectives must be clear
960
and achievable, and adequate military commitment to achieve them is essential. The Prime Minister has been high on rhetoric and anger, and if words could kill Milosevic would be long dead, but he is not dead. He seems too often to hold the initiative. The time has come to examine our policy and to ask ourselves some hard questions.
As usual, we have had an excellent debate, and strongly held views have been expressed from both sides of the House. Conservative Members have been overwhelmingly critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made strong speeches against Government policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made a similarly critical speech and talked a great deal about the refugees. We are all grateful for the report of his Select Committee.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) all made valuable contributions which I hope the Secretary of State will make some effort to answer.
My hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were supportive of the Government's position. I hope that Labour Members will forgive me for not referring to all their speeches and for singling out the contribution of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who made as good and as passionate a statement of the Government's case as could have been made.
Today is the 56th day of the bombing campaign. In the statement made before the Easter recess, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"Milosevic is clearly rattled … huddled in his bunker, calculating how he can possibly extricate himself from his predicament."—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 1205-1206.]
Seven weeks later, he is still there.
We have undoubtedly destroyed much of Serbia's military capability, though we have apparently not yet achieved a permissive environment; but the strategy of air strikes alone is not supported by anyone with real experience of those matters outside the Government, and probably not by many inside the Government either.
The belief that air power alone can achieve objectives on the ground has too often proved to be wrong. The exact opposite is taught in our own staff colleges. According to Newsweek the United States joint chiefs of staff wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence several weeks ago, saying that only ground troops would guarantee fulfilment of the Administration's political objectives. I suspect that similar advice has been given to Ministers here.
The Washington Times recently printed the words of an American pilot in theatre who said:
"This has been a farce from the start … we have violated every principle of campaign air power that I can think of."
An army officer in the Pentagon is quoted in the same article as saying:
"I don't know of anyone in the Pentagon who is optimistic that things will work out."

961
In a recent interview, General Colin Powell said that
"the political rhetoric is not matched by the political objective and the political objective is not matched by the means that are being applied. We should have clear objectives and apply decisive military means."
I will not embarrass the Secretary of State by quoting from the stream of articles in our own press by former senior officers making similar points.
No informed commentator believes in our strategy. The Government may be right and everyone else may be wrong, but it would be unwise to proceed on that assumption. There is another danger in bombing—
Mr. George Robertson: There are 19 others.
Mr. Maples: Today, I am afraid, France, Germany and Italy have put considerable distance between themselves and the strategy that the Prime Minister is pursuing, and the Greeks are demonstrating in Thessalonika against what is going on, so the number is not 19.
Another danger is involved in bombing from 15,000 ft. What worries me is that, if there are more accidents causing civilian casualties, or accidents like the bombing of the Chinese embassy, NATO will lose the moral high ground from which it started the campaign.
If we had set ourselves the more limited objective of negotiating a peace deal with Milosevic, bombing might well have achieved that. The original objective was to get him to sign up to the Rambouillet peace terms, and the bombing campaign had been designed to achieve precisely that; but events on the ground moved too fast. The objective rapidly changed to restoring the refugees to the whole of Kosovo, but we did not at the same time change the military strategy.
The confusion over war aims was heightened when the Prime Minister set as an objective—or seemed to set as an objective—putting Milosevic on trial for war crimes. Without clear political objectives, it has been impossible to develop a clear military strategy. I believe that the phased air campaign was a mistake, and that the build-up was too slow. We should have hit Milosevic really hard on day 1, as I think our own service chiefs have now acknowledged. We were totally unprepared for the flood of refugees that now threatens the stability of the region, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford.
Within NATO, there is a widespread feeling that politicians are tying the hands of the military. War is a nasty, violent business—people are killed and injured. We have legitimate national interests in the stability of the Balkans and in preventing a humanitarian disaster, but the Government do not appear to have thought through what was involved in fighting for those interests. If those interests were not sufficiently serious to warrant the risking of casualties, perhaps we should never have started; if they were sufficiently serious to warrant such military means, perhaps we should have been prepared to use those means from the start. Can the Secretary of State
962
confirm specifically that our service chiefs believe they have the men, the equipment and the freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed?
Mr. Worthington: I am interested by the way in which the hon. Gentleman puts things. He has offered us two "perhapses": perhaps we should not have started, or perhaps we should go in harder. What is he advocating?
Mr. Maples: I am responding to the Government's policy. As we keep saying, the Government are in possession of all sorts of military intelligence and advice not available to us. It is open to us to make suggestions, and for eight weeks we have given the Government the benefit of the doubt in relation to everything that is proposed. I am now asking what I believe are some hard questions, because I do not think that the strategy is working.
Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No.
On ground troops, once again, confusion reigns, and the Government are sending out contradictory signals. First we would use ground troops only pursuant to a peace agreement; then we might use them in a permissive environment. Just before the Washington summit, the Prime Minister said that we would use ground troops when Serb forces had been sufficiently degraded. That was widely understood to mean attacking on the ground much earlier than had previously been envisaged. Journalists who were on the Prime Minister's plane to Washington were left in no doubt that that was what he had intended to say, and his speeches in Washington bore that out; however, he failed to secure the agreement of our allies, and the Washington communiqué on Kosovo did not even mention the subject.
In this weekend's press we saw the spinning again, although the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary assure us that there is no difference between us and the Americans on this issue. I hope that they will not exploit any differences that there are; as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, that would really damage the relationship between us and the United States. Today, there is more briefing in the papers to the effect that Europe should take the lead.
Let me say in all seriousness to the Secretary of State that the Government must stop spreading confusion. It is damaging the American alliance; and I ask the Secretary of State to imagine the effect that this inconsistency has on our troops in theatre who may soon be asked to risk their lives. Does the Prime Minister still honestly believe that our objectives can be achieved by air power alone, or does he now believe that an early use of ground troops is necessary? We do not know what he thinks, as a result of the confusion.
We need to be clear about what is meant by using ground troops. That can mean anything from driving down the road into Kosovo pursuant to a peace agreement, to a full-scale air-land battle with entrenched Serb forces. "Permissive environment" can mean anything in between. Any commander would have to assume that he would meet resistance. Whatever the situation, we would have

963
to enter Kosovo as a fighting force. Short of entering as a peacekeeping force, we would have to plan for war fighting.
The obstacles to an invasion are significant. They have been recognised by NATO and by the Government, which is why there is the doubt and delay, although, apparently, those obstacles are not recognised by the many who have glibly advocated a land battle from the start.
I am advised that the only truly practical route into Kosovo for armour is through Macedonia, although I imagine that there would be other attacks across other borders. Going through Macedonia involves the use of Greek and Macedonian territory—both countries have said that they will not allow that.
There will be huge interoperability problems, which could be resolved only by limiting the attacking force to the United States, the United Kingdom and France. I do not know what consideration the Government have given to that question but, if we are to enter in war-fighting mode, the allies with whom we do so will necessarily be restricted: their number will be far fewer than the number with whom we are happy to mount a peacekeeping operation.
At Rambouillet, it was agreed and envisaged there would be a peacekeeping force of 28,000. It is gradually being assembled but, several months later, only about half that number are in place in Macedonia. General Jackson has been saying in a veiled way that the number should be built up rather faster, but invasion or entering in a permissive environment—at whatever end of the scale—where the commander assumes that he will meet resistance will require a far higher number than the 28,000 thought necessary for peacekeeping. Those troops will have to go through a roulement. I do not know how soon that will have to take place, but I believe that it will be difficult to maintain those numbers in theatre for long.
If military operations are to be successful before the winter, any decision to invade will require troops to be put in place very soon. That, in turn, means that a decision to deploy will have to be taken in the next few days; General Jackson has said as much himself.
Time and indecision are cancelling out that option. If the Prime Minister believes that the early use of ground troops is necessary, he should tell us. If NATO cannot agree to that, we have only two alternatives: we either downgrade our objectives and seek a negotiated peace—something that the Prime Minister has said would be a failure, or we continue attrition bombing in the hope that it will work, with the danger that we lose the moral advantage very quickly. If the Prime Minister does believe that early use of ground troops is the way to proceed and we do not do so, he is, by definition, committing us to a second-best strategy in which he does not really believe.
Inevitably, the question will then arise why we started military operations without clear agreement on the use of ground troops, particularly if the military advice was that the battle could not be won by air power alone, as it clearly was in the United States. Presumably, the British Government knew that that was the advice that the United States Government had received.
Before leaving the subject of ground troops, I shall say a word about an idea that is being put about today, probably by the spinners again, that Europe should take the lead in the campaign. It is ironic that that initiative should be launched on the very day that France, Germany
964
and Italy have publicly made it clear that they will not support the use of ground troops except under a peace agreement. It must be clear to all who have been following the conflict that NATO is having great difficulty doing it at all, let alone doing it without the United States. It gives the lie to the idea that Europe is capable of mounting such operations on its own.
I hope that, if and when ground troops are used, the Government will be clear how we will handle the collateral problems that may then arise in Macedonia, Montenegro and Sanjak, in all of which Serbia is equally capable of stirring up trouble. It is unlikely that any such ground force would have to deal only with the Serbs in Kosovo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned the Kosovo Liberation Army. We seem to behave as though the KLA did not exist—we cannot make up our minds how to treat it. We are, I think quite rightly, cautious about arming KLA members, but they are the only people who are fighting the Serbs on the ground in Kosovo. They will be part of any settlement, whether we like it or not. They will probably form the largest part of the future Kosovo administration. They certainly formed a large part of the Kosovo delegation at Rambouillet. We shall require their co-operation and good will. I do not pretend to offer the Government advice on how that should be achieved, but I hope that we have a policy and are implementing it, and that we are not simply pretending that they do not exist. There is a danger that, ultimately, we shall get in there, but discover that they, as well as the Serbs, are an enemy. It is vital that that does not happen.
The problems of a ground war are very difficult. When NATO forces do enter Kosovo, it may be the end of act I, but it will be only the beginning of act II.
Kosovo cannot be seen in isolation. However, we seem to have no overall or long-term plan for a settlement for the Balkans. We have to be working towards an overall peace settlement. I am not pretending that achieving such an agreement will be easy—one has eluded the western powers for 10 years—but, if we are to get involved militarily in what the Government describe as a permissive environment, which I take to mean some degree of fighting, we have to have that long-term objective; otherwise, we are in danger of becoming badly unstuck and getting our armed forces enmeshed in Kosovo for a very long time, but without being able to achieve a long-term objective.
Macedonia and Montenegro seem to be less stable than they were before 24 March. A flood of refugees and our action have, in the short term at least, made the problem worse.
I am seriously worried about the stability of Macedonia, and do not believe that the Government are taking the matter seriously enough. I have written to the Secretary of State about it, and he has replied. However, I really do believe that the volume of refugees in Macedonia is in danger of destabilising the very delicate ethnic balance in that country, and that we should be doing more to alleviate it.
I hope that we have in place plans to deal with the Milosevic-inspired coup in Montenegro, which is certainly something that might happen very soon.
Albania and Macedonia have behaved magnificently in this crisis—the Secretary of State saw it for himself in Albania—but the financial and organisational aid to both of them has been too slow, and, in some cases, it still is.

965
We believe that it is vital that NATO succeeds in Kosovo. The Government's objectives, which we share, are principled and correct. The Government have put at stake the credibility of our armed forces and of the NATO alliance. That credibility must be redeemed. The Prime Minister says that it would be a failure not to achieve our objectives, but it would also be a failure not to achieve them before the Balkan winter sets in. If the refugees cannot return home before the winter, many of them never will, and the stability of Macedonia and Albania will be further, and perhaps terminally, threatened.
There has been too much confusion about objectives, and too little hard thinking about strategy. We have consistently supported the Government in their objectives and in the use of military force to achieve them. For eight weeks, we have given them the benefit of the doubt. Today, I make no apology for asking some very hard questions, but my criticism is—as I hope it is seen to be—constructive.
We want the Government to succeed. We want the refugees to return to their homes in Kosovo—all of them, to all parts of Kosovo—and we want to ensure that the criminals, such as Milosevic, do not prosper and are not allowed to do so. However, we do not believe that those objectives can be achieved if we go on as we have done for the past eight weeks. The Government must develop a strategy that is credible to our troops, to the British public and to our enemies. If they do that, they will deserve and they will receive our continued support.
9.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): This has been the third full-day debate since NATO began its military action against President Milosevic. There have also been five statements to the House in that six-week period. Since the last debate, I have visited a number of service establishments associated with the military action. I went to RAF Brüggen, in Germany—which is the home of the Tornado forces who nightly make the five-hour round trip from Germany down to Kosovo—and met the pilots and the navigators and ground crew who support them.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, I went with him, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence to Gioia del Colle, where our RAF Harriers and the air and ground crew are based. We also went to the headquarters of the NATO Albania force, led by the British Lieutenant-General John Reith. On HMS Invincible, we met the crew and the officers, as well as some of the crew of HMS Newcastle. I salute them and all the others who are engaged in the air, on the ground and in the sea in this exercise. I thank them for their public service, their determination, their commitment and, above all, their awe-inspiring courage at all times. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), I also warmly thank their families. They wait and watch patiently and often painfully, giving crucial support without which our great armed forces would not function so well.
Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I start with a slightly personal comment. Last month, I addressed a meeting at the Glasgow South Side synagogue with my
966
hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and the new Member of the Scottish Parliament for the constituency. I gave the packed audience my explanation of what was happening in Kosovo—what the situation was about, why it mattered and why Milosevic and his savage ethnic cleansing had to be defeated.
During the question session that followed my speech, a small old man rose at the back of the hall to put a point to me. In the silence of the meeting, he told me that he had been in Auschwitz concentration camp in Nazi Germany in his youth. That small old man told me and the people at the meeting that, as a holocaust survivor, he could recognise genocide when he saw it and that he was seeing it again today in Kosovo. Mr. Michael Sanki reminded us that, after the second world war, we all said "Never again." He pleaded with me to make good that pledge. We are involved in a just cause—one worth fighting and even dying for. For my generation and so many others in this country—who are very lucky to be alive in a democracy today—this is our moment to say and to mean "Never again."
Mr. Hogg: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If that principle is worth asserting in Kosovo, why was it not worth asserting in Rwanda, for example?
Mr. Robertson: I have the greatest respect and some affection for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a Minister at the Foreign Office, although he had moved to agriculture by the time of the conflict in Rwanda. He and I have been pairs in Parliament for a long time. My predecessor, Michael Fortino, sent troops to the Great Lakes area of Africa. British troops were being prepared for a humanitarian exercise in Rwanda.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is accusing the British Government of turning back at a certain point—I do not blame them for doing so; I think that they took the right decision—he is accusing not me, but the previous Administration. This is not the first challenge for this new Administration; it is the second. We rise to the challenge when it comes. I hope that I have the same support from the right hon. and learned Gentleman now that I gave him when I was an Opposition spokesman and he was taking difficult decisions on Bosnia that he often found hard to defend.
That apart, the debate has exposed a number of powerfully expressed views, dividing parties and even caucuses within this House. However, that is part of the richness and liberty that is allowed and encouraged in a democratic assembly.
The Opposition have become slightly more aggressive this evening. The loyal Opposition are entitled to question, to expose and to remind the Government on all occasions, but they should be constructive also. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, they must have balance and judgment about what they say. The right tone must be struck, lest the enemies of this nation or of the alliance outside use their words out of context against us.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) makes strong speeches—but I warn him. From my long experience of 18 years on the Opposition Front Bench, I can tell him that, when one's only strength is in being negative, one does not convince the country. However, we wish him well in his retirement from the Opposition Front Bench.

967
There have been a lot of good speeches, and some powerful ones. I have not heard all of them in the Chamber, but—while doing the work of a Department in the middle of a conflict—I have listened to the vast majority of the debate on the live feed. The debate has been a credit to the House of Commons—even those speeches with which I deeply disagree.
I want to address those who have criticised what the Government have been doing—as part of a 19-country alliance, let it be said. No decisions are made in this Chamber or by this Government unilaterally. They are made as part of that great alliance. I wish to address those who say that NATO is doing too much, and that we should not be attacking the Yugoslav military machine at all-those voices have been raised—and those who demand an instant, full invasion of, and forced entry to, Kosovo, and who say that we are doing too little. I ask both of those groups—what were the alternatives before us earlier this year?
Mr. Corbyn: In talking about the bombing campaign by NATO, will the Secretary of State explain why so much targeting has been done of oil refineries, chemical works and industrial installations? Will he explain also the use of depleted uranium in the attacks, which will have unmentionable consequences and may cause an environmental disaster within the region and which will know no boundaries and will affect everybody, whichever side of the conflict they are on?
Mr. Robertson: This country is not using any munitions involving depleted uranium. If it is not strikingly obvious to my hon. Friend why we are attacking oil refineries—and, therefore, the means by which the Serb military gets around—I do not think that I am likely to be able to teach him anything. I had thought that, throughout his parliamentary career, my hon. Friend had campaigned for human rights and for human decency. I do not know why, on this occasion, he seems willing to stand back and watch while human rights and human life are violated on our continent.
What were the alternatives before us earlier this year? What choices were available? What choices were available to NATO after the Holbrooke agreement had been betrayed by the dictator in Belgrade? The House should remember that Milosevic backed down last October in the face of NATO's threats of air strikes at that time. Something like a quarter of a million Kosovar people who had been stranded in forests on the edge of winter and were facing death from starvation or freezing were able to return safely to their homes, with the verification force on the ground, watching what the Serb forces were doing.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend must wait. First, there could have been more diplomacy; that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who is trying to attract my attention just now—said to me in an acrimonious exchange that we had this morning outside a Sky television studio. I tell him and, others that we exhausted every possible diplomatic avenue, and, all the time, Milosevic was starting the ethnic killing and cleansing. The second option available to us was tighter economic sanctions. Again, those were tried but failed to produce the result that we and the world required.
968
The third alternative—it has been suggested again today—was that we should have involved the United Nations and specifically the Russians and the Chinese. In fact, Russia was intimately involved in the contact group that led to the negotiations at Rambouillet. It was the Chinese veto on the UN monitoring force in Macedonia that showed precisely what would have happened had we gone to the UN Security Council.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mrs. Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Robertson: No. I have already given way.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet.
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chinese vetoed UNPREDEP, not the monitors.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Robertson: I did not hear the point, so it is not a matter for me either. There is a strain of thinking—
Mrs. Mahon: The Chinese vetoed UNPREDEP.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have invited the Secretary of State for Defence to speak, not the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chinese vetoed the retention of UNPREDEP, not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been around long enough to know that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Robertson: The fourth alternative—some people have had the audacity to suggest it—was to stand back and just let the killing, the torturing, the maiming, the bombarding and the evicting go as Milosevic wanted it to go—to a Serb-dominated corner of the old Yugoslavia. Perhaps he wanted an exclusively Serb corner of Yugoslavia.
We could have said, as some still do, that it was a civil war and an untouchable geographic no-go zone, and we could have watched without action a genocide of vast proportions in this, the last year of the 20th century. I say no, I say never and I say never, ever again. That is what the majority of this House, this Parliament and the majority of the British people say—and keep on saying to us. We should listen.
Finally, there are those who say that we should not have excluded a forced ground invasion of Kosovo—or even Yugoslavia. They say that we should somehow have assembled, before any air attack, the required troops—anything between 150,000 to 250,000 of them—before we threatened Milosevic. They somehow assume that Milosevic would have ignored the three month's preparation time—which would not yet have been up—for the troop build-up, the equipment mobilisation, the

969
logistic chains and all the rest. They seem to think that he would have allowed us all that time without reacting against the Kosovars—and probably the Montenegrins and the people of Vojvodena, too. After all, if Milosevic gets away with Kosovo, he will also take other areas—mark my words.
A phased air campaign was ordered by all 19 Governments of NATO. We should always remember that the threat of air strikes worked on Milosevic last October. The reality of six weeks of ever-accelerating and intensifying air strikes has been severely to diminish the whole Yugoslavian war machine. I shall tell the House what has been achieved in that six weeks. Some 20 per cent. of Yugoslav combat and other military aircraft have been destroyed. Some 24 per cent. of their strategic-level surface-to-air missile radar systems have been destroyed.
Nine of the 17 militarily significant airfields have been damaged, some severely. Almost 40 road and rail bridges have been damaged or destroyed, including the two rail lines into Kosovo. The two oil refineries at Novi Sad and Pancevo have been functionally destroyed. Yugoslav army and police barracks and ammunition storage sites are increasingly sustaining severe damage. More than 160 tanks and armoured personnel carriers, 62 artillery pieces and 136 soft-skinned vehicles have almost certainly been destroyed.
The relentless assault has already had its effect, militarily and politically, in Kosovo and in the wider Yugoslavia.
Mr. Howard: The Secretary of State is giving us an important and interesting narrative but he has not answered the questions posed to him. Will he deal specifically with one crucial question? Will he give the House the assurance that the Prime Minister failed to give on Wednesday, that General Guthrie and his fellow NATO officers have the men, equipment and freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Day after day, Serbia's military machine is being weakened, and if Milosevic's stubbornness continues to outweigh Serbia's self-interest, it will be destroyed, never again to be rebuilt.
970
Politically, too, the cracks are beginning to show. Vuk Draskovic, once the leader of Serbia's opposition, joined Milosevic's Government. He was dismissed a month ago for daring to speak out in opposition to Milosevic's views. Mr. Djindjic, in 1997 the mayor of Belgrade and another leader of the opposition to Milosevic, recently spoke out about the success of the NATO air strikes and the need to sue for peace.
Mr. Vuk Obranavic, once a senior VJ general—one of the youngest in the Yugoslav army—and now the leader of the Social Democratic party, told John Simpson of the BBC that Milosevic's strategy is going wrong. Today, in an Italian newspaper, the Catholic archbishop of Belgrade, Archbishop Perko, was reported as saying that, if NATO suspended bombing, Milosevic would declare victory.
The report said:
"The appeals of some western countries to stop the bombing were inducing Milosevic to resist…These unilateral calls for peace are, in reality, prolonging the war. If NATO stops bombing now, the Yugoslav army will remain in Kosovo and the guerrilla war with the UCK could go on for decades."
The archbishop was reported as saying:
"only NATO can disarm the UCK and protect the Albanians. And only NATO members have the means to reconstruct houses and temporary camps for those who return."
The fissures are beginning to show in the Yugoslav nation and army. NATO's campaign was right. It is being effective and working.
I have been asked whether an air campaign alone can complete the job. I went last Wednesday to Berlin for a ceremony to mark the exact day of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Berlin airlift. It was a moving ceremony. The airlift, involving American, British and French airmen, two years after the second world war, saved that city from Stalin's icy clamp.
People said when the airlift was proposed that air power alone could not do the job. They said at the beginning of the campaign that nobody could logistically supply by air all the supplies for that democratic city in the ocean of communism, but we did it. Determination, will power, perseverance and unity of purpose defeated Stalin in 1948. We will assuredly defeat Milosevic.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Farming (East Sussex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
10 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of the viability of the farming industry in East Sussex. It is important because of its direct employment of farmers and farm workers. It is also important to the rural economy of East Sussex and to the care of the countryside of which farmers are the custodians.
I regularly meet farmers from my constituency and will meet some on Friday. Over the past year, I have identified several worrying trends that the Government should address. They are aware of those trends, but I shall spell them out for the record.
First, the average age of farmers appears to be increasing. There is a shortage of new entrants to farming, and that is compounded by the fact that one traditional means of entry—county farms—was eliminated by the policies of the previous Government, which required county councils to offload those starter farmers. It was a foolish move and the effect has been regressive.
Secondly, reductions in the agricultural work force weaken the base of the whole community. Farmers who used to employ 10 or 20 people now employ two, one or none at all. They are surviving as best they can in the present circumstances. There has been a loss of tenant farms and a general increase in the size of farms in the county, and the situation is even worse elsewhere.
Thirdly, farmers have suffered significant—some might say catastrophic—reductions in income. Early last year, the National Farmers Union estimated that the real terms decline in farming incomes between 1996 and 1997 was in the order of 47 per cent. Even the Government's figures on total income from farming show a drop of 37 per cent. Not many people or industries could sustain such a drop in income during a single 12-month period.
In the past, it has been usual for one or another sector of the farming industry to suffer. At present, however, the problems are hitting all sectors together. Farmers have had nowhere to go to make up the lost income. The problems continue. According to figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Meat and Livestock Commission, a comparison of farmgate prices in October 1997 and 1998 shows the price of feed wheat down 13 per cent., lamb down 32 per cent., beef down 18 per cent., pigmeat—suffering particularly badly—down 41 per cent., milk down 12 per cent., eggs down 13 per cent. and broilers down 7 per cent. The catastrophe facing the industry continues.
Those reductions in farmgate prices are not always reflected in retail prices. I wrote at the end of last year to the four major supermarket chains to draw attention to the fact that their prices appeared not to be dropping although farmgate prices were. In the period 1987 to 1997, farmgate prices increased by around 6 per cent., but retail prices for food increased by about 35 per cent. Why should supermarkets have such a big mark-up that is not passed on to the farmers? In response, the supermarkets blamed a number of processor costs, for example hygiene inspections, and said that they now had to pay for parts
972
of animals that had been used previously, such as blood products, to be taken away. They blamed increasing transport costs.
I do not believe that those factors alone justify what appears to be an increased mark-up for supermarkets at the expense of the basic producers, the farmers. I should be grateful if the Minister would say in his reply whether he believes that there is an element of the cartel and profiteering in the behaviour of supermarkets, to the detriment of our farmers.
How can the Government help? I have a number of suggestions, to which I hope that the Minister will respond constructively. First, the beef ban must be lifted. I do not blame the Government at all for the ban. Since they have been in power, they have done their best to deal with a difficult situation and have made progress—credit, where credit is due. However, time is marching on and we are now a long way down the track. I hope that the Government will be able to give some sign tonight of when the ban will be lifted.
Secondly, there is a ban on beef on the bone. I speak as a vegetarian, but my analysis is that beef is perfectly safe. Even if it is not, people who wish to buy it should be able to do so and judge the risks for themselves. It is not for the Government to act as nanny state and to ban beef on the bone.
In Committee, I remember asking the Minister who is to reply, and who is responsible for food safety, whether he believed that beef on the bone was more dangerous than genetically modified foods, which are available in all our shops. He thought that that was a fair question. Perhaps he will elaborate on the subject tonight.
Also, I want some clarification from the Minister on a question that involves East Sussex county council. 1 understand that he may want to reply to me in writing on that matter. The National Farmers Union in my constituency naturally wants to ensure that, in schools and other establishments, the council serves beef that is subject to the same high health and hygiene regulations as British beef. The chief executive of the council has told the NFU that the council is precluded from doing so and from choosing British beef on legal grounds. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify, tonight or subsequently, whether that is the case. Clearly, it is wrong and ludicrous if for regulatory reasons the county council cannot make a positive choice for British beef, which it no doubt believes—as do I—is subject to higher health and hygiene regulations.
Another problem is the addition of meat hygiene inspection charges. I welcome the Government's help to pay for the additional charges for a year; that is a welcome move. I and the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is present tonight, have both been busy on that matter as regards the abattoir at Heathfield. However, paying the charges is a breathing space and not a solution.
I hope that the Government will produce measures to ensure that small abattoirs continue to exist. Any additional charges should be based on the throughput of an abattoir, not some flat-rate charge, which necessarily discriminates against the smaller abattoirs.
Small abattoirs are important. They are a link in the community. Wearing my animal welfare hat, I say that I want animals to be transported as little as possible between the point of production and their slaughter.

973
The Government say that they want that and that they want to avoid live exports, so why do they countenance the closure of smaller abattoirs, thus requiring animals to be transported over longer distances?
The Government could also do more to promote animal welfare-friendly produce and I hope that they will. In this country, our production is more animal welfare friendly than anywhere else in the world. It is important for the Government, first, to make it plain to the consumer where possible that produce from outside this country may not be produced according to the same high standards and, secondly, to promote and market British produce that is subject to high standards.
Certain labelling requirements may apply. The Minister is keen on labelling and rightly so, but is it not the case that processed products that come into this country do not have to be labelled with their country of origin? Fresh, entire products have to be, but processed products do not. Therefore the consumer could be misled. Goods of a lower standard can come in and masquerade as good-quality goods, undercutting high-quality British produce.
Does the Minister believe that, under World Trade Organisation rules, Britain can require high animal welfare standards or are we subject to the free trade extremism that we saw on bananas and that we may see—I hope not—on genetically modified organisms? What will the Government do to help promote UK produce produced to high animal welfare standards? I know that that is their intention, and I am sure that we share the same agenda on that, but they need to act on it.
Supermarkets have said that they are happy to buy products of a lower standard from overseas. A letter from Sainsburys of 18 November about chicken from Thailand stated:
"The advantage for our customers of sourcing from Thailand is purely cost. The wafer-thin chicken delicatessen product and the frozen chicken pies and ready meals offer customers a cheaper alternative. By using chicken sourced from Thailand, our suppliers can enable us to offer customers with a smaller purse the opportunity of buying a product which they might otherwise have not been able to afford."
Chicken from Thailand is produced in unacceptable conditions and undercuts higher animal welfare standards in this country.
I want to raise some other matters briefly because 15 minutes goes by quickly in this Chamber. Will the Minister publish soon the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into Milk Marque? I understand that it has been sitting on the desk of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for two months, with all the resultant uncertainty for farmers.
Will the Minister say what he can about the position on common agricultural policy reform? I welcome the direction that the Government are taking to move it forward, but it is not enough. They need to do more to satisfy WTO rules and to take proper account of the environment. I hope that he will revisit the matter. Environmental measures on set-aside that would have allowed land to be permanently under wildlife were overruled in the negotiations. That is a step backwards.
East Sussex welcomes the environmentally sensitive area payments for the south downs. It is a good, successful scheme. The Minister of Agriculture must ensure that payments are not based only on profits forgone but include an incentive element to encourage participation.
974
The National Farmers Union believes that the organic farming scheme has been "a disappointment". Shaun Leavey of its south-east region writes:
"The newly announced OFS has been a disappointment and militates against those who have been farming in an environmentally friendly way. Participants in Countryside Stewardship schemes and the ESA are treated for the purposes of the OFS as having unimproved land and so only qualify for the lower rate of grant. My phone has been red hot with complaints about this! In addition, there are unrealistic restrictions on the number of sheep out at keep (from other farms) that can be run on a farm participating in the scheme. Many complainants point out that they would have got a better deal under the old Organic Aid Scheme but were advised by MAFF staff to wait for the new scheme—they suspect (however unfairly) that this was MAFF's way of saving money."
I know that the Government are committed to organic farming so I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. Having been a co-opted member of the East Sussex NFU for a great many years, I agree with all his points. He has not exaggerated and I am delighted to be associated with him this evening.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful for those comments. Understandably, I agree entirely with my next-door neighbour.
There is great worry among local farmers about what genetically modified crops mean for them. I had a meeting with farmers at which that view was put forcefully. They do not want to be left standing in the middle when the music stops, as happened with BSE. They regard GM crops not as a future saviour, as Monsanto would have us believe, but as a threat, problem and nuisance. That is not to say that there are no potential benefits, but farmers have significant worries, including the liability issue. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.
The overarching problem is the strong pound, which disadvantages exports from the farming community, exacerbated by the crisis in the far east and Russia and the collapse of some of our export markets. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my specific questions and that he will write to me in reply to those that he cannot answer tonight. The Government are trying to do their best for farmers in East Sussex and elsewhere, but there are significant problems that require the Government to move up a step in gear.
10.15 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best to respond to the questions put by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I do not criticise him, because I greatly respect his activity and performances in the House, but he did not raise many specific issues in relation to East Sussex that I can address. He made many general points. He is a vociferous questioner of the Government—and that is quite right; I was too at one time. However, from my point of view, it means that, as the issues that he raised are less predictable, I cannot give him such a considered response from the Dispatch Box. I have come to the Chamber armed with briefings galore because I did not know, from such a general title, exactly which issues he intended to raise in the debate. I do not expect to

975
have anticipated all the questions—that might not be appropriate. However, if there are specific issues, it is much easier, and it is better for those constituents whom an hon. Member represents, to give a considered response.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewes could have phoned to say that he intended to refer to the viability of farming. It is no criticism, but he has asked me about 12 subject areas—all of which are general to farming, food and agriculture, and all of which are important. However, none of them is actually specific to East Sussex, so I cannot home in on the specific matters that affect the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In justice and fairness to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), he emphasised the increased regulatory costs that bear heavily on farmers in an area that is not prosperous in terms of the soil or the land that is farmed. Part of the land is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, which is a difficult problem for the farmers. The dairy industry suffers strongly from the attack that has been made on its relationship with Milk Marque, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Those matters are specific to the area.
Mr. Rooker: I could not say—by any stretch of the imagination—that East Sussex was not affected. However, the difficulty that I face is how we can offer advice and information on issues that are specific to East Sussex.
One of the first points mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes was the decline in the labour force in East Sussex. Our records show that in 1993, 6,223 people in the total labour force worked in agriculture and that in 1997, that number was down to 5,588—a decline from 1.5 per cent. to 1.4 per cent. of the total in England
There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Lewes represent an incredibly lovely part of the country. Much of it is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty; of the 47 miles of coastline, a six-mile stretch is designated as heritage coast.
In relation to the make-up of the agricultural sector, there are more than 100,000 hectares of agricultural land—most of which is grassland. Crops take up 35,000 hectares; of those, 22,000 hectares are cereals, with the rest being split between oilseed rape, linseed and horticulture. Horticulture is quite small—potatoes are grown on only 185 hectares. Potatoes happen to be one of the successes at present; even with the strong pound, we are able to export them. The dairy herd in East Sussex is estimated to be about 16,000, but has gone down by a third over the past 10 years. The beef herd is 9,000; that has gone up by 80 per cent. during the past 10 years. The number of lambs and ewes is down slightly. Pig numbers have also suffered; they are down by 53 per cent. during the past 10 years. There are 660,000 poultry; that number has fallen by nearly 40 per cent. over the past 10 years. There are about 2,200 holdings in East Sussex, the largest number of which—800—are in cattle and sheep; 240 holdings are given over exclusively to cereals. Farm size is somewhat smaller than the UK average, with 1,700 holdings of less than 50 hectares. From those statistics, it can be seen that certain issues relating to East Sussex might naturally arise.
976
The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the difference between farmgate prices and supermarket prices. I have heard similar remarks, justifying the practice and otherwise, from hon. Members on both sides of the House over the past 18 months and I suspect that there is more than a grain of truth in their comments. The hon. Gentleman has made certain suggestions and the Government are happy to receive suggestions, because we always want to do better.
The hon. Gentleman does not blame the Government for the beef ban and I am grateful for that; however, it is our job to get it lifted. We have made a modest start with the certified herd scheme in Northern Ireland, but the key is to get the date-based scheme accepted. The Commission inspectors came over in April, only three weeks ago, to carry out a full inspection of our facilities and system for operating a fairly complicated scheme. We await their report, and we have a verbal promise that it will come in 20 working days, which means that the report is imminent.
We are confident that we can satisfy the requirements of a date-based export scheme and we cannot wait to get the scheme in operation, so that the market, our farmers and the meat industry can start to export again. I hope that that will happen in the near future. If the Commission inspectors raise any matters, they will be addressed immediately, but we are quite confident that we shall be able to operate the scheme soon. As hon. Members will have seen in the press last week, there has been a slight hiccup—a technical difficulty with the Northern Ireland scheme. However, that issue would not arise under the date-based scheme, so there should be no knock-on effect.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the beef-on-the-bone ban, as he is entitled to do. I give him the same answer as I have given everyone else: we await the further inquiry and assessment of the chief medical officer, because we would be stupid not to act according to medical advice. As the hon. Gentleman said, the meat is safe: we have no evidence that there is any infectivity in the meat and we never have had such evidence, but that is not the issue with beef on the bone. The issue in that respect is the nervous tissue and dorsal root ganglia that remain after cooking, either on the bone or in the juices.
People have died, people are dying and, regrettably, more people will die, of new-variant CJD. There is a full-scale public inquiry going on, so I cannot comment further. We want both bans lifted as quickly as possible and we shall not hesitate to act, once we have received advice from the chief medical officer.
As I have hinted before, the over-30-months scheme ensures that no meat from cattle over 30 months goes into the human food chain, so the only possible route of transmission of BSE is maternal transmission. It takes nine months to produce a calf, and 39 months from August 1996—the date line for the feed ban—are up in November this year. It is easy to see that, after that date, there should be no possibility of risk from maternal transmission. As the scientists predicted, the reduction in the incidence of BSE has been dramatic because of the successful operation of the feed ban. The House will return to the issue again in the near future.
I apologise for being somewhat distracted at the start of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about British beef, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to him. There should be no difficulty in anyone supplying British beef—

977
I do not agree with his arguments about people not being able to do one thing or another. The fact is that we have got the beef-labelling scheme going on a voluntary basis, and the last time I checked, 83 accredited organisations were operating the beef-labelling scheme. If someone wants to market or purchase beef under the beef-labelling scheme, which we encourage, there should be no difficulty. The claims made on the label are subject to independent verification, but there should be no argument about sourcing British beef for people in this country.
The consumption of British beef is increasing in this country. Since the beef-on-the-bone ban was introduced, consumption has increased from about 70 to almost 80 per cent. There should be no problems in that regard, but I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and respond to him in writing.
Meat hygiene charges are a fairly hot issue, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that we will have Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions in a couple of days. We have promised to examine the specified risk material controls for another year and we have had another quick look at the ordinary Meat Hygiene Service charges. Some people have complained about the seven days of consultation. Let's face it: everyone has known for months that this issue must be considered annually. We want to take another quick look before we introduce the charges and we cannot do that retrospectively. MAFF is carrying the costs—some £300,000—at present, and we want to be fair.
Charging on the basis of throughput is a seductive idea. However, we are required to ensure that we collect the cost of operating the service. We can do that through the introduction of an hourly charge, but it would be very unfair to small abattoirs. Some 80 per cent. of cattle are slaughtered in 20 per cent. of this country's slaughterhouses: it is an unbalanced industry. There are a few huge slaughterhouses and big factories, and many very small slaughterhouses. Charging on the basis of throughput would be unfair to the big slaughterhouses which have made big investments, and charging via an hourly rate could be very expensive and would be unfair to the small producers. We are trying to find a third way—if I may put it like that—that is also consistent with our European Union obligations.
We have no plans to close small abattoirs. As I revealed in a recent debate, 600 small abattoirs have closed in the past 18 years, leaving about 350. Those closures were due not to policy, but to changes in the market.
978
The milk marketing inquiry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, MAFF wants farmers and food producers to have greater control over the added value in the food chain. We are seeking co-operative and collaborative marketing. In that respect, this country is a failure compared with other countries where the producers have more control. Milk Marque—which is a big interest—is up, because of its operation, before the competitive authorities. I cannot comment on the details of that case, but we intend to push the industry down that path so that it acquires a greater share of the added value. It is not fair that a large share of the added value should go to non-producers.
I am not aware of the NFU's criticisms of our organic farming scheme. We have doubled assistance for organic farming and we wish to encourage it. It is easy for people to claim that we have not done enough and that we do not like organic farming, but the bottom line is that we have doubled the amount of taxpayers' money that we are spending to encourage farmers to convert to organic methods. We will subsidise not production, but the conversion to organic farming. As a matter of active policy, we have doubled the—albeit modest—MAFF research budget. My right hon. Friend the present Minister for the Cabinet Office made that announcement 18 months ago, and it was his second biggest priority after getting the beef ban lifted.
Of course, the assistance will never be enough. The scheme is so successful that MAFF's offices were inundated with inquiries last summer. We did not give false advice because we wanted to mislead farmers. Those who were thinking of converting under the old scheme instead of waiting for the new scheme received fair advice; we did not intend to put them at a disadvantage.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments about welfare-friendly produce. I wish that British people would pay more attention to this subject. The more effort we can put into marketing welfare-friendly produce, the better. We will offer all the support we can to ensure that the rules do not operate against British producers, and we will certainly follow up the promises that the supermarkets made last November regarding the pig industry.
I regret that I have not been able to cover all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. These are important issues both for the hon. Gentleman and for other hon. Members who represent that part of the world, and I will do my best to write to the hon. Gentleman about any matters to which I have failed to respond tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Financial Services Sector
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of criminal cases relating to the financial services sector referred to(a) the CPS and (b) the SFO resulted in charges being brought in each of the last three years. [84089]

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the Serious Fraud Office nor the Crown Prosecution Service records case information by reference to the economic sector in which the activity giving rise to consideration of charges takes place. Accordingly, in order to answer the question, it would be necessary to undertake an individual review of all cases, which could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of prosecutions alleging offences relating to the financial services sector brought by(a) the CPS and (b) the SFO resulted in convictions in each of the last three years. [84090]

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the Serious Fraud Office nor the Crown Prosecution Service records case information by reference to the economic sector in which the activity giving rise to prosecutions and convictions takes place. Accordingly, in order to answer the question, it would be necessary to undertake an individual review of all cases, which could be done only at disproportionate cost.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Scottish Members (Office Costs)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council if she will review the Parliamentary Office and Secretarial Allowances of Scottish hon. Members following the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament.[83957]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer on 20 April 1999,Official Report, column 480, when she will publish the latest results of the market research tracking public perception of the millennium bug. [84842]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have today placed copies of the Executive Summaries of the February and March tracking research in the Libraries of the House.
  286
  The results are broadly consistent with the results for January, showing that concern amongst the public on this issue is still low. The results also show that those questioned are looking beyond the impact of the Bug on computers and are now considering the wider effects.

  Official Functions
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the President of the Council what official functions she held on 13 April; and if she will list the persons who attended. [84668]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the morning, I attended a Privy Council Meeting; later in the day, I had meetings with officials in my Department. In the evening, I hosted an official function for Parliamentary Private Secretaries. This was one of three functions I have recently hosted as Leader of the House to build up contacts with, and thank, people, such as select committee chairmen, who shoulder a specific and extra burden of work in the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Aviation (Near Misses)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many investigations have been held in the past year into reports of near misses by aircraft flying over the UK; how many were related to aircraft using the Clacton sector air corridor; whether an investigation is being made into reports of an incident on 7 May; what action he will take to prevent further incidents; and if he will make a statement. [84035]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All reported airprox incidents are fully investigated by the independent UK Airprox Board (UKAB). Information on the location of individual airprox incidents is not held in the form requested. In 1998, UKAB investigated 202 airprox incidents, slightly lower than at any time in the past decade, despite significant increases in traffic over that period. Up to 7 May 1999 there have been 66 incidents reported to the UKAB.

  The Civil Aviation Authority's Safety Regulation Group (SRG) is carrying out an investigation into the airprox incident which occurred on 6 May over Essex. Once completed, the SRG report will be passed to the UKAB for its review and assessment of the incident. UKAB will publish its findings. This will include an assessment of the degree of collision risk and any safety recommendations UKAB thinks it appropriate to make.

  Landfill Tax Credits
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been awarded to environmental bodies since January 1997 under the landfill tax credit scheme; and what percentage of this total is a voluntary donation from landfill operators and not refunded through landfill tax credits. [84214]

  Mr. Meale
  According to Entrust, £162.4 million was awarded to environmental bodies as at 13 May 1999 and 10 per cent. of this total is a voluntary donation from landfill operators and not refunded through the landfill tax credits.

  Auditors
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what qualitative reviews are required by the Audit Commission of the work of district auditors; and how many such reviews were carried out in the case of the District Auditor's investigation of Westminster City Council. [84105]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Commission operates a quality control review process to monitor the performance of auditors and to ensure they comply with its Code of Audit Practice, which is issued under section 4(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and approved by Parliament, and with professional auditing standards. The Commission reviewed the work of the District Auditor's investigation of Westminster City Council designated sales on a number of occasions, most recently in April 1996.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the fee levels, in pounds per hour, charged by each of the auditors appointed by the Audit Commission over the period from July 1989 to April 1999. [84103]

  Ms Armstrong
  The standard composite fee rates for principal authorities set by the Commission since 1989 are as follows:

  £ per hour

  London

  South-East

  Elsewhere

  Local Government

  November 1988

  36.00

  31.50

  31.00

  November 1989

  40.00

  34.30

  33.50

  November 1990

  44.50

  38.25

  37.00

  November 1991

  47.50

  40.90

  39.40

  November 1992

  48.20

  42.50

  40.00

  November 1993

  48.20

  42.50

  40.00

  November 1994

  48.70

  42.90

  40.40

  November 1995

  49.70

  43.80

  41.20

  November 1996

  50.70

  44.70

  42.00

  November 1997

  52.70

  46.50

  43.70

  November 1998

  55.30

  48.80

  45.90

  Health

  November 1990

  46.50

  40.00

  38.75

  November 1991

  49.80

  43.00

  41.40

  November 1992

  50.40

  44.60

  42.00

  November 1993

  50.90

  45.10

  42.40

  November 1994

  51.40

  45.60

  42.80

  November 1995

  52.40

  46.50

  43.70

  November 1996

  53.50

  47.40

  44.60

  November 1997

  55.60

  49.30

  46.40

  November 1998

  57.80

  51.20

  48.20

  District Auditor's Inquiry (Westminster)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tendering procedures were employed by the District Auditor in the case of Westminster City Council in choosing his legal representative.[84104]

  Ms Armstrong
  This is a matter for the independent appointed auditor.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been levied from local authorities by the Audit Commission up to 30 April to finance the Divisional 288
  Court and the Appeal Court costs of Westminster Council's appointed auditor, his support staff and legal team. [84116]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Audit Commission is required to balance income with expenditure taking one year with another. The Audit Commission has met, in relation to the Westminster designated sales inquiry, costs of £2,997,000 incurred by the auditor in respect of his costs and those of his solicitor and barrister.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the amount which the Audit Commission will need to levy from local authorities to reimburse the legal costs of the six persons cleared by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal of liability for the surcharge by the Westminster Council's Auditor. [84117]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend has made no such estimate. Audit fees are a matter for the independent Audit Commission.

  European Nuclear Installations
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements have been made with the police and local authorities for dealing with an overseas nuclear accident over the millennium period. [84255]

  Mr. Meale
  Arrangements for dealing with the consequences for the UK of an overseas nuclear accident are set out in the National Response Plan, copies of which are held in the House Library. These can be activated at any time.

  There is therefore no need for arrangements to be made with any of the relevant bodies who would be involved in the response to such an accident over the millennium period.

  Local Elections
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department is taking in order to increase voter interest in local elections.[84393]

  Mr. Meale
  Our modernisation agenda for local government, as set out in the White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", published in July 1998, includes a range of measures designed to reinvigorate local democracy and to modernise local electoral arrangements. Where this programme requires legislation, it will be implemented when parliamentary time allows.

  Aggregate Supply Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place the London Economics report on the cost and benefits of aggregate supply in the Library. [84498]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A pre-publication copy of the Report was placed in the House of Commons Library on Monday 17 May. A copy of the printed report will be provided as soon as it is available.

  Planes (Fuel)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents have been reported to him involving planes entering United Kingdom air space with insufficient fuel to meet safety standards in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [84487]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the past two years the CAA has received 12 reports of aircraft arriving at UK airports with fuel levels below the prescribed minimum.

  The international standard for minimum fuel levels is contained in Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. This requires that an aircraft should arrive at its destination airport with enough fuel to make an approach to land, carry out a missed approach, fly to an alternate airport, hold for 30 minutes and carry out the subsequent approach and landing. The aircraft should also carry a contingency reserve specified by the relevant national aviation authority. The breaching of minimum fuel levels does not immediately place an aircraft in danger.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public subsidy given to each of the train operating companies for the most recent year for which figures are available. [84656]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest available public subsidy for each train operating company are contained in OPRAF's 1997–98 Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Local Government Association in respect of possible future legislation to implement the White Paper on Integrated Transport. [84232]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have received a number of representations from the Local Government Association. We aim to introduce the legislation to implement further elements of the integrated transport strategy as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets have been set for improving energy efficiency in his Department's buildings at(a) Eland House, (b) Ashdown House and Great Minster House. [84234]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The targets are to reduce energy emissions by:

  (a) 13%% in Eland House and Ashdown House by March 2005 compared to June 1997, and

  (b) 3%% in Great Minster House by March 2000 compared to March 1999.

  Eland House was occupied in 1997 and Ashdown House in 1998. Both buildings were fitted out to high standards of environmental design to maximise energy efficiency.
  290
  Great Minster House was occupied in 1995. This building was fitted out to a more conventional style and the controls for energy management are not as sophisticated as for Eland and Ashdown House.

  Elections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken on correlation between voter turnout in local elections and the frequency of elections. [84543]

  Mr. Meale
  This year we have commissioned wide-ranging research to examine the factors affecting turnout in local elections. The expected results will include an updating of the Department's report, "Explaining election turnout: a secondary analysis of local election statistics", published in 1994.

  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning improvements to the London concessionary fares scheme; and if he will make a statement. [84545]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have received representations from Members of Parliament, the Association of London Government, the Transport Committee for London, organisations representing Freedom Pass Holders and some individual Freedom Pass Holders.

  I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 4 May 1999, Official Report, column 771, in which I explained that we have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improving the scheme. We will be introducing amendments in the Lords which will update the scheme and help maintain its stability. For the statutory reserve scheme the start and finish times will be brought up to date and the arrangements for determining costs will be clarified. We also plan to give the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to implement the recommendations of the KPMG report on the setting of fees for local air pollution control. [84700]

  Mr. Meale
  KPMG is currently undertaking an investigation of local air pollution control regime costs in England and Wales commissioned by the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The final report of the study, which will be completed in July, will inform our decisions on charging levels for 2000–2001 and any structural changes in 2001–2002 in England. Local authority and trade associations will be consulted on all proposed changes.

  The future level of local air pollution control charges in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  291
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the changes in local air pollution control fees for each year since 1997–98. [84702]

  Table A

  £

  Charges for:

  Type of charge

  Type of process

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Application Fee

  Standard (those not listed below)

  1,040

  1,065

  1,280

  Waste oil burning appliance/s under 0.4MW

  100

  100

  120

  Unloading of petrol into storage tanks at a service station

  100

  100

  120

  Mobile screening and crushing plant

  See table B

  Annual Subsistence Charge

  Standard (those not listed below)

  640

  660

  790

  Standard charge where paid quarterly

  660

  685

  820

  Waste oil burning appliances under 0.4MW

  100

  100

  120

  Unloading of petrol into storage tanks at a service station

  100

  100

  120

  Odourising of natural gas

  As standard charge

  240

  290

  Mobile screening and crushing plant

  See table B

  Substantial changes

  Standard (those not listed below)

  665

  680

  815

  (Sections 10 and 11 of the Act)

  Waste oil burning appliance/s under 0.4MW

  65

  65

  80

  Unloading of petrol into storage tanks at a service station

  65

  65

  80

  Change to implement an upgrading plan

  100

  100

  120

  Mobile screening and crushing plant

  Where the process comprises mobile crushing and screening plant, the application fee and subsistence charge payable will be dependent upon the number of authorisations held by the operator. The following application fees and subsistence charges apply for these plant.

  Table B

  £

  Charges for each authorization:

  Type of charge

  Number of authorizations held of operator

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Application fee

  1 or 2

  1,040

  1,065

  1,280

  3 to 7

  624

  639

  765

  8 and over

  312

  319

  385

  Subsistence charge

  1 or 2

  640

  655

  785

  3 to 7

  384

  393

  470

  8 and over

  192

  196

  235

  The information relating to Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the fee level for local air pollution control for 1999–2000. [84701]

  Mr. Meale
  Details for the 1999–2000 England and Wales charging scheme for local air pollution control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are set out in my written answer dated 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 62–64.

  The information relating to Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Federal Express
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses to his Department's consultation document on
  292
  Mr. Meale
  The local air pollution control fees and charges for England and Wales since 1997–98 are as set out:

  Federal Express's application for fifth freedom rights from Prestwick and Stansted airports have been received; and of these how many were (a) in favour of granting those rights unilaterally, (b) opposed to the application and (c) in favour if UK carriers were given reciprocal access to the US market. [84386]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The responses to the consultation exercise are currently being evaluated so we are not yet in a position to give the information requested. I will write to my hon. Friend once this evaluation is completed.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the formal amendment to the Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement setting out the terms on which this is extended to a total of 99 years. [84794]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of Cm 4350, "The Channel Fixed Link: Amendment No 3 to Concession Agreement", setting out the text of the formal Amendment, as signed by the four parties to the concession agreement of 1986, under which the duration is extended until the 99th anniversary of the date on which that agreement came into operation.

  Boundary Commission (England)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to appoint a new Member of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England to succeed David Macklin CBE. [84844]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today appointed Robin Gray to serve as a Member of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. Mr. Gray is also a Member of the Local Government Commission for England. His appointment, reflecting the Government's commitment to
  293
  foster improved co-ordination between the Commissions, will help co-ordinate work undertaken by them on electoral matters.

  Major Projects
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue proposals for improving the processing of major projects of national significance through the planning system. [84753]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today issued a consultation paper on streamlining the processing of major infrastructure projects and other major projects of national significance. Comments are invited by 30 July 1999.

  The purpose of the proposals is to achieve significant improvements in the time taken to handle major projects, whilst continuing to ensure that adequate opportunity is given for people to have a say, test the evidence and reach a sound decision. To that end, the paper proposes:
  preparation of statements to set the national policy framework for projects before they are considered in the planning system and to reduce unnecessary debate at a subsequent public inquiry;
  supplementing existing mechanisms for Parliamentary involvement with new Parliamentary procedures for approving projects in principle before consideration of detailed issues at inquiry, with provision to avoid discussing at inquiry matters settled by Parliament's approval in principle; and
  improved public inquiry procedures for major projects. These are in addition to those which I announced on 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 762, for streamlining planning inquiries and other methods of handling appeals generally in response to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). The consultation paper nevertheless invites views on the potential for applying the proposals for streamlining inquiries into major projects to a wider range of projects.

  The package of proposals published today is designed to deliver significant savings by streamlining the procedures for handling major projects and speeding the decision-making process. This will reduce delay, costs and uncertainty for all involved and secure the benefits of projects which are approved more quickly.

  A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to bring into force the main provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [84722]

  Mr. Straw
  We plan to bring the remaining provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 into force on Monday 2 October 2000. Some provisions—principally those of section 19 (relating to statements by Ministers of the Crown about the compatibility of Bills with the Convention rights)—are already in force.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the membership of the steering group which he will chair to oversee 294
  the implementation of his action plan to take forward the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [84883]

  Mr. Straw
  Details of membership of the Steering Group are as follows:

  Members representing official bodies

  The right hon. Jack Straw MP

  Home Secretary

  Paul Boateng MP

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Sir Herman Ouseley

  Chairman

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Bob Purkiss

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Mark Addison

  Chief Executive

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Dan Crompton

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary

  Charles Clarke

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for School Standards

  Department for Education and Employment

  Denis O'Connor

  Assistant Commissioner

  Metropolitan Police

  Tony Burden

  Chairman of the Association of Chief Police

  Officers Race and Community Relations Committee

  Fred Broughton

  Chairman

  The Police Federation

  Peter Gammon

  Chairman

  The Police Superintendents' Association

  Ruth Henig

  Chair

  Association of Police Authorities

  Robyn Williams

  National Black Police Association

  Independent Members of the Steering Group

  Maqsood Ahmad

  Ros Howells OBE

  Anita Sharda

  Beverley Thompson

  Doreen Lawrence

  Neville Lawrence

  Judy Clements

  Keith Kerr

  Usha Sood

  Gurbus Singh

  Mark Blake.

  Membership reflects the commitment given in the Action Plan that involvement and consultation of minority ethnic people, as well as the police service and other relevant organisations, will be one of the principles which will guide all the work to implement the plan.

  The Steering Group is meeting for the first time today. The purpose of the meeting is to agree terms of reference, to consider what progress has been made so far in

  295
  implementing the Action Plan, and to identify areas for particular attention at future meetings. It is expected that the Group will meet 5 or 6 times a year.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84204]

  Mr. Straw
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on 'The Government Information and Communication Service' in July 1998. A copy is in the Library.

  The numbers in post at 1 May 1999 were 17 plus three trainees.

  Special Advisers: In this Department, there are two special advisers; one (Ed Owen) has significant contact with the media but neither are specifically employed in media relations.

  Coroners Offices
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those coroners' offices which provide an out of hours service which enables the authorisation of removal of bodies out of England at a weekend when the death occurs during or immediately before that weekend. [84689]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The coroner service is a local service. Details of the arrangements available locally, including those for the purposes of authorising the removal of bodies abroad, are not held centrally.

  Coroners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 75, concerning coroners, how many currently employed coroners do not have one of the specified qualifications. [84715]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the Coroners Act 1988, no person is eligible to be appointed as a coroner unless one of the prescribed qualifications is held. Records of qualifications held by coroners are a matter for the local authority which appointed them.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 April 1999,Official Report, columns 110–11, on home detention curfews, how many of the curfewees who were released on curfew and who were charged with an offence committed during the period of curfew and thereby made subject to breach action under section 38(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, were (a) returned to custody and (b) remained on home detention curfew. [84071]
  296
  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information shows that all of the 14 curfewees referred to in the reply given on 27 April 1999,Official Report, columns 110–11, remained on curfew until the end of their home detention curfew period. They would remain liable to breach action after that date. However, information about cases dealt with after the expiry of home detention curfew is not held centrally.

  The Government recognise the need to expedite breach action in such cases. It is for that reason that Section 103 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was implemented on 1 January 1999. This will mean that a curfewee whose original offence was committed on or after 1 January 1999 and who commits an offence during the home detention curfew period will be liable to immediate recall by the Secretary of State.

  Police
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers, per force in total, there were in England and Wales on 31 March; how many there were in each case per head of population; and if he will make a statement. [84367]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not yet available. Once all the data from police forces has been received and validated, the statistics will be placed in the Library. I expect this information to be available in early June, on the basis of last year's timetable.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1999,Official Report, column 468, on the Cleveland Police, if the meeting of the Cleveland Police Authority on 8 February discussed the 999 call from the house of the former Deputy Chief Constable on 20 January. [84259]

  Mr. Boateng
  Yes. The issue was dealt with as a confidential matter in private session in accordance with Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to provide any further details.

  Lancet Inquiry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 1999,Official Report, column 317, on the cost of the Lancet inquiry, if the salaries of the eight suspended officers mentioned in his answer of 20 April 1999, Official Report, column 484, were included in his breakdown of costs. [84249]

  Mr. Boateng
  The salaries of the eight suspended officers were not included in the breakdown of costs, as these referred solely to the salary costs of Cleveland Officers working on the Lancet Inquiry and not those officers who are the subject of the investigation.

  The salary costs of the eight suspended officers total £282,703 per annum inclusive of allowances and costs. In accordance with Force policy, those salaries are carried by the particular District to which the officers were posted when they were suspended; in this case all eight officers were posted to Middlesbrough District.
  297
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 1999,Official Report, column 317, on the Lancet Inquiry, if he will list the total cost of the salaries of the 11 officers, and the total number of days each one has worked on the Lancet Inquiry. [84260]

  Mr. Boateng
  One of the 11 officers of the Force's Organised Crime Group has tendered his intention to retire from the Police Service with effect from 23 May 1999. The remaining 10 officers' salaries total £326,351, inclusive of allowances and costs. The information requested on the number of days each one has worked on the Lancet Inquiry is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost to Cleveland Constabulary.

  Corpus Juris Report
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the Government's evidence to the House of Lords European Communities Committee's inquiry into the corpus juris report. [84070]

  Kate Hoey
  Copies of the evidence have now been placed in the Library.

  Homophobic Crimes
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of recorded homophobic crimes for each police force in each year since 1996. [84069]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally, although Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary have encouraged police forces to implement locally, recording systems for homophobic incidents and crime.

  In the Home Office, recorded crime statistics incidents of homophobic crime could appear in the categories of, for example, violence against the person and criminal damage, but there is no way of identifying those offences which have a homophobic element.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the number of homophobic attacks. [84068]

  Mr. Boateng
  The crime reduction partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are required to carry out audits and publish strategies to deal with crime in their area. This includes strategies to deal with crimes against the gay and lesbian community.

  The police service is also taking steps to improve communication between forces and gay and lesbian communities both to promote better understanding within the service of the impact of such incidents on the community and to provide a better service. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) published in 1996 a good practice guide for dealing with homophobic incidents. Recording and monitoring systems are being improved in order to enable forces to deal appropriately with such incidents.

  Agreement has recently been reached by ACPO that the definition of a homophobic incident should be simplified
  298

  to bring it into line with the more simplified definition of a racist incident recommended by the Macpherson Inquiry. This will be promulgated throughout the service.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the programme and itinerary for the visits of the biotechnology clusters team to centres in the United Kingdom and overseas. [83314]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: As announced on 16 April, the team of experts who will accompany Lord Sainsbury on a fact-finding mission to examine the growth of biotechnology clusters will undertake a programme of visits in the UK and the United States as follows:

  April 1999

  May 1999

  June 1999

  Cambridge

  Seattle

  Boston

  Guildford

  Central Scotland

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  In addition, officials are undertaking visits and consultations in Manchester, York, London, Newcastle, Norwich and Cardiff and, where appropriate, will be compiling data on other centres.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what ethical and environmental guidance exists for the Export Credits Guarantee Department on applications for support. [83976]

  Mr. Wilson
  ECGD abides by the government's policy on the environment and human rights as outlined in Foreign Office Mission Statement.

  If there are environmental or ethical concerns which could impact adversely on a project for which ECGD has been asked to provide support, as part of its risk assessment process, ECGD looks closely at how these concerns can be mitigated or resolved before deciding whether to provide cover. ECGD is currently strengthening its environmental screening process and will publish further guidance for its customers later in the year. In relation to defence transactions, ECGD support is available only when export licences have been granted.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the number of people likely to be displaced as a result of the proposed construction of the Ilisu Dam. [83977]

  Mr. Wilson
  The advice we have so far received is that between 12,000 to 15,000 people may be displaced as a result of the construction of the Ilisu Power Project. We will be commissioning independent advice on this and related matters.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amount of credit is being
  299
  requested by Balfour Beattie from the Export Credits Guarantee Department to underwrite its share of the cost of the Ilisu Dam. [83978]

  Mr. Wilson
  While the final amount of UK supply has not yet been finalised (and is a figure that at this stage is normally treated as commercial-in-confidence and not disclosed), I am advised that the current estimate of loan value is between US$200m and US$250m. No decision on ECGD cover has yet been taken.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the conditions which have been applied to the Her Majesty's Government's granting of export credit insurance for the Ilisu Dam. [84531]

  Mr. Wilson
  No decision on ECGD cover has been taken and so it is not possible to make any statement at this time.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if approval of UK export credit guarantees for the Ilisu Dam in Turkey will be conditional on the project complying with(a) the World Bank's guidelines and (b) the UN Convention on the Laws of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses International Waterways. [84228]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have yet to take a decision on whether ECGD support should be made available for this project. We require to be satisfied on a number of issues, including the implications for the local population and issues concerning downstream waterflows and neighbouring states.

  Fashion Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many trade fairs organised by his Department in the past three years have included representatives of the British fashion industry; and in which countries these were held. [84413]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department provides support, primarily through grants to firms in groups, to exhibit at trade fairs and similar events abroad. The number of such events in the clothing, footwear and fashion industry in each of the past three years is shown in the table. In the UK, my Department has also supported twice annually the participation of up-and-coming British designers at London Fashion Week.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Australia

  0

  0

  1

  Cyprus

  0

  1

  1

  France

  15

  14

  12

  Germany

  8

  5

  5

  Hong Kong

  1

  1

  1

  Italy

  3

  5

  2

  Japan

  2

  2

  2

  Poland

  0

  0

  1

  Russia

  2

  2

  0

  South Korea

  0

  1

  0

  Spain

  2

  1

  1

  Sweden

  1

  0

  0

  UAE

  2

  2

  1

  USA

  3

  2

  5

  Total

  39

  37

  32

  Total events supported

  358

  307

  399

  Mirror Group
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish the Inspector's report into the Mirror Group flotation. [84336]

  Mr. Byers
  The inspectors have yet to report to me.

  E-envoy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what salary the Government are proposing for the e-Envoy. [84349]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 6 May 1999,Official Report, column 449.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has conducted into the feasibility of adding a limited amount of alcohol to petrol as a method of reducing net carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. [84318]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department of Trade and Industry co-funded the following paper study, which was published in 1996, with the Department of Transport, where alcohol-based products were studied for their potential use as alternative fuels in the UK to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions:'Alternative Road Transport Fuels—A Preliminary Life-cycle Study for the UK' in two volumes, Energy Technology Support Unit (ISBN 0–11–5-5154–10–8 AND –11–515411–6).

  Two other paper studies, wholly or partially funded by the Government, have also been published. These are:
  'Alternative Fuels for Road Vehicles' by M. L. Poulton, Transport Research Laboratory 1994 (ISBN 1–85312–301–3/ISBN 56252–225–6);
  'Automotive Fuels Survey 1996', a study in three volumes by the International Energy Authority.

  Electricity Industry
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the rate of progress in the reform of the electricity pool. [84641]

  Mr. Battle
  The White Paper on 'Fuel Sources for Power Generation (Cm 4071)' published in October 1998 confirmed the Government's intention to proceed with the replacement of the Electricity Pool with new trading arrangements. Work to develop the details of the new market arrangements is being led by DTI and Offer with strong industry and consumer involvement. I expect this development work to be complete in July. The final date for the full implementation of the new market will be announced in the light of that work.

  Power Stations
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the regional location of power stations. [84642]

  Mr. Battle
  It is for developers to put forward proposals for new power generation capacity. If there are system benefits to be gained from a particular proposal then these will be taken into account by my right hon.
  301
  Friend the Secretary of State, together with all other relevant energy policy, planning, environmental and local considerations.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84200]

  Mr. Byers
  Detailed information on the number of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on the 'The Government Information and Communication Service (HC770)' in July 1998, which is in the Library of the House. The number in post on 1 May 1999 was 21.

  Special Advisers in this department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishment Sites
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 9, regarding Atomic Weapons Establishment sites, if he will list the three consortia who are interested in bidding for the contract; and if he will place in the Library copies of the unclassified documents which have so far been issued or made public during the selection procedure. [84348]

  Mr. Spellar
  The three consortia who have declared an interest in bidding are:AWE Management Ltd, comprising Serco Defence Support, British Nuclear Fuels plc and the Lockheed Martin Corporation;
  AWE 2100, comprising Babcock Facilities Management, Scientific Application International Corporation and W. S. Atkins plc,
  and Hunting BRAE DERA, comprising Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root, AEA Technology, and DERA.

  A copy of any unclassified documents which have been issued or made public during the selection process to date will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RBL 755 Cluster Bomb
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 May 1999,Official Report, column 11, on weapons systems equipment, what type of targets are selected for the specific use by the RAF of the RBL 755 cluster bomb; and how many have been used in Kosovo to date. [84350]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Up to 16 May, a total of 423 RBL 755 bombs had been dropped by the RAF in support of Operation Allied Force. This weapon is particularly effective against Serb forces deployed in the field in Kosovo, and targets have included main battle tanks, armoured personnel carriers, other military vehicles, artillery, field headquarters and troop concentrations. It is 302
  not designed to be used as a runway cratering weapon, and has not been used to attack runways; nor is it designed to impede damage repair.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Invincible is due to be refitted; and where the refit will take place. [84507]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Invincible's refit is programmed to start in late 2001 at Rosyth Royal Dockyard.

  HMS Illustrious
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of the refit of HMS Illustrious. [84521]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to date of HMS Illustrious's maintenance period is about £14.5 million.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what refits are planned for RFA Sir Geraint and RFA Sir Percivale. [84523]

  Mr. Spellar
  Refits are planned for both Sir Geraint and Sir Percivale in 2001.

  Mr. Patrick Finucane
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 1999,Official Report, columns 373–74, concerning the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane, if he will make a statement on Mr. John Stevens' recent statements concerning investigation of the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane. [83389]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: Further to my written answer of 16 April 1999, Official Report, columns 373–74, I should like to clarify the position concerning Mr. John Stevens' role in relation to the investigation into the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary carried out a criminal investigation of the murder itself and Mr. Stevens investigated the circumstances surrounding the murder, namely the related allegations of collusion.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Fleet Support at Portsmouth bid for the refit of HMS Ark Royal; and if he will make a statement. [84568]

  Mr. Spellar
  The HMS Ark Royal refit is part of the allocated programme of work at Rosyth Royal Dockyard and was not competed.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Vetting Agency plans to move to York. [84550]
  303
  Mr. Spellar
  It is planned that about half the Agency will move in April 2000, with the remainder moving by early 2001. The move should be completed by April 2001. Some personnel and planning staff may be established in York before April 2000.

  UK/US Military Agreements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all current UK/US military agreements, giving in each case the date on which they were entered into and the objectives.[84233]

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of(a) shepherds and (b) sheep killed by US and UK action in Iraq. [84576]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am aware of Iraqi claims that recent actions in the no-fly zones have caused civilian casualties and killed livestock on 29 and 30 April and again on 12 May. If these claims are true the casualties are deeply regrettable. Civilians and civilian property are never deliberately targeted by coalition pilots. Their mission (in support of UNSCR 688) is to prevent Saddam's air forces from persecuting the Kurds and Shia Muslims of northern and southern Iraq. The military action undertaken in the no-fly zones in recent months has been in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down or otherwise threaten aircraft and kill aircrew.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out under which headings in his Departmental cash plans contained in Cm 4208, nuclear weapons(a) procurement, (b) deployment, (c) storage and (d) related maintenance activities are contained. [81499]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [pursuant to the reply, 12 April 1999, c. 563]: Costs relating to nuclear weapons procurement are contained in Vote 1 subheads K and L. Costs associated with the storage of nuclear weapons and related maintenance activities are contained in Vote 1 subheads F and D; the latter costs are in relation to redundant naval systems. Vote 1 subhead A covers the front line operating costs of the deterrent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 8 May the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups; [83974]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 8 May the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment
  304
  shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [83975]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 2–8 May 1999 are as follows:Shooting incidents: 4
  Bombing incidents: 1.

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

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  0

  0

  Shootings

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  1

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendments.

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

  State Pathologists
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many state pathologists there are in Northern Ireland. [83934]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is one State Pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, who is assisted by a Deputy State Pathologist, Dr. Derek Carson, and one other consultant forensic pathologist.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many post mortems each state pathologist in Northern Ireland has conducted in each of the last three years; and what were the numbers performed by Home Office pathologists in England and Wales. [83937]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am not prepared to release the numbers of post mortems performed by individual forensic pathologists. The total numbers of post mortems performed in Northern Ireland by the State Pathologist's Department in the previous three years were:

  Number

  1996

  1,479

  1997

  1,525

  1998

  1,672

  The number of forensic post mortems performed by pathologists in England and Wales is a matter for the Home Secretary.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to issue a standard charter for the State Pathologists Department. [83939]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans for a charter for the State Pathologist's Department. The work of the Department is presently under review and I propose to await the outcome of the review before considering that possibility.

  Death Certificates (Delays)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many relatives of the deceased in each of the last 10 years have waited(a) one year, (b) two

  305
  years and (c) more than two years between the death and the issuing of a death certificate; and if she will issue a statement. [83936]

  Year

  All deaths registered

  Registered within 1 year of death

  Registered 1 and 2 years of death

  Registered 2 and 3 years of death

  Registered 3 or more years after death

  1988

  15,814

  15,675

  113

  21

  5

  1989

  15,844

  15,700

  113

  23

  8

  1990

  15,426

  15,243

  144

  29

  10

  1991

  15,096

  14,919

  147

  18

  12

  1992

  14,988

  14,813

  129

  30

  16

  1993

  15,633

  15,453

  142

  23

  15

  1994

  15,114

  14,886

  147

  57

  24

  1995

  15,310

  15,099

  142

  34

  35

  1996

  15,218

  15,027

  151

  17

  23

  1997

  14,971

  14,715

  180

  58

  18

  Information from 1988–96 (inclusive) is based on the registration date being recorded as the first day of the month. 1997 registration have been recorded as the actual date of registration.

  Deaths are normally required to be registered within five days of a death. Registrations after the expiration of one year require the written authority of the Registrar General. Some deaths require referral to a Coroner and can be registered only on subsequent notification from that office. In Northern Ireland Coroners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

  Grass Cutting (Belfast)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which department is responsible for cutting the grass(a) at Belmont roundabout on the intersection of Belmont Road and Knock Dual Carriageway, Belfast and (b) in front of Nos. 1 to 40 Old Holywood Road; and how often the grass is cut. [83932]

  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 G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 17 May 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about grass cutting at the roundabout on the intersection of Belmont Road and Knock Dual Carriageway and in front of numbers 1–40 Old Holywood Road. Belfast. I assume that the roundabout to which you refer is that at the intersection of Belmont Road and Parkway/Hawthornden Way. In Mr. McCoubrey's absence, I am replying.
  I can confirm that Roads Service is responsible for cutting the grass at both these locations. These areas are maintained in accordance with our current grass cutting policy which allows for up to 5 cuts per growing season in urban areas.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Post Mortems
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many post mortems were conducted in each of the last five years in Northern Ireland. [83935]

  Mr. McFall
  Information on the number of post mortems conducted in Northern Ireland during the latest years for which information is available is given in Tables 1 and 2.
  306
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information is available only for date of death and date of registration. The figures are as follows:

  Table 1: Number of post mortems conducted in Northern Ireland hospitals 1994–95 to 1997–98

  Year

  Number of post mortems

  1997–98

  840

  1996–97

  1,029

  1995–96

  1,034

  1994–95

  984

  Table 2: Number of post mortems conducted in the State Pathology Department 1994–98

  Year

  Number of post mortems

  1998

  1,672

  1997

  1,525

  1996

  1,479

  1995

  1,524

  1994

  1,471

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to allow hospital pathologists to conduct routine post mortems. [83938]

  Mr. McFall
  Hospital pathologists already perform routine post mortems as part of their work. In addition, they may perform post mortem examinations on patients who are the subject of a Coroner's investigation.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Reserve)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recruits there were to the RUC reserve in each of the last five years; how many recruits are currently training; and when the next intake will be into the RUC reserve. [83933]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of recruits to the RUC Reserve in the last 5 years are as follows:

  1994: 116

  1995: 45

  1996: 62

  1997: 29

  1998: 122.

  These figures relate to the full-time reserve. There has been no recruitment to the part-time reserve for some time.
  307
  There are currently no recruits in training and the date and numbers of the next intake have yet to be determined.

  Lee Clegg (Trial Costs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 27 April 1999,Official Report, columns 116–17, on the costs of the trial of Lee Clegg, for what reasons an answer could be prepared only at disproportionate cost. [83988]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: Costs in individual trials are not collated. The information on the costs in Lee Clegg's trial in 1993 is not recorded in a form which is easily accessible. An extensive and protracted search of records would be necessary to retrieve it.

  Trial Costs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the heads under which the costs of a criminal trial are recorded by her Department. [83989]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: "Counsels' Fees" and "Payments to Witnesses" are recorded under those heads. Other costs are not recorded under specific heads.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each of the past 10 years her Department has been asked for the cost of specific criminal trials; and if she will list the trials, indicating those in respect of which information has been refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost. [83990]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: Once. On 31 October 1994, Official Report, column 923, in answer to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the then Secretary of State replied that information about the cost to the State of the arrest, prosecution and appeal of Messrs, Latimer, Bell, Allen and Hegan was not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Early Release
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those terrorist prisoners released early under the Good Friday agreement by 13 May would have been due for release by that date under the terms of the early release arrangements which apply in Northern Ireland. [84667]

  Mr. Ingram
  All 181 of the terrorist prisoners serving determinate sentences who have to date been released under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, would have been eligible for release under the terms of the early release arrangements contained in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995. The 1995 Act did not cover prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, some 85 of whom have been released under the 1998 Act. This information is taken from statistics which are current at 17 May 1999.

WALES

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of removing student tuition fees for higher education in Wales. [83980]

  Mr. Hain
  The higher education institutions in Wales would not benefit from the forecast private contribution of:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  16.0

  2000–01

  23.3

  2001–02

  26.5

  The source of these figures is the Department's Funding letter of 15 December 1998 to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The figures are the estimated student tuition fee contributions from all UK and EU domiciled students attending Welsh Higher Education institutions.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84202]

  Mr. Michael
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report, "The Government Information and Communication Service" (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The numbers in post at 1 May are 13.

  Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

  Killay Medical Centre
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision on the application for a pharmacy at Killay Medical Centre. [84664]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This has come to my right hon. Friend as an appeal against a decision by Iechyd Morgannwg Health Authority. Consideration of the case must include certain statutory periods for consultation and other essential processes and a decision will be announced once these have been concluded.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payments (Automation)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the total expenditure on the scheme to automate benefit payments at post offices has been to date; [84109]
  309
  (2) if he will publish a report on the trials for the automation of benefit payments at post offices and sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement; [84106]

  (3) on what date the automation of benefit payments at post offices will be implemented nationally; [84107]

  (4) what is the budget allocated to the (a) development and (b) implementation of the automation of benefit payments at post offices; [84108]

  (5) what is his estimate of the cost of completing the automation of benefit payments at post offices. [84110]

  Mr. Timms
  To date, the Department's total expenditure amounts to £268 million. This expenditure provides a range of services and an IT infrastructure that will also support our wider programme of modernisation.

  We are monitoring the progress of the trials very closely. There are no plans to publish a report.

  On present plans, automation of post offices will be completed within the next two years.

  Under the terms of the PFI contract to automate business transacted at post offices, including the payment of benefits, ICL Pathway is responsible for the bulk of development and implementation. This Department has a budget of £1.2 billion (at 1997–98 prices for the period 1994–2005) for a range of services and IT infrastructure to support post office automation and the Department's wider programme of modernisation.

  This Department, Post Office Counters Ltd. and ICL Pathway are presently working together to progress the project. The costs of completion will not be known until plans have been finalised.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84196]

  Mr. Timms
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The full-time equivalent of the staff in post in the Department of Social Security as of 1 May 1999 was 60.1.

  Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none specifically employed in media relations.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the guidance issued to adjudicators and BAMS doctors on the assessment of people diagnosed as suffering from ME. [84542]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department's Chief Medical Adviser issues guidance to all doctors approved by the Secretary of State to undertake medical assessments for State benefit 310

  purposes. The guidance is contained in the Handbook for Medical Services Doctors and in the Disability Handbook. Both these Handbooks contain a section on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (also known as ME). The handbooks are available to decision makers who also have access to expert advice from a Medical Services doctor.

  Medical Services doctors employed by SEMA group, which provide medical services on behalf of the Department of Social Security are trained in those aspects of Disability Assessment Medicine which focuses on impartial and objective assessment of disability irrespective of diagnosis.

  The latest developments in the understanding of the Chronic Fatigue Syndromes are constantly kept under review by the Chief Medical Adviser and his Medical Policy Group. The guidance is reviewed in the light of any developments.

  Mortgage Costs (Benefit Claimants)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of paying in full the mortgage interest costs of recipients of Income Support and related benefits from the first day of receipt of benefit. [84663]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated cost of paying mortgage interest to working age people, as well as pensioners, from the first day of a benefit claim is £80 million.

  Notes:

  1. Mortgage interest can be included in Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  2. The costs are based on survey data from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey and modelled on the Policy Simulation Model which is uprated to 1999–2000 prices and benefit levels.

  3. The figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84198]

  Mr. Vaz
  Four civil servants, all members of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS), were employed in my Department for media relations on 1 May in the years 1997–99.

  The Special Adviser in this Department has ad hoc contact with the media but is not specifically employed in media relations.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Garner
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor' s Department, pursuant to the answer of 13 May 1999,Official Report, column 183, if he will set a date for publication of the Community Legal Service consultation document. [84669]
  311
  Mr. Vaz
  Further to the answer of the 13 May 1999, Official Report, column 183, given by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), I can confirm that the publication of the consultation paper will take place soon.

  Matrimonial Judgments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the draft Commission legislation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and parental responsibility for children; and what is the Government's policy on the draft legislation. [84094]

  Mr. Vaz
  The proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children was published by the European Commission on 4 May 1999.

  The Government are currently assessing this proposal and its implications; it is based on a convention dealing with the same subject matter which was agreed by the member states of the European Union in 1998. The Government have not yet decided what steps to take in relation to this proposal.

  Documents Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the draft Commission directive on the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil and commercial matters; and what is his policy thereto. [84093]

  Mr. Vaz
  The provisional version of the Directive was published by the European Commission on 4 May 1999. The Government are presently considering their response.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Voluntary Rationing Scheme
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding was provided under the voluntary rationing scheme in the last financial year; how many grants were made; when funding ceased to be available; and if he will make a statement on funding for the scheme for this year. [83130]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: Funding of £11.1 million was provided under the Voluntary Rationing Scheme (VRS) in 1998–99. This expenditure supported 1,036 VRS repair projects and 739 VRS capital projects. Funding for VRS repair grant was available to Voluntary Aided schools throughout 1998–99. However, due to an unusually high demand in the early part of the year, funding for VRS capital work was not provided between 27 August 1998 and 31 March 1999.

  The Voluntary Rationing Scheme is one of a number of largely demand led elements in the overall provision of grant to governing bodies for building work at Voluntary Aided schools. The amount available in any year depends on the total demand for grant for all types of capital and repair work at these schools. Funding for VRS capital will be monitored closely throughout 1999–2000 and schools
  312
  will be informed if any changes are necessary. The VRS repair arrangements have been subsumed into new and streamlined funding procedures which came into effect on 1 April 1999, after full consultation with the Churches.

  In 1999–2000, the total budget for the provision of grant towards the governors' liabilities for building work at Voluntary Aided schools is £121 million. This compares with an amount of £103 million at the time the original budget was set for 1998–99. Of the £121 million available for 1999–2000 some £17 million has provisionally been set aside for demand led elements such as the Voluntary Rationing Scheme.

  Hospital Portering
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce an NVQ in hospital portering; and if he will make a statement. [84395]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are no plans to develop an NVQ in hospital portering. The Healthcare National Training Organisation as the body responsible for developing NVQs in this sector will be looking at the feasibility of such qualifications.

  Pupils (Outdoor Activities)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that pupils have the opportunity to take part in outdoor activities as part of the school curriculum. [84693]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for a revised National Curriculum from 2000, on which we are currently consulting, outdoor and adventurous activities continue to be available for pupils aged 7–16 as one of six areas of activity in the physical education curriculum.

  "The Learning Age"
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a summary of the responses to the Green Paper, "The Learning Age". [84795]

  Mr. Mudie
  We received about 3,000 thoughtful and constructive responses to "The Learning Age". They supported our vision of the learning society and our proposals for achieving it.

  A document summarising the responses is now available and I am placing copies in the Library.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84195]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report, "The Government Information and Communication Service"
  313
  (HC770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library. The number of press officers in post at DfEE on 1 May 1999 are 30.

  Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are employed specifically in media relations.

  Boxing (Schools)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance is issued by his Department to local education authorities in respect of the provision of boxing in schools. [84229]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not issue any guidance on the provision of boxing in schools. Boxing is not a part of the National Curriculum for physical education but it is open to LEAs and schools to decide whether to offer boxing as an extra-curricular activity, should they wish to and if they have the expertise and resources to do so.

  The British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education produce "Safe Practice in Physical Education", which includes guidance on the provision of boxing in schools.

CABINET OFFICE

  Open Government Initiative
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the total number of releases under the open government initiative. [84752]

  a

  b

  c

  d

  e

  f

  g

  h

  i

  j

  Executive NDPBs

  Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority

  Dr. Anne McLaren

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Ms Sara Nathan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Biological Standards Board

  Mr. J. Metcalf

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  Prof. J. E Banatvala

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Mr. J. B. Quin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. D. Scales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Advisory NDPBS

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  Prof. D. J. Jeffries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. P. W. Jones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Mr. A. R. Clare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Miss A. M. Harris

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing

  Prof. Kay Davies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. John Durant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. John Harris

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Advisory Group on Hepatitis

  Dr. Elizabeth Boxall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Paul Hatton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs

  Prof. Stephen Holgate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. David Nutt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Mr. Alan Kerr

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  314
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The latest number of records released under the open government initiative now stands at over 102,000 and relates to releases up to the end of March 1999. This represents an increase of just under 6 per cent. over the previous total of over 96,000 which I announced on 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 255, and related to the total figure as at the end of September 1998.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 309, concerning water and oil supplies in Iraq, if he will define the term "attach ourselves". [84541]

  The Prime Minister
  I was making clear, as I said in my initial response, that there is no question of our targeting oil or water facilities.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those members of advisory committees to his Department who have declared outside interests with(a) DiaDexus, (b) Cerebrus Ltd, (c) Cerebrus PLC, (d) Stanford University, (e) Human Genome Services Inc, (f) Glaxo Wellcome, (g) the Wellcome Institute, (h) Monsanto, (i) AgrEvo and (j) SmithKline Beecham. [80127]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table, in relation to the Department's executive and advisory non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs).
  315

  a

  b

  c

  d

  e

  f

  g

  h

  i

  j

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission

  Prof. A. C. Moffatt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. A. D. Woolfson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products & the Environment

  Prof. C. Chilvers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. A. Dayan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Prof. J. Parry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. D. Tweats

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. P. Farmer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. A. Renwick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Food & Nutrition Policy

  Prof. A. A. Jackson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants

  Prof. S. T. Holgate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. A. Tattersfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. H. R. Anderson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. J. G. Ayres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. A. D. Dayan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Committee on the Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products & the Environment

  Prof. D. Davis

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. J. Parry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. D. Tweats

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines

  Prof. J. Caldwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Prof. G. W. Duff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. B. Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. I. Weller

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. J. Darbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. H. J. Dargie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. J. Chimpam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. M. Donaghy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. B. Evans

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. J. Forfar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. A. MacGowan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. N. Thomson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. K. Woodhouse

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products & the Environment

  Prof. N. A. Brown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. J. K. Chipman

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. A. G. Renwick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. J. A. Timbrell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Expert Advisory Group on AIDS

  Dr. Freedman

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  Prof. Anthony Pinching

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

  Prof. Lewis D. Ritchie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Barbara Bannister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. David Goldblatt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. Diana Walford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. Roy Anderson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Dr. Karl Nicholson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medicines Commission

  Prof. Ronald Jones OBE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Mr. Christopher Newdick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. J. Michael Newton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. Stuart Pocock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. Andrew G. Renwick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee

  Prof. Sir Cyril Chantler

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. Roderick MacSween

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. Jim McEwen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Diana Walford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prof. Sheila Willatts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  316 317

  a

  b

  c

  d

  e

  f

  g

  h

  i

  j

  UK Advisory Panel for Healthcare Workers Infected with Bloodborne Viruses

  Dr. Sheila Burns

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Prof. Ian Wells

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority

  Prof. Sheila McLean

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Key:

  (a)DiaDexus

  (b)Cerebus Ltd.

  (c)Cerebus PLC

  (d)Stanford University

  (e)Human Genome Services Inc.

  (f)Glaxo Wellcome

  (g)The Wellcome Institute

  (h)Monsanto

  (i)AgrEvo

  (j)SmithKline Beecham

  MS Patients
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a specialist nurse service for multiple sclerosis patients along the lines of the breast care nurse scheme. [83362]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department currently has no plans to establish a specialist nursing service for multiple sclerosis patients. We welcome the spirit of partnership with the voluntary sector shown by the recently launched Multiple Sclerosis Society initiatives to jointly fund nursing posts for patients with MS. It is, however, for the National Health Service locally to decide whether to pursue this initiative in the light of their local needs and priorities.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the demands on the health service arising from Kosovar refugees arriving in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [83737]

  (2) what percentage of Kosovar refugees he estimates will need NHS (a) primary care and (b) hospital treatment within one month of arrival; [83738]

  (3) if he will meet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss what account should be taken of existing health authority waiting lists in determining where Kosovar refugees are placed. [83739]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in the House on 5 May 1999,Official Report, columns 943, that the United Kingdom is prepared to give temporary protection to several thousand refugees from Kosovo. The National Health Service is expected to play its part in preparing for this and stands ready to do what is necessary to identify refugees' health problems and provide appropriate treatment.

  For the majority of refugees, individual health problems are not known until they are examined, either on arrival or soon afterwards. All refugees are being registered with a general practitioner as a matter of course. So far, more than 900 people have arrived in the UK, and experience suggests that many of those still to come will have primary healthcare needs, either now or in the near future and a few will need hospital treatment.
  318
  We have also agreed to accept a small number of priority medical cases, with their immediate family members, who meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' criteria for medical evacuation. No such cases have been received so far. We anticipate that careful selection of UK hospitals for any priority patients that do come will ensure that any impact on existing NHS waiting lists is kept to a minimum.

  Domiciliary Oxygen Service
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in his Department's review of the services available under the domiciliary oxygen service; how many outside organisations have been consulted; when he expects the review to be completed; and if he will publish its findings. [84038]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect to be in a position to seek views from organisations and companies interested in the provision of the Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Service once forthcoming guidelines from the Royal College of Physicians have been published. The timetable and the extent to which the review's conclusions will be made public are currently being considered.

  Royal Commission on Long-term Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission into long-term care. [83979]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 4 May 1999,Official Report, columns 360–61.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to promote a public debate on the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission on long-term care. [84544]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him on 1 March 1999,Official Report, columns 746–67.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Partners' Council are(a) disabled and (b) from organisations representing the disabled. [84101]

  Mr. Hutton
  Potential members of the Partners' Council were not required to declare if they had a disability.

  There are eight members of the Partners' Council who come from organisations which represent patients (including those with disabilities).

  The organisations concerned are:

  Carers National Association

  Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance

  Patients Association

  The Relatives Association

  National Consumer Council

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales

  Association of Welsh CHCs.

  A further four members of the Partners' Council are patient representatives, chosen for their experience and expertise as either patients or carers.

  Mental Health Acts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people from ethnic minorities between the ages of(a) 16 to 25, (b) 26 to 35, (c) 36 to 45 and (d) 45 years and over are currently sectioned under the Mental Health Acts in England and Wales; [84113]

  (2) how many people in London from ethnic minorities between the ages of (a) 16 to 25, (b) 26 to 35, (c) 36 to 45 and (d) over 45 years are currently sectioned under the Mental Health Acts. [84115]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The revised Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice, published in March 1999, contains new guidance for health authorities and National Health Service trusts to keep records of the ethnicity of all patients admitted under the Act, and to establish systems to monitor admissions by race and sex.

  ECT
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to monitor adherence to the guidelines issued by his Department on the use of ECT; [84218]

  (2) what audit he had carried out of the safety of ECT treatment in clinics; and if he will make a statement. [84112]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the use and safety of electro-convulsive therapy is issued by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and it is for the profession to monitor how well their guidance is being applied. ECT is an effective treatment particularly for patients with severe depression. The proper application of ECT and its procedures is an important issue for patients, for psychiatrists and for 320
  mental health services of the National Health Service. To emphasise this point, a joint letter signed by the Chief Medical Officer and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has been sent to all Consultant Psychiatrists in the NHS, all health authorities and NHS trusts. The letter states that, as part of the new clinical governance arrangements, both the Chief Medical Officer and the President of the College expect the guidance to be applied so as to improve standards in the area.

  Care Leavers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on(a) the development of improved financial arrangements for 16 to 18-year-old people leaving care and (b) the proposed new duty on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of care leavers up to the age of 18 years. [84370]

  Mr. Hutton
  As announced in The Government's Response to the Children's Safeguards Review on 5 November 1998, the Government intend legislating to extend and strengthen the statutory responsibilities of local authorities to provide after care support.

  The Government will shortly publish a consultation paper setting out new arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds who are in care or care leavers which will clarify responsibility and improve financial support for this particularly vulnerable group. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Once responses to the consultation paper have been considered, the Government will take forward any legislatory changes as soon as Parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, the Government issued guidance to local authorities in April asking them to take steps now to improve services for care leavers (LAC(99)16).

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84190]

  Ms Jowell
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial year 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on 'The Government Information and Communications Service' (HC 770) in July 1998, copies of which are available in the Library. The number in post at 1 May 1999 was 14.2

  Special advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none is specifically employed in media relations.

  Altrincham General Hospital
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the closure of wards at Altrincham General Hospital. [84671]

  Mr. Denham
  To date, there have been no representations that I am aware of received in this Department.
  321
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department was first informed of the decision of the Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust to close two wards at Altrincham General Hospital. [84672]

  Mr. Denham
  The North West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive first became aware of the proposals to close two wards at Altrincham General Hospital on 8 April 1999.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue directions to Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust to suspend its proposed closure of two wards at Altrincham General Hospital until the public consultation required by statute has taken place. [84670]

  Mr. Denham
  The North West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive have instructed Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust and Salford and Trafford Health Authority to agree a joint approach on the future of in-patient services for the elderly at Altrincham General Hospital as well as community based services.

  St. Anne's Hospital
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the future of St. Anne's hospital in Altrincham. [84673]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no recent representations concerning the future of St. Anne's Hospital, Altrincham, that I am aware of.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts and hospitals had not implemented the nurses' pay award in time for increases to be paid in April salary payments. [84674]

  Mr. Denham
  It is the responsibility of National Health Service employers to ensure that the necessary arrangements are made as soon as possible to pay the new national salary scales effective from 1 April 1999. Some employees have received their pay increase in their April salary; where this has not been possible payment will be made in May and back dated to 1 April.

  Following the publication of the Review Body Report on Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors on 1 February, a pay offer was made to nursing trades union and professional organisations on 10 February which was accepted on 16 March, subject to further discussions on the content of the Advance Letter.

  The Advance Letter promulgating the pay increase for 1999–2000 was sent for printing on 29 March and issued to the NHS on 8 April 1999, it was also placed on the NHS web site—www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/alpay.hdm; this was as soon as possible after the nursing Staff Side accepted the pay offer and agreed the contents of the letter, and was ahead of the date on which Advance Letters have been issued in previous years.

  We will be discussing with nursing unions and professional organisations whether it would be possible to speed up their consultative procedures and other administrative arrangements in future years in order to ensure nurses receive their pay increase in April.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what were the reasons for the real terms increase in expenditure on bishops listed in the Church Commissioners' last annual report. [84187]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' expenditure on bishops falls into three distinct categories: stipends, working costs and housing costs (diocesan bishops only).

  Bishops' stipends (pay) increased in line with the stipend increase recommended for parish clergy. From 1 April 1998, the stipend of a diocesan bishop was £27,660 and the stipend of a suffragan bishop was £22,740. The Commissioners' expenditure on bishops' stipends rose by £0.2 million, from £2.5 million in 1997 to £2.7 million in 1998.

  Bishops' working costs increased by £0.7 million, from £8.1 million in 1997 to £8.8 million in 1998. Staffing costs account for most of these working costs. The average increase in the Average Earnings index in 1998 over 1997 was 5.1 per cent. Other factors contributing to increased expenditure in 1998 included £0.4 million in the Lambeth Conference, which takes place every 10 years, and the updating of office equipment for bishops and their staff.

  Expenditure on diocesan bishops' housing increased by £0.4 million, from £2.6 million in 1997 to £3.0 million in 1998. Spending on these houses can change significantly from year to year depending on the works needed. It tends to be higher when the See becomes vacant, as the opportunity is taken to complete works when a bishop is not living there. There were still costs being met in 1998 relating to the large number of new diocesan bishops in the last three years. A change in the calculation of depreciation of See houses, and improvements to the working environment of bishops' staff, were also special factors in 1998.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many and what percentage of bishops had use of a chauffeur at May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and what was the total cost in current prices for each appropriate financial year. [84188]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1997, 31 bishops employed full or part-time drivers at a cost of £336,741. At 1 May 1998, 31 bishops employed drivers, and the cost of their employment in 1998 was £337,807. Costs for 1999 are not yet available but at 1 May 1999, 27 bishops employed drivers. The hon. Member may wish to refer to the answer my predecessor, Mr. Michael Alison, then the right hon. Member for Selby, gave to Mr. Harry Greenway, the then hon. Member for Ealing, North. In 1995, 31 bishops employed drivers, and the cost of their employment was £334,000, 24 February 1997,Official Report, column 65.

  The retail prices index has moved from 146.0 in January 1995 to 160.0 and 164.4 in December 1997 and 1998 respectively (January 1987 = 100), from which it will be seen that the real costs of bishops employing drivers have fallen since 1995. Bishops have increasingly been making use of part-time drivers.
  323
  27 out of 44 diocesan bishops employ a full or part-time driver. In addition the 70 suffragan or assistant bishops drive themselves or occasionally receive some special assistance when they are not able to do so, e.g. because of a disability.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the annual expenditure including council tax, maintenance and other works, on each residence available to each bishop in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [84189]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' current policy is not to make public expenditure on individual bishops' houses. The overall spending on bishops' houses was:

  1990—£1.7 million

  1991—£2.1 million

  1992—£2.2 million

  1993—£2.2 million

  1994—£2.7 million

  1995—£2.3 million

  1996—£2.7 million

  1997—£2.6 million

  1998—£3.0 million.

  Comparable figures are not available for 1999.

  Expenditure on bishops' houses overall and on individual houses in particular can change significantly from year to year, depending on the works needed. Expenditure on a house tends to be higher when the See becomes vacant, as the opportunity is taken to complete works when a bishop is not living there.

  Spending on bishops' housing is subject to close budgetary control. Repairs to buildings are limited to the minimum that the Commissioners feel is consistent with the proper maintenance of these properties in their care. The Commissioners have nearly completed their review of the suitability of all diocesan bishops' houses (suffragan bishops' houses are owned by the diocese) and in many cases steps have been taken to reduce long-term running costs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Development Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU Development Council of 21 May. [84675]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The agenda is as follows:

  1. Conclusions on the results of the evaluation of the European Community's development instruments and programmes.

  2. Resolution on co-ordination and complementarity between Community and member states' development policies.

  3. Post-Lomé negotiations.

  4. Conflict prevention, management and resolution:

  (a) Combating the excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons as part of the EU's emergency aid, reconstruction and development programmes

  324

  (b)Antipersonnel landmines—progress report on 1996 Resolution

  (c) Co-operation with countries involved in armed conflicts

  5. Coherence—progress report on June 1997 Resolution.

  6. Reconstruction in Central America following Hurricane Mitch.

  7. Conclusions on integrating environmental and sustainable development into development policy.

  8. Any other business:

  (a) Developing countries in the framework of the WTO

  (b) Resumption of co-operation with Burundi

  (c) Link between migration and development

  Lunch items: Kosovo, debt.

  On 7 May 1999 our officials sent an annotated copy of the agenda to the Clerks of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on the European Communities, and the International Development Select Committee.

  World Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the total (i) UK and (ii) international contribution to the World Bank's fund to assist developing countries with millennium computer compliance; and what the fund has been spent on to date. [84217]

  Clare Short
  The UK made a £10 million grant commitment in March 1998 to a Millennium Bug project managed by the World Bank through InfoDev. InfoDev is a multi-donor funded programme set up to promote the increased use of information and communication technologies in developing countries. To date, £6 million has been paid into the project and further sums will be released this year, as disbursements are made by the Bank.

  Following the UK's lead in supporting this project, others have made substantial grant commitments, including the US ($12 million), Canada ($0.7 million), Sweden ($1.26 million), Italy ($0.3 million), and The Netherlands ($3.5 million). The total international commitment to the project presently stands at $34.2 million.

  The Project has produced an information guidance document, "Year 2000 Toolkit—A National Plan for Developing Countries", which has been disseminated world-wide through 18 regional and country conferences undertaken throughout 1998, attended by some 120 developing countries. Participants consisted of senior government officials and information technology managers. The document is available on the internet.

  The Project also provides grants to assist developing countries prepare national action plans and to support work on systems of critical national importance. So far, a total of 84 developing countries are included in the grant arrangements, mainly to help them prepare national action plans, for which grants of up to $100,000 have been provided. Larger grants are available to help with remediation and testing work. Grant applications presently total about $15.7 million.

  The InfoDev Project is now working closely with the International Y2K Cooperation Centre (IYCC) in Washington, using US funding. The IYCC, which

  325
  includes the UK's Action 2000, is coordinating international efforts to minimise the impacts of the Millennium Bug problem on the global economy.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 397, on the reference for the former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police for the post of Deputy Commissioner of Royal Turks and Caicos Islands, on what date the references were requested by her Department. [84219]

  Clare Short
  My Department sought references for Mr. Turnbull on 3 and 19 February 1999.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 510, on Special Advisers, if she will give the total travel cost of each occasion when (a) a departmental and (b) non-departmental advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82410]

  Clare Short
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999, Special Advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on 14 occasions to a variety of locations. The total cost of travel and any accommodation was £31,618. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) civil servants and (b) Special Advisers involved in media relations were employed within her Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84205]

  Clare Short
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on "The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770)" in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. On 1 May 1999, my Department had three civil servants working full-time on media relations and two other civil servants whose wider duties included contact with the media.

  Special Advisers in this Department had ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Healthy Living Centres
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the development of healthy living centres. [83417]
  326
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: The New Opportunities Fund launched the healthy living centre initiative on 29 January 1999. £300 million of Lottery money is available under this initiative to establish a core network of healthy living centres across the UK. By the end of 2002, the New Opportunities Fund aims to have awarded grants to projects that will ensure that healthy living centres are accessible to 20 per cent. of the population of the UK.

  The application process is underway and the Fund aims to announce the first successful applicants in the Autumn of this year.

  Helsinki Summit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the nature of the sports report that he will be submitting to the heads of Government at the Helsinki Summit. [84231]

  Mr. Banks
  Any report on sport to the Helsinki Summit will be submitted by the European Commission and will contain the conclusions of considerable debate, which is currently under way, by all member states on a number of important sporting issues. The next informal meeting of EU Sports Ministers in Paderborn on 1–2 June will establish a clearer agenda for the content of the Helsinki Conclusions and I will be playing a full role in this process.

  Boxing (Schools)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had about the provision of boxing in schools with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. [84230]

  Mr. Banks
  I meet with my colleagues in DfEE on a regular basis when we discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest. Our latest discussions centred on sport in general in schools and the national curriculum. However, we have not discussed boxing but remain firmly committed to the encouragement of boxing as a sport.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had from the St. Helena island council to the publication of his White Paper on overseas territories. [83517]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The St Helena Legislative Council on 24 March 1999 unanimously passed a Motion:"That this House conveys its sincere thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State from the Legislative Council for the commitment to restore full British citizenship to the people of St Helena, and looks forward to full consultation on the other issues contained in the White Paper, particularly those relating to St Helena's future."

  Middle East
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to promote the middle east peace process. [83518]
  327
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Israeli general election. [83530]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Israeli general election. [83535]

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process following the outcome of the Israeli general election. [83536]

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Israeli general election. [83537]

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process. [83531]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer
  I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey),Official Report, column 856.

  East Timor
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the future status of East Timor. [83519]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We welcome the consultation that has been launched to establish the wishes of the people of East Timor on whether they want autonomy of independence. Only the fortnight before his death Derek Fatchett visited East Timor and gave an undertaking that Britain would be one of the six nations leading implementation of the UN process. We will ensure that we complete the valuable work that Derek Fatchett began.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote peace in East Timor. [83538]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We continue to support the efforts under UN auspices to secure a future for East Timor which will fully respect the interests and legitimate aspirations of the East Timorese people.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to other Governments on establishing a permanent international presence in East Timor to monitor human rights abuses. [82466]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 28 April 1999]: We have on a number of occasions, along with EU partners, called for the urgent establishment of a permanent UN presence in East Timor to help prevent further violence in the territory. We welcome the agreement signed by Indonesia and Portugal in New York on 5 May whereby a United Nations presence will supervise the consultation of the East Timorese on the question of autonomy. We are working with others on arrangements for the deployment of an international police presence in East Timor to oversee implementation of the 5 May agreement.
  328
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Australian Government's recent report on the deaths of the British and other newsmen in East Timor in 1975. [83959]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We welcomed the Australian Government's decision to refer new information about the deaths of the British journalists in East Timor in 1975 to Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman's second report contains no major new revelations or conclusions.

  El Shifa Factory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his American counterparts concerning the American Government's decision to withdraw from legal proceedings against Mr. Idris relating to the bombing of the El Shifa factory. [83520]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The US decision to lift its block on Salah Idris' assets is a matter for the US authorities. Her Majesty's Government have not taken action against Mr. Idris, nor has it made any allegations against him. We have not therefore discussed the issue with the US Government.

  Tibet
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government about the continuing imprisonment of the Tibetan nun Ngawang Sangdrol; and what prospects there are for her release. [83522]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are deeply concerned about the well-being of Ngawang Sangdrol, and others imprisoned in Tibet. Her name is on a list of individual cases which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised with Chinese leaders in October last year, and on an EU list of individual cases which was presented to the Chinese authorities on 7 May 1999. We will continue to raise her case with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and through the EU, and to press for her release.

  Albania
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Albania. [83523]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty),Official Report, column 871.

  Balkans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the refugee position in the Balkans. [83524]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia had resulted in some 1.7 million refugees and Internally Displaced Persons by the end of 1998. Milosevic's latest actions have added to this grim total. Some 743,000 Kosovo Albanians are now
  329
  refugees in the region. Over 50,000 have been airlifted out of the region. Many more are displaced inside Kosovo, facing great hardship.

  Milosevic is directly responsible for this latest tragedy. NATO action will not cease until we are satisfied that all Kosovo Albanians will be able to return in safety to their homes. This can be guaranteed only by an international military presence

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in resolving the dispute with Serbia. [83504]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer
  I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, column 863.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the preparations for the enlargement of the European Union with regard to the reform of the European structural policy. [83525]

  Ms Quin
  Reforms to the structural and cohesion funds were agreed at the Berlin European Council on 24–25 March. These reforms were part of a consolidated effort to bring EU spending under stricter control to prepare the European Union for enlargement. Enlargement will not require an increase to the Own Resources ceiling (1.27 per cent.) of Community GNP. Despite that, substantial funds will be available to provide assistance during the financing period 2000–06 to applicants for membership, before and after accession.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made in improving and updating the 1995 aims and objectives of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. [83526]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Preparatory Committee for the NPT 2000 Review Conference is currently meeting in New York. The Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 Conference will be discussed both at PrepCom and RevCon.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of Iraq. [83527]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham),Official Report, column 855.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the NATO countries concerning the future of Kosovo as an independent state after the end of the hostilities; and if he will make a statement. [83529]
  330
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are in frequent contact with NATO counterparts about finding a peaceful solution to the Kosovo crisis on the basis of the G8 principles. We respect the territorial integrity of all countries in the region and it has never been part of our objectives to create new independent states.

  The statement on Kosovo issued at the NATO Summit in Washington on 23 April called on President Milosevic to provide credible assurance of his willingness to work for a political framework agreement based on the Rambouillet Accords. But given what the Kosovo Albanians have suffered, we are now proposing a much stronger role for the international community in the civil administration of Kosovo.

  Brazil
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the priorities for his policy relating to Brazil. [83532]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have excellent bilateral relations with Brazil, which is our biggest market in Latin America. We are committed to strengthening our commercial and political links in line with the priorities set out in the bilateral action plan signed by the Prime Minister and President Cardoso during the President's State Visit to the UK in December 1997.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's discussions with Russia on closer co-operation with the International Criminal Court. [83533]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome the fact that Russia voted in favour of the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. We are working closely with the Russians and others at the Preparatory Commission for the ICC.

  MOX Exports
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the proliferation risks of exporting MOX fuel. [83534]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are satisfied that the export of Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) from EU suppliers to Japan poses no unacceptable risk to the proliferation of nuclear materials. The UK's international nuclear trade, including the export of MOX fuel, is undertaken strictly within the terms of international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards and physical protection and is entirely consistent with the UK's obligations in these areas.

  Malta
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Malta. [83528]
  331
  Ms Quin
  Our relations with Malta are excellent. We have continued to build on the longstanding and close links the UK enjoys with Malta across a wide range of issues.

  I visited Malta on 4–5 May and had discussions on bilateral and European issues with representatives of the government, of the opposition and others, including business and economic interests.

  Military Intervention (Legal Justification)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 35, if he will list the provisions in international law which make military intervention legally justifiable. [83547]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations Charter preserves the right of a state or group of states to use force in self-defence in accordance with Article 51; the Charter also allows the use of force under the authorisation of the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter. Cases have also arisen, as in Kosovo, when in the light of all the circumstances the use of force is justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the source of the statistics used in the section Trade in Goods, under International Trade, of his booklet, "The British Economy". [84096]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The United Kingdom Balance of Payments (The Pink Book) 1997.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the statistical source for levels of imports and exports provided in his Departmental poster, Outline Britain; and what is the(a) target audience and (b) how many have been distributed. [84097]

  Mr. Hoon
  The statistical source was the Annual Abstract of Statistics 1998, published by the ONS.

  (a) The target audience was Press and Public Affairs Officers and Commercial Officers at Diplomatic Posts.

  (b) The distribution between 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 was 14,996.

  Conference on Perceptions of Britain
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned(a) timing and (b) contents of the first biennial Conference on Perceptions of Britain. [84091]

  Mr. Hoon
  The first conference on perceptions of Britain, recommended by Panel 2000, is planned for 23 November 1999. The content will cover interchange of information on how Britain is perceived overseas, including the results of research organised by the British Council in 12 key markets, and how better co-operation can enhance perceptions of Britain.

  Panel 2000
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations in the Panel 2000 consultation document he has(a) adopted and (b) rejected; and if he will make a statement. [84099]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  All the recommendations in the Panel 2000 Consultation document were adopted by the Panel at its meeting on 17 December 1998. This followed a broad welcome for the recommendations during the consultation process which included a wide range of public and private sector organisations; feedback will be reflected in the implementation of the recommendations now underway. Individual participants in the Panel are engaged in the implementation process. The full Panel will meet again in the second half of this year to assess progress.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1999,Official Report, column 119, on information technology, how much of the expenditure incurred was connected with millennium computer compliance. [84515]

  Mr. Hoon
  None of the total of f44 million can be specifically identified as being directly related to achieving Y2K compliance. However, the expenditure forms part of the FCO's modernisation programme, which, by replacing obsolete IT, is helping to achieve that compliance.

  Uganda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to review his Department's current advice about travel to Uganda. [84572]

  Mr. Hoon
  All travel advice is reviewed routinely on a monthly basis and more frequently when there is reason to do so.

  The travel advice for Uganda was last revised on 17 May. Because of the variety and fluidity of risks to travellers in Uganda the advice is constantly
  monitored.

  International Fact-finding Commission
  Mr. HomeRobertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to recognise the competence of the International Fact-finding Commission enshrined in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. [84793]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am pleased to inform the House that a declaration confirming the United Kingdom's recognition of the competence of that body was yesterday being deposited with the Swiss authorities in Berne. This further demonstrates our commitment to international humanitarian law, following our ratification of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in January 1998, our ratification of the Ottawa Convention in July 1998 and our acceptance of Amended Protocol II and Additional Protocol IV to the UN Weaponry Convention earlier this year.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been issued to overseas diplomatic posts to restrict their involvement in the promotion of tobacco products following the publication of the Tobacco White Paper in December.[84843]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have issued the following guidelines to overseas posts:

  "1. The Government's White Paper on Tobacco, presented to Parliament in December 1998, contained the following sentences concerning the role of Posts overseas:

  "We are not in the business of banning the production or export of tobacco products, and the DTI and our embassies will continue to provide advice, to which UK companies are entitled, in the sale of legal products. However, in keeping with the current practice of Ministers and officials not becoming involved in the advertising or promotion of tobacco products at home, guidelines will shortly be issued to our diplomatic posts instructing them to be scrupulous to ensure that they follow suit overseas, taking into account local circumstances."

  Guidelines:

  2. Posts must no longer directly promote products containing tobacco, whether through advertising or through publicly associating HMG with their sale, especially where this might be misconstrued as some form of government endorsement or approval of them. However, given the general, non-discriminatory basis of British Trade International services and other UK government support for business—which, as a matter of principle, are available to all British companies, provided their products are mainly of UK origin and are legal—Posts should nonetheless, if approached, offer support and advice to assist UK tobacco companies through the provision of trade, investment and political information. While it may be true that such companies rarely, in any case, seek HMG assistance in their exporting effort, it will be important that Posts scrupulously adhere to these new guidelines, after taking into account local circumstances. Posts should bear in mind that the international tobacco control lobby is increasingly well organised, and pressure groups may seek to highlight any apparently controversial involvement in any event sponsored by a tobacco company.

  3. It follows from the above that Posts should not inter alia be associated in any way with the promotion of the tobacco industry, for example by accepting advertisements for UK or local tobacco products in publications issued by the Post, or sponsorship from tobacco companies for their activities, including Chevening Scholarships. Nor should they attend or otherwise support receptions or high profile events—especially those where a tobacco company is the sole or main sponsor—which are overtly to promote tobacco products, such as the official opening of a UK tobacco factory overseas; events where tobacco sponsorship is more low-key (for example, among several sponsors of a visiting orchestra) can be attended. Posts may also continue to offer assistance to UK tobacco companies in other ways, such as in resolving business problems—customs or port clearance, smuggling, trademark violations etc —that are potentially discriminatory. They may also provide information and assistance on foreign country policies and investment opportunities including advice to help them comply with foreign government laws or regulations.

  4. In short, unless otherwise specified above, Posts should not support activities designed specifically to encourage smoking. Posts have the delegated authority to decide for themselves whether any proposed action on their part is in keeping with these new regulations, but may refer to London for decision—to the FCO geographical department (if there are political implications) or JEPD—where this is felt necessary.
  334
  5. The White Paper also stressed the Government's wish to encourage and support the efforts of other countries to strengthen their own tobacco control strategies. Requests for help, particularly with expertise, should be passed to the Department of Health (Health Promotion Division).

  6. These guidelines will take effect from 1 June 1999."

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84193]

  Mr. Hoon
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on 'The Government Information and Communication Service' (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. There are at present 17.7 such staff in the FCO.

  Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

  Arrested UK Citizens
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on United Kingdom citizens arrested abroad being required to pay for embassy and consular services. [83723]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  British Nationals who are arrested or imprisoned overseas are not required to pay for consular assistance and advice.

  They are required to pay for legal services, which consular officers cannot provide.

  All fee-bearing consular services are published in the Consular Fees Order.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to answer the letter from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead dated 12 April in respect of his constituent Colin Tierney. [84573]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 17 May.

  Customs and Excise (Heathrow)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 56, concerning HM Customs and Excise staff at Heathrow, since 1 May 1997 in relation to Customs Cargo staff other than NIS at Heathrow, how many jobs have been lost in Customs Cargo; what is the reduction in staff of the import control teams; what steps are being taken to combat the increase in traffic of the undeclared excise goods from the Continent; how HM Customs and

  335
  Excise plans to meet its obligations with regard to DTI documentary checks, CAP controls, community transit controls and anti counterfeit checks; and what is the estimated revenue loss from failure to detect undeclared excise goods. [84225]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: There are currently 222 staff years allocated to the Cargo Division at Heathrow. In Customs Cargo at Heathrow the following reductions have been made in staff since 1997:

  Year to March 1998–10.5 Staff years (4 per cent.)

  Year to March 1999–9 staff years (3.6 per cent.)

  Year to March 2000–15 staff years (6.2 per cent.).

  Of these reductions the following numbers were involved in import control:

  1998–0

  1999–0

  2000–8.

  The reductions in the current year have been made to reflect the movement of freight control inland as a result of the take up of Customs Freight Simplified Procedures (CFSP). The percentage of import entries at Heathrow now being processed via the CFSP system is 41.8 per cent.

  The increase in traffic of undeclared excise goods from the continent is being addressed in a number of ways. During the last financial year a special exercise was run, under Customs risk testing programme, to target tobacco goods in freight. The exercise produced £53.085 in revenue over six weeks, of which all but £300 was for tobacco goods. The results of that exercise have been fed into Customs ongoing risk review. This will provide sharper and more focused targeting of staff onto those freight consignments and importers that are considered a risk to the revenue, together with better intelligence in trend analysis and identification.

  DTI documentary checks and CAP control checks are subject to computer-based selection profiles. Community transit and anti-counterfeit checks are carried out by import and export control staff as part of their normal scrutiny and examination roles, using intelligence and risk analysis techniques to target resources effectively.

  The estimated revenue loss from failure to detect undeclared excise goods at Heathrow Cargo is not known as all current estimates specifically exclude freight consignments. The revenue estimated as lost nationally through cigarette smuggling by air passengers is £50m per year. Further details on cross-border shopping and smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products were laid in the House of Commons Library on 19 November 1998.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer through smuggling of tobacco. [76050]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In his Budget speech of 9 March, the Chancellor explained that in terms of the turnover of criminals' tobacco smuggling is now a £1½ billion business. That was an assessment by HM Customs and Excise based on their work in progress to monitor the scale of such smuggling (chiefly of cigarettes and 336
  hand-rolling tobacco). The provisional results of this work indicate that the total amount of revenue (excise duty and VAT) evaded in 1998 was perhaps around £1.7 billion.

  Forms of tobacco duty evasion covered by this assessment include cross-Channel smuggling of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, smuggling by air passengers, diversion frauds and smuggling over very large consignments in freight.

  HM Customs and Excise will continue to examine ways of measuring such smuggling, and are discussing with representatives of the tobacco industry ways of improving the methodologies used.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the loss of revenue due to illegal imports of tobacco products in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, taking account of his Budget changes. [76569]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The forecast for tobacco revenue receipts for 1999–2000, published in the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report, is £7 billion. This takes into account a range of factors including smuggling, forestalling behaviour by manufacturers, the affordability of tobacco products, trends in public health awareness, etc.

  Budget
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate the figures used in paragraph 1.26 of the Red Book taking into account his July 1997 Budget and using an assumption for private car use of 8,300 miles in an average 1600cc car. [80855]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The impact of Budget 97, Budget 98 and Budget 99 measures on households is as follows:over 20 million households gain, of which 7 million are households with children and 7 million are pensioner households;
  on average, households will be £350 a year better off;
  families with children will on average be £690 a year better off;
  poorer families will also benefit: 700,000 children will be taken out of poverty;
  working households will on average be £410 a year better off;
  the new lop rate of tax will halve the tax bill for 1.8 million, of whom 1.5 million are low-paid employees;
  the Working Families Tax Credit will on average give low earning families an extra £24 a week, compared with Family Credit.

  All the figures are relative to indexation and are in 1999–2000 prices. They reflect the impact on disposable income of measures included in the 1999, 1998 and July 1997 Budgets and taking effect over the four years from 1998–99, plus the impact of the national minimum wage. They are based on data from the ONS Family Expenditure Survey, the DSS Family Resources Survey and Inland Revenue's Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Compared with the Red Book, the only extra measure included is the cut in the mortgage interest relief (MIR) tax credit rate from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. which was announced in the July 1997 Budget and came into force in April 1998.

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption

  337
  of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, just over half the adult population are in households paying vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the effect in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of his budgets to date on a married pensioner couple with a combined pension income of £18,000 plus £4,000 in dividend income, assuming that they drive 8,300 miles each year in a 1.6 litre car registered in 1974 and smoke 20 cigars each week; [78753]

  (2) if he will estimate the effect in (a) 1999–2000 and (b)2000–01 of his budgets to date on a married couple in England with one partner who smokes 20 cigarettes a day earning £25,000 per annum and the other earning £5,000 per annum, assuming that they have a mortgage of £40,000 and drive 8,300 miles each year in a two litre car with one 18 year old child in his first year of a four-year course at university in Scotland;[78751]

  (3) if he will estimate the effect in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of his budgets to date on a married couple with one partner earning £15,000 per annum as a self-employed road haulier who drives a 38-tonne diesel lorry 75,000 miles each year and the other partner being non-earning with two children aged 15 and 16, assuming that they have a £45,000 mortgage and smoke 20 cigarettes a day between them; [78750]

  (4) if he will estimate the effect in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of his budgets to date on a non-smoking married couple with one partner earning £50,000 per annum and the other earning £4,000 per annum in dividend income, assuming that they have a mortgage of £80,000 and drive 8,300 miles each year in a two litre car. [78752]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the effect of the Budget on individuals and households is published in the Red Book and accompanying press notices. The reply to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) sets out changes in disposable income after taking account of the effects of the last two Budgets.

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, only around one third of adults are smokers, just over half the adult population are in households paying vehicle excise duty and around 10 per cent. of households pay air passenger duty.

  This can be contrasted with direct taxes and benefits where at specified earnings and for particular household types there is a known benefit entitlement or tax liability.

  The 1998 and 1999 Red Books set out the effect of the last two Budgets on:
  cigarettes and cigars (1998 table 5.4—page 81), (1999 table 1.10— page 110);
  for road fuels (1998 table 5.2—page 75), (1999 table 1.9—page 109);
  and VED HM Treasury Budget Press Notice number 16 (1998) and number 7 (1999).

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the assumptions used for the purposes of the calculations in paragraph 1.26 of the Red Book. [80852]
  338
  Dawn Primarolo
  All the figures given in paragraph 1.26 of the Budget 99 Report (the Red Book) are relative to indexation and are in 1999–2000 prices. They reflect the impact on disposable income of measures included in the 1999 and 1998 Budgets and taking effect over the three years from 1999–2000, plus the impact of the national minimum wage.

  The figures are based on data from the ONS Family Expenditure Survey, the DSS Family Resources Survey and Inland Revenue's Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions were used for(a) car mileages and (b) pension contributions in the calculations used in paragraph 1.26 of the Red Book. [80851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures in the Red Book are based on UK household expenditure and income patterns from the ONS Family Expenditure Survey, the DSS Family Resources Survey and Inland Revenue's Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will veto the withholding tax at the ECOFIN Council on 25 May. [84527]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft Directive on savings is still in draft form. There is no proposal to vote on the matter at the ECOFIN meeting on 25 May.

  Tobacco (Excise Duty)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue will be raised in excise duty on tobacco products due to changes made since 1 May 1997 in 1997–98 and each of the following four years. [76573]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the estimated extra revenue raised in excise duty on tobacco products due to changes made since 1 May 1997:

  £million

  Year

  Extra Revenue

  1997–1998

  5

  1998–1999

  210

  1999–2000

  —875

  2000–2001

  975

  2001–2002

  1,160

  These figures have been calculated by comparing estimated cash revenue streams under the Government's 5 per cent. tobacco escalator with an estimate of what revenue streams would have been under the previous government's 3 per cent. escalator.

  Cigarettes Market
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the proportion of the market in cigarettes taken by(a) legal personal imports and (b) illegal imports. [76566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimate the proportion of the UK tobacco market taken by legitimate cross-border shopping (excluding duty free
  339
  purchases) to be about½ per cent. in 1997. This is based on Customs' analysis of data from the International Passenger Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics, for which the latest year available is 1997. Separate estimates for cross-border shopping of individual tobacco products are not published.

  HM Customs and Excise also estimate the proportion of the UK cigarette market taken by cross-Channel smuggling and smuggling by air passengers to be about 3 per cent. This is based on Customs' own surveys of international passengers carried out in 1998.

  Additionally, HM Customs and Excise are working, with representatives of the tobacco industry, to establish robust ways of measuring the overall scale of tobacco duty evasion. Work is still in progress on this, but Customs' latest assessment, based on the results to date, leads us to believe that the proportion of the UK cigarette

  Table 1: Revenue lost through cross-border shopping and cross-Channel smuggling

  £ million

  Cross-border shopping 1997

  Cross-Channel smuggling 1998

  Product type

  Duty

  VAT

  Total

  Duty

  VAT

  Total

  Beer

  35

  20

  50

  90

  50

  140

  Wine

  95

  45

  140

  35

  15

  50

  Spirits

  40

  15

  50

  20

  5

  30

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  1—

  1—

  1—

  575

  150

  730

  Cigarettes & Other tobacco products

  50

  10

  60

  220

  50

  270

  Total

  215

  85

  305

  945

  275

  1,220

  1Separate estimates for cross-border shopping of individual tobacco products are not published. The total for all tobacco products is shown under 'cigarettes and other tobacco products'.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of legitimate cross-border shopping are based on data from the International Passenger Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics, for which the latest year available is 1997.

  2. Estimates of cross-Channel smuggling are based on Customs own survey of returning sea and Tunnel passengers, most recently carried out in June 1998.

  3. Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown.

  4. Figures use Customs' assumptions that 70–80 per cent. of alcohol purchased abroad substitutes for similar purchases in the UK.

  The estimates exclude any amounts for revenue lost on alcoholic drinks and tobacco products smuggled in freight consignments. Customs have not published any estimates for the extent of these activities for alcoholic drinks. Customs' assessment of the scale of all forms of tobacco smuggling, based on work still in progress to measure such smuggling, is given in reply to a written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preslie Pembroke (Jackie Lawrence) today.

  Further details of the cross-border shopping and cross-Channel smuggling estimates are given in a technical report placed in the House of Commons library on 19 November 1998.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals (Exports)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of discussions between his Department and the Home Office concerning possible criteria for further controls on the export of animals for use in experiments, which would enable his 340
  market taken by all forms of smuggling, including smuggling in freight consignments, was perhaps approaching 10 per cent. in 1998.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of duty to the Inland Revenue as a result of(a) spirit, (b) beer and (c) tobacco purchases in France by United Kingdom residents during the last 12 months. [76055]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The collection of excise duty is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. Customs do not publish specific estimates for purchases made in France only. Customs' most recent estimates of the revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through cross-border shopping and cross-Channel smuggling from other EU member states, for 1997 and 1998 respectively, are given in the table.

  Department to take into account the treatment of animals in the country of destination before the issuing of official non-statutory health certification. [84186]

  Mr. Rooker
  Officials from both Departments have met to discuss this matter and will be meeting again this month. I am not yet in a position to report on how we plan to proceed since further discussion and consideration is needed.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken to implement the recommendation of the Carden Committee on Organophosphates, that a database of case histories of adverse reactions to organophosphates should be established. [84177]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: Officials are actively pursuing this issue as recommended by the Official Group on OPs. We await a fully worked up research proposal to enable a funding decision to be made.

  Cattle (Berne Convention)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals on measures to protect cattle through the Berne Convention. [84422]
  342
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans to seek the inclusion of cattle in the Berne Convention. The aims of the Convention are to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats with particular emphasis given to endangered and vulnerable species.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
Lord Saint Oswald—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Beef on the Bone: Responsibility of Welsh Assembly
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, having voted on, and won a Division on the question of the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly for policy on beef on the bone, they did not inform the House of the subsequent change to this policy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government decided that it was most appropriate for the Assembly to have these functions outright. Your Lordships approved the draft order, including these functions, on 3rd March without a Division.
The result of the Division to which the noble Earl refers was that the transfer order did not have to include these powers. It did not preclude their inclusion should the Government decide to bring forward such proposals and should Parliament agree to them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is it not a discourtesy to this House that this Chamber was not told of the change of government policy, bearing in mind the fact that there had been a Division on this very issue? Indeed, when introducing the transfer order, did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, know that there had been such a dramatic change of policy? Further, why was there no apology from the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, replied to the Private Notice Question? Are we not being treated shamefully?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I trust that the House will forgive me if I go into a little detail to explain that there was no discourtesy and no shameful treatment. I made the response on 2nd June 1998, which was correct. On 31st July last the Act received Royal Assent. On 12th November of last year—quite a long time ago—the transfer order was issued in draft for public consultation. Far from the House being kept in the dark, copies were placed in the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses. Moreover, it was and is available on the Internet. Indeed, we went further. We sent copies to, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dixon-Smith, who had taken a prominent part in the debates.
142
We put the matter out for consultation and received no responses of any substance. The end of the consultation period came on 22nd January. On 16th February the order was laid before both Houses and, on 24th February, my right honourable friend Alun Michael told Mr. Nigel Evans that the powers of the Food Safety Act would transfer to the Assembly. On 3rd March, we had a short debate here when the draft order was approved. If one looks at the draft order, one can see that in fact the powers went to the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, in Scotland the Liberal Democrats have surrendered a firm election commitment on tuition fees. Have they done the same somersault on beef on the bone in order to maintain their ministerial position in the Labour Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know what the Liberal Democrats are doing; perhaps they do. Whatever happens in the Welsh Assembly as a necessary and proper consequence of the devolution legislation passed by this House as well as another place, those matters are for the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, now that scientists have declared that the disease in question has nothing to do with the animals and that all the slaughter policy was a waste of time, will the Government be reconsidering their position?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government constantly keep that policy under review.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I return to the original Question. Does the Minister accept that there was a need for this House to be informed after the Secretary of State for Wales had announced the change of policy on 24th February, in reply to an intervention by Mr. Nigel Evans? I believe that he should also accept that there was a clear opportunity to do so on 3rd March when the transfer order was presented to this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, there was no specific mention at that time of this particular transfer, which had been the subject of a vote in 1998. I am not accusing the Government of suppressing the truth, but I am charging them with a certain lack of dedication to transparency, which should be practised as well as preached.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the reason I took a little time to explain matters, as I thought it appropriate to do, was to point out—which I do again—that we sent the draft transfer order to the noble Lord himself. One has only to read it to see the consequence. Indeed, the matter was debated and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey outlined the way in which the order worked. He said,
"It might assist your Lordships if I outlined how the order works. For the most part, the transfer is straightforward. Where the Secretary of State is able to exercise a function now, the Assembly will be able to do so in the future … In many cases legislation requires the Secretary of State to act jointly with his right honorable friends in exercising functions … We do not believe that the Assembly should generally be bound in this way"—[Official Report, 3/3/99; col. 1776.]

143
If one reads the order and pays attention to what my noble friend said, there is no obscurity at all. I repeat that we put out the draft order for consultation, we placed it in the Library and we sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, are we being rash in Cardiff, or are we being over-cautious in London?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they are not being rash in Cardiff and we are not being over-cautious in London. They are putting their minds to the issue as they are entitled to do. Similarly we put our minds to matters in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom which are not devolved.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 2nd June when this matter was debated he said that the matter of beef on the bone would not be transferred for five years and possibly not for 30 years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that it would not be transferred at that time and that was government policy. Thereafter the order was put out for full consultation which included both the farming unions in Wales, which I have not mentioned. I repeat that we sent out the draft order to interested Peers. I do not think one can be more open than that.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, is it not the case that under the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly butchers or caterers will be legally able to sell beef on the bone in Wales and probably in Scotland but will commit a criminal offence if they do so in England? Is that not completely absurd?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as far as I am aware, neither the Assembly in Cardiff nor the Parliament in Scotland has come to any conclusion on the matter. The noble Lord may know more about that matter than I.

Ministers: Income Tax and Benefits
2.45 p.m.
Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Ministers are among those who pay income tax to the Government and receive benefits from the Government, and what they are doing to eliminate this overlap.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, I am not in a position to comment on the particular tax or benefit circumstances of individuals. But Ministers who draw salaries are liable to pay tax on them. Some Ministers will also receive universal benefits such as child benefit.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I have come directly from a debate organised by the Centre for Policy Studies
144
where some of our most distinguished economists and academics have been studying the subject of my Question which is to consider the massive overlap between tax and benefit payments. Under the present system the Government collect between £30 billion and £40 billion in income tax and national insurance contributions from around 17 million households whose incomes are less than £20,000 a year. The purpose of my question is to ask Ministers whether they believe it is bizarre that the Government first tax people on low incomes—I believe there are 14 million people who earn less than £10,000 a year but who still pay tax—and then, having so taxed them to reduce their income, they satisfy themselves by means testing that income that those people are in need—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Saatchi: The Government then provide those people with a range of benefits to restore their income back to the level it was at before they paid the tax. Do the Government agree that that is an absurd system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unlike my noble friends I detected a question in there! I do not accept that the position is absurd or bizarre. For a number of years taxation has been levied generally on an individual basis. Benefits are quite properly awarded according to family circumstances. Under those circumstances it would be quite impossible to have a streamlined system which brought the two together, much as that may seem desirable to the tidy minds of the Centre for Policy Studies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that even now the Government are increasing the expensive recirculation of money paid by taxpayers and then paid back to them in benefit? Do the Government accept that the working families' tax credit legislation will return a taxpayer's money even if he has in certain circumstances an income of £37 a year? Money will be returned to him in the form of tax credit. Is that really a cost-effective way of developing the national insurance and taxation system? I believe that the figures have been agreed by the Minister's noble friend Lady Hollis during the passage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary, many government policies serve to reduce the amount of money that passes backwards and forwards. As regards the Tax Credits Bill steps have been taken to cancel out the passage to and from the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer. Indeed the Conservative Opposition have tabled amendments which would increase the amount of money passing to and fro rather than the "netting out" principle which has been adopted in the Tax Credits Bill. Therefore the noble Baroness is 100 per cent wrong.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, has the Minister read the report, The War of Independence, to which the Question of my noble friend Lord Saatchi

145
relates? Is he aware that that report does much to demolish the wisdom of the position that he put forward in his reply to my noble friend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a very long report. I have read what I can. We did not find the conclusions at all convincing. The comparisons made between the 1950s and the 1990s seem to be unclear and unrealistic. In effect they could damage those who need help the most. If the noble Lord's party is of the opinion—I invite the Opposition Front Bench to confirm whether or not it is the case—that we should no longer have taxation taken from individuals and no longer have benefits directed to families in need, they should say so. They have not yet done so.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, on the point made by the noble Lord a moment or two ago—we can return to the broader issues that have just been raised later in the day perhaps on the Tax Credits Bill—is it not the case that the Government are extending social security benefits—namely, the working families' tax credit—to people with incomes of more than £35,000 a year, while at the same time they are reducing people's benefits on the ground that they have capital of only £6,000 a year? Is not that combination quite absurd?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Pearson of Rannoch, should note that his Front Bench disowns the proposition that he put forward. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, no, that is not the case. What was previously a benefit is now being included in the tax system. The purpose of that is to encourage people into work. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country will believe that that is a worthy objective.

Smoke Detectors
2.52 p.m.
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to make it compulsory to fit smoke detectors in all residential properties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, guidance on fire safety measures that will tend to show compliance with the building regulations in England and Wales is given in Approved Document B (fire safety). This guidance was changed in 1992 so that the installation of mains operated smoke alarms would become a standard feature in all new dwellings. There are no plans to require smoke detectors to be fitted in existing dwellings. The installation of smoke alarms in other residential properties such as houses in multiple occupation and institutional buildings can be required under other legislation or guidance. However, the approved
146
document is under review and one of the proposals is to increase the scope for the installation of smoke alarms to include other new residential buildings.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that such legislation requiring the installation of smoke detectors in residential properties new or old is already in being in the state of Victoria in Australia? Can he also indicate the estimated number of lives that might be saved if detectors were required to be installed in all property?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not directly aware of the precise legislation in Victoria. We give guidance that requires all new dwellings to include smoke detectors. Approximately 75 per cent of all households now have some form of smoke detector. The total number of deaths in dwellings in this country is approximately 600. One could make a rough estimate of how many lives would be saved by the installation of smoke detectors. It would not be a large number, but every life is worth saving. The government guidance through the Home Office and other authorities is that everyone should fit some form of smoke detector in their homes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would not an obligation to install smoke detectors in existing buildings mean that very often battery-operated smoke detectors would be fitted? As batteries run out and people do not replace them, such smoke detectors could very often give a false sense of security. People who voluntarily install smoke detectors are interested enough to maintain their batteries.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in certain circumstances there could be that perverse effect. The guidance, therefore, does not require the mandatory fitting of perhaps inadequate smoke detectors or battery-operated smoke detectors in all dwellings. Nevertheless, any form of operational smoke detector has some benefit. We would therefore advise that in most circumstances one should be fitted.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that sometimes smoke detectors are so sensitive that they are likely to be set off at the slightest amount of smoke emerging from cookers and domestic appliances, creating many false alarms and thereby being counter-productive? Does he not further agree that sometimes heat detectors rather than smoke detectors are more efficient?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I see several noble Lords nodding. Obviously their smoking or cooking habits have set off alarms in the past. I would contend that it is better to have the odd false alarm than no smoke detection system at all. As to heat detectors, they tend to be used with sprinkler systems and other forms of control. They are considerably more expensive. Generally speaking an operational smoke detector will give an early indication of any fire hazard.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is value added tax payable on the price of a smoke detector? Does

147
the Minister not agree that if smoke detectors were zero rated more householders would be likely to purchase them and install them in their houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Earl has better information on this matter than myself. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the total taxation system. Clearly a lower price would induce more people to install them. Whether that should affect our tax policy as a whole I am not at all sure. I shall write to the noble Earl to confirm what I believe to be the case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would the Minister not entirely dismiss battery-operated smoke detectors? In my experience they have a useful but exceedingly annoying habit of issuing shrill shrieks which one cannot trace for about a fortnight before the battery gives out. It means that one never fails to replace it a second time.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope I have said nothing to undermine the value of battery-operated smoke detectors. Clearly in new buildings we are looking to mains-operated smoke detectors in general. I, too, have had a similar experience of not being able to detect where noise was coming from. As the noble Lord has said, having had such an experience one does not make the same mistake a second time. The kind of detectors which indicate when the battery is running out or when they have been triggered are of some benefit.
Lord Renton: My Lords, could smoke detectors be persuaded to detect tobacco smoke? Does the Minister agree that if they did so they would save many more lives?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is looking for a very sophisticated piece of equipment. He and other noble Lords will know the Government's general advice on smoking. Whether noble Lords follow it is unlikely to be affected by the existence of smoke detectors.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do smoke detectors have to be installed in residential accommodation for the elderly? How is that matter policed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it depends on what type of accommodation the noble Lord means. In general, all new buildings and dwellings have to be fitted with smoke detectors. One of our discussions about extension relates to hostel accommodation, hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, some of which escape the present regulations.

Yugoslavia: NATO Bombing and Geneva Conventions
2.59 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is in breach of the Geneva Conventions Act 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, action by our forces is in strict conformity with international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols of 1977. It is therefore also in strict conformity with the Geneva Conventions Act which implements these treaties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Minister knows that I am among the most devoted in the serried ranks of her admirers. But on this occasion she seems to have stuck too closely to her brief. Is not the whole operation contrary to what is laid down in the convention, and particularly in Articles 51 and 52? If my noble friend will refresh her mind by examining those articles, I think that she will find that we are certainly in breach of them. If she still disagrees, will she tell the House which court can determine whether I am right or whether the Government are right? How can that court be approached, and by whom? Did not Winston Churchill say: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I always stick faithfully to my brief. I know that the noble Lord feels very strongly about this issue. He was kind enough to give me a copy of the protocols to the convention and indicate how the bombing might not be in compliance. I have been able to assure the noble Lord that, so far as our actions are concerned, Her Majesty's Government believe that we are in compliance.
Action is presently being taken in the ICJ on some points that have been raised by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I do not believe that any of our actions will be found to be wanting in terms of the Geneva Conventions. However, I suggest that if the noble Lord is worried he should look at some of the information that is presently coming from the ICJ.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, what has the bombing achieved so far? Does the Minister agree that those people whom it was designed to help have suffered far more from the results of it, and that they could be excused for praying that God protect them from their friends?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can tell the noble Earl what the bombing has achieved so far. We are pinning down the Serb forces and hence reducing their ability to conduct ethnic cleansing. Of course they continue with the ethnic cleansing, but it is the opinion of Hashim Thaqi, who is

149
the political spokesman for the KLA that the current bombing is keeping the Serb forces divided; that it prevents them re-grouping; and that without NATO bombing the situation in Kosovo would be even worse. He says that if the bombing stops now, the situation would simply be back to square one.
We have indeed destroyed a great deal of Milosevic's artillery. We have struck eight brigade command posts; we have destroyed two-thirds of the most modern MiG 29 aircraft, and around 100 aircraft in all; we have struck 432 tanks, artillery pieces, and armoured personal carriers. I have an enormous list, including 50 per cent of the ammunition storage in Kosovo and 60 per cent of the production facilities for Serb ammunition. So in military terms there is no doubt that the bombing is achieving an end. I would also point out to the noble Lord that the fact that Serb forces on the ground have to spend a good deal of their time hiding prevents them from fighting.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords does the Minister accept that there is a deadline by which NATO must reach a conclusion in its process of updating planning for all contingencies if ground troops are to be committed in order to ensure that Kosovar Albanian refugees can return to their homes before winter? In the light of that, will the Minister say what the Foreign Secretary's objectives will be when he travels to the United States this week?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, talking about deadlines at the moment puts us in the position of revealing rather more about our planning and thinking on this issue than is sensible in terms of what we communicate to Mr. Milosevic himself. The very concept of talking about having to decide matters by a certain time is a foolish thing to do in terms of military planning. It may be all very well for us to talk privately to each other, but what I communicate in this House is of course communicated to a much wider audience.
In visiting Washington, my right honourable friend will be talking to his opposite numbers there about planning. He was at the GAC yesterday, when he saw a number of our interlocutors. The G8 political planners will meet again tomorrow to take forward some of the thinking that was done in Bonn. So my right honourable friend will have the opportunity to discuss what happened at the G8 meeting with the Americans. I hope that he will also have the opportunity of putting Her Majesty's Government's thinking on this matter very clearly, not only to interlocutors but also to the American people.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, are the Serbs able to re-equip their forces that we have destroyed and damaged? If so, from where are they equipping them? What diplomatic or other measures are we taking to prevent that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to say whether there is a trickle of equipment that is possibly getting through to the Serbs. I would point out that we have already destroyed an
150
enormous amount of Serb hardware. In addition to the list I have mentioned, we have destroyed major oil refineries; 70 per cent of military oil stocks; and 30 per cent of fuel storage. A good deal of the NATO activity is devoted to ensuring that lines of supply to the Serb forces are cut down. That is why a great deal of the targeting has been on bridges and main roads. In that way it is hoped to cut off any sources of supply that Milosevic might want in order to replace what he has already lost through NATO bombing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House which court may be approached to determine the difference in the interpretation of the convention that has arisen; who may approach it; and how?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hoped that I had indicated to the noble Lord that the appropriate way, if such a case were to be pursued, would be through the International Court of Justice. Indeed the FRY is presently pursuing a case at the International Court of Justice against NATO states.
I know that the noble Lord feels passionately about this matter. However, he must also ask himself about the appalling actions against humanity that have been taken by Milosevic's forces. He seems to want to concentrate only on the things that might have gone wrong in terms of NATO bombing. I have in front of me an appalling and sickening document. It is a chronology of the atrocities committed in Kosovo by Serbian forces. It is almost unbearable to read. I shall see whether I am able to release it to the noble Lord. I hope that he will study it as carefully as I have studied the protocol that he sent me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Sit down.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, 30 minutes has elapsed. That is the time set aside for oral Questions.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wonder whether this is a convenient moment for me to ask the Government whether they can enlighten the House on how they see future progress on the House of Lords Bill. It is a unique Bill in that the major part of it is the result of a formal agreement between three parties: the Government, the Opposition and three Members of these Benches, not representing Members on these Benches—my noble friend, Lord Weatherill, my noble friend Lord Carnarvon and myself.
In return for the Weatherill amendment, it was formally agreed that the Bill would enjoy a normal progress through the House. Many of us believe that that side of the bargain is at least possibly at risk. Certainly after last night's performance the House as a whole is entitled to know whether the Government at this stage are confident

151
that the Bill will progress normally, or whether other steps should be taken to ensure and preserve stage one in order that we may sensibly proceed to stage two.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, last night those of your Lordships who wanted to get on with working on the House of Lords Bill were prevented by busloads of hereditaries, who at a quarter-past 11 made a majority to close down the Committee. That was high-order profligacy with parliamentary time. By that behaviour they are at risk of testing the patience of the country and the Government to destruction.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that he does not do himself or his office great credit when he speaks in those terms? He says that "busloads" of Peers were brought in. That is not so. There were nine votes more from this side of the Committee than there were on the other side. The only trouble is that the other side did not bus in 10 more people than it did. It does no credit to the office that the noble and learned Lord holds when he speaks in those terms.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I reject every word of that. What we saw last night was a "go slow" by hereditaries, very many of whom were not even actively participating in our debates. That was self-indulgence of a high order. They compelled those who wanted to work to down tools when they themselves had come in not to work but to close down a House of Parliament.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if I could put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as to his—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case I wonder whether I may put a question to whoever it is appropriate to put a question to about the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he says that this great bargain was struck between the Government, the Opposition and three leading Cross-Bench Peers. It must be clear that a number of Cross-Benchers did not participate in that secret deal, and as far as I am aware the Opposition certainly never participated in it.
We had a very interesting debate on other things yesterday, including a very sensible alternative to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that his premise is simply inaccurate.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, since my name has been mentioned directly, I crave the indulgence of the House to make one simple point. If there is no agreement, perhaps someone will say so and we can reassess our way of dealing with the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am intrigued by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I understood
152
that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had not given permission for a Private Notice Question, so that is not what it is and therefore I suppose it is entirely in order for the noble Lord to respond.
I was rather hoping that today we would get away from the churlishness of last night. It is not an attitude which sits well on this House. What happened last night was a very unusual circumstance. There was a breakdown in the arrangements which best serve this House, the arrangements that work through the usual channels. The usual channels have worked consistently well, in good times and in bad, over a considerable number of years. It must be infinitely preferable for us to return to that happy state. But we on this side of the House, and those in other parts of the House, who do not support the intentions of the House of Lords Bill cannot be blackmailed with threats that are issued from time to time from the party of government.
My noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip had made it plain that we did not feel that it was right for a Bill of this importance to be taken into the small hours of the night. He offered that we should try to complete the business in another hour, and if that was not possible that we should complete it today. He further said that he would do everything he possibly could, short of a total guarantee, to ensure that all the business that the Government wanted between now and the Recess would be honoured.
That was not acceptable, and a vote ensued. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, there was only a nine vote difference between our side and the government side, which must be particularly galling to the government side.
What is also particularly surprising about this issue—
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Strathclyde: In a moment, when I have finished this point.
I was saying that what is also particularly surprising is that within a few hours of the House adjourning the Government themselves were planning to adjourn another place under very different circumstances and to muck up their own business. This is a very odd state of affairs.
I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved a great statesmanlike attitude towards the Bill, that we should revert to that state, because it is one which best serves the interests of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point simply and shortly for the record and in order not to raise the temperature.
We are speaking of a five-clause Bill, with a single schedule. It is admittedly of considerable constitutional importance. Let us consider the extent of the debate that we have had on the issues thus far: one day on the Queen's Speech, two days on the White Paper, two days on Second Reading and six-and-a-half days on the Committee stage, including today. The Government have been very reasonable, but I have to say that there must come an end to all debate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is extremely important. I ask the noble Lord the Leader on the Opposition to make

153
one thing absolutely clear. I thought that I had been given, and that the House had been given, by the Opposition Chief Whip in the Chamber last night a guarantee that the business that I need before Whitsun would be reached. That was confirmed by the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip outside the Chamber. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just appeared to imply that there was something less than a total guarantee. Is he reneging on an agreement that was made by his colleague?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. The noble Lord misunderstood me. I said that it fell mildly short of a guarantee, but what I am trying to say is that we would do everything we possibly could as the Official Opposition to make sure that the Government's business was produced.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I think your Lordships should rise a little above this detail, which can he exchanged between the two sides for an infinite time. Everybody who was here yesterday knows that it was a wasted day. And everybody who was here knows precisely what happened at 11 o'clock. This was very familiar; it is House of Commons politics brought into your Lordships' House.
The point of substance is as follows, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already indirectly faced it. As the House knows, we on these Benches were at no time party to the negotiations which led to the Weatherill amendment. As the House also knows, we are against it in principle and we have been against it in detail.
But the realistic fact is that if the deal, however unacceptable to these Benches it may have been, got the business through, then there was an argument that it was worth doing. Plainly, on yesterday's experience it is not getting the business through. In those circumstances, although I would expect no reply from the Government today, I hope that they will consider between now and next Tuesday whether, when the time comes to consider in the House the question whether the clause should stand part, next Tuesday is the time to say "Enough is enough and the Weatherill amendment should stand no longer".

HFC Bank Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I should like to outline why the Government are bringing forward this measure. The debates in the other place highlighted the sensitivities surrounding the Bill and the Government recognise fully that there are
154
concerns about some of its provisions. But there was total empathy with the families of the victims who have become known as "disappeared" arid this Bill is designed to help those families. Its sole purpose is to bring to an end the suffering they have endured for far too long. They simply want to know what has happened to their loved ones and to give them a decent burial.
This is a short Bill and it is designed to help a small number of families in Northern Ireland. It is right that we should concentrate our minds on those families, but I believe that the Bill has a wider importance. It is indicative of the numerous measures under way to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. Indeed, one aspect of the Belfast agreement is a recognition of the need to acknowledge and address the suffering of victims as essential to the process of reconciliation.
I suggest that the Bill is also indicative of the best traditions of this House and the other place as it shows our willingness to take compassionate steps to help a small minority of people when an overwhelming humanitarian issue comes before us.
We should not forget that we are talking about horrendous murders which in some cases took place as long as 30 years ago. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in the other place, the people listed in the IRA statement had not been charged with any crime, were not given the right to a fair trial and were probably beaten and tortured before they were killed. In short, they were denied their fundamental human rights.
I recognise that there are concerns that the Bill may never result in information about the disappeared coming forward, because there is no guarantee that those with the information will avail themselves of this opportunity.
The Government have received no guarantees and I can give none to your Lordships' House. But the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, are paving the way for information to be provided and the remains of the victims located. We are prepared to take the risk that it will come to nothing. The Bill is right in principle and it is for others to act on it and to meet their pledges to the nine families of the disappeared which appeared on the IRA list.
I also take this opportunity to call for those with information about the remaining victims to come forward. We should not forget in examining this Bill that there are families who still await news of their loved ones and I can assure them and your Lordships that the Bill is designed with all those victims in mind—not just the nine.
Before turning to the provisions of the Bill, I should just say that there are a number of things that the Bill does not do. It is not appeasement; it is not an amnesty; and it is not an immunity. It is none of those things.
The central core of the Bill is to facilitate the provision of information to an independent commission. The commission will be established by an agreement signed by the Government and the Government of Ireland on 27th April.

155
The Bill makes further provision about the commission and its commencement. The commission's function will be to facilitate the location of the remains of persons who were killed before the date of the Belfast agreement, on 10th April 1998, as a result of an unlawful act of violence committed on behalf of, or in connection with, a proscribed organisation; that is, a terrorist organisation.
The Bill then contains three provisions to ensure that information does indeed come forward. The starting point is that no one giving information to the commission should be disadvantaged by doing so.
The first of these provisions appears in Clause 3 and it ensures that information given to the commission and anything found as a result will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings.
The second provision, in Clause 4, ensures that forensic testing is not carried out unless it is for the purpose of an inquest or unless it is to establish whether the remains can be moved safely. Your Lordships will notice similarities between Clause 4 and the equivalent provision within the decommissioning legislation.
The third provision appears in Clause 5 and it ensures that the commission is not able to disclose information to persons who have no legitimate interest in finding the location of the remains. It may therefore pass information to the RUC to facilitate the location of the remains. The commission may also tell the families that it has received information and where the remains are thought to be located. That will, of course, require very sensitive handling and there may be families who prefer to have no such contact with the commission, but the Bill provides them and their representatives with an opportunity to engage with the commission if they so wish.
The Bill makes one further provision, in Clause 6, to enable the police to obtain a warrant authorising entry and search of private premises should that be necessary to locate the graves of the victims. On a number of occasions, my right honourable friend the Minister of State has met members of the families and their representatives. Of the families with whom we have had contact, we are not aware that any oppose the legislation.
Some of your Lordships have met some of the families concerned. I hope that your Lordships found that as enlightening as the families did helpful. I do not doubt that your Lordships have the best interests of the families in mind, but I am aware that some concerns have been raised about the Bill and it might be helpful if I try to deal with some of those.
First, the Bill does nothing to prevent a post mortem or an inquest from taking place. In fact, Clause 4(2) is on the face of the Bill to ensure that forensic testing can indeed take place if it is to enable an inquest to reach a view on the identity of a person, or how, when or where he died.
Secondly, I come back to the suggestion that this Bill is designed to appease or give concessions to the IRA. I repeat to your Lordships that the Bill has one sole
156
purpose. It is for the families and it is to ease their suffering. I would just ask any noble Lords who remain concerned to consider the question posed by my right honourable friend the Minister of State: if not by means of this Bill, what suggestion do they have to ensure that the families can give their loved ones a decent burial? I do accept that some of your Lordships have genuine concerns and the Government are acutely aware that this is not an easy, nor a straightforward, issue. It is a delicate balance, but one which I think we have got right.
I referred earlier to the similarities between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. The limited protections provided in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill, concerning inadmissibility of evidence and restrictions on forensic testing, are there to ensure that relevant information is forthcoming. Those provisions mirror Sections 5 and 6 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That Act went further, in Section 4, in providing an amnesty for offences committed in respect of anything done in accordance with the decommissioning scheme. There is of course no equivalent amnesty in this Bill.
Parallels with the War Crimes Act have also been drawn. Those parallels appear to be based on the assumption that the Bill is an amnesty or an immunity from prosecution. That is simply not the case. Evidence found as a result of the giving of information to the commission will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings, but prosecutions can still be brought on the basis of other evidence should it be available.
I also ask noble Lords to remember that the purpose is to ensure that information comes forward. If the inadmissibility provision was not in the Bill, I think it most unlikely that any information about the location of the graves would ever see the light of day. For the families, every day of the past 30 years has been a nightmare. I can also tell your Lordships that, having been given a glimmer of hope by the IRA statement on 29th March, the prospect of waiting further has been almost more than some of them could bear.
I am aware that the timing of the various stages of the Bill has caused some concern. It might be argued that the families have already waited so long that allowing the Bill to proceed in the normal way would not make a difference. But I ask noble Lords to consider the compassionate aim of the Bill. The timetable for consideration by both Houses is in line with that aim. I do, of course, recognise the need for full and proper scrutiny by your Lordships' House and I have no wish to cut across that. I hope that the time available to us today and next week will be sufficient to ensure that noble Lords give their usual careful consideration to the provisions of the Bill. For their part, the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the commission is operational as soon as possible after the legislation is passed. The Minister of State has convened an inter-agency group to examine every eventuality and to ensure co-ordination between the relevant agencies.

157
I turn now to some concerns about the Bill itself. In another place, there was concern that the Bill did not make explicit provision about what was to be done with information received by the commission. It may be helpful if I outline briefly how the scheme will operate.
We anticipate that the commission will receive information about the location of the remains of the disappeared. That information will be passed to the RUC in the north, and to the Garda in the south, if necessary, to enable the search to begin. Should the RUC be in possession of information, which could be helpful to a defendant in criminal proceedings, it is under the normal duty to bring that fact to the attention of the DPP. Disclosure to the defendant would take its normal course.
There was also concern that the Bill, while enabling a defendant to adduce evidence in criminal proceedings, does not allow the defendant to commission forensic testing in his defence. There are very good reasons for that. The ability to conduct forensic testing may throw up intelligence or information which would be disadvantageous to those giving information to the commission. Allowing forensic testing, other than for the inquest, runs the risk that no information will come forward. Further, there is nothing to prevent a defendant from using the publicly available results of the inquest process to assist his case. That is something that the prosecution will be barred from relying on in the case against him.
Suggestions have also been made about time-limiting the Bill. The aim is to put pressure on those with information about the disappeared to come forward as soon as possible. That is a commendable aim, but the Bill has no time-limiting provisions for very good reasons. First, it is the commission itself which can cease to exist by virtue of an order under Clause 2(6) of the Bill. The remaining provisions of the Bill have to be left in place as it is impossible to say at what point in the future the inadmissibility of provisions and the restrictions on forensic testing might cease to be needed.
Further, the Government intend to let the commission go out of existence after, of course, consultation with the Government of Ireland, as it is a joint international body, if it became clear that no information was likely to come forward. The tragedy is that only nine of the disappeared have been named to date. We urge those with information about the remaining victims to come forward.
The position of their families in unimaginable. As yet they have been given no hope of recovering their loved ones. I should also point out that there is no definitive list of the disappeared. Reports of between 14 and 20 have appeared in the press. The truth is that we do not know for certain. The fact that two of the nine named on 29th March had not been reported missing underpins the need to be flexible about timing. I accept the need to keep the existence of the commission under review, but no provision is needed for that.
Under the agreement with the Irish Government the commission is required to report to the two governments not later than at the end of its first year of operation and annually thereafter. That will be a key indicator of
158
whether further information is expected to be received. The two governments will consider carefully that report in deciding whether the commission should remain operational.
Finally, I come to the issue of assisting the families at a time when they will be making arrangements for the burial of their loved ones. I am very pleased to say that the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund has written to each of the families of the nine individuals whose graves have been identified by the IRA, offering each family a single payment of £4,000, not as compensation, but by way of assistance to them at a time when they will be making arrangements for the burial of their loved ones. This offer will be extended to all the families of the disappeared at such time as the whereabouts of the remains of their loved ones are identified.
The wider compensation issue is horrendously complex. On advice commissioned specifically by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, it is clear that the families would be time-barred from receiving compensation under the statutory compensation scheme. But in that respect they are not in a unique position. Other groups in society are equally outside the scheme for timing reasons. I take, for example, the case of victims of child sex abuse who do not make a claim until their majority. The courts have held that their claims are time-barred. The Minister of State made a very important point when he said that it would be wrong to take a piecemeal approach to an already complex compensation scheme while Sir Kenneth Bloomfield is conducting a review of the scheme and its fitness for purpose.
Before closing, I return to the families. Most of us cannot imagine what they have gone through, and what they will continue to go through until this episode is over. This Bill is our opportunity to bring that suffering to a close and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this Bill is probably one of the most delicate and distressing pieces of legislation that has come before your Lordships during my time as a Member of this House. I certainly pay tribute to the sensitivity with which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has always shown during the course of his distinguished tenure as a Northern Ireland Minister. Indeed, one of the factors that makes this Bill so distressing is the very matter to which the noble Lord has addressed himself during the course of his Second Reading introduction of the Bill. One of the most ghastly by-products of any terrorist conflict, as your Lordships know, is the cruelty inflicted by terrorists, all too often on innocent people or on people who are undertaking duties on our behalf and which the Government have asked them to do.
Such cruelty is not senseless, as it is so often described. It is rather the reverse. Some people enjoy inflicting it. It is carefully calculated. After all, the object of terrorism is substantially to terrorise. Terrorists

159
not only terrorise their opponents in order to try to obtain their way by non-parliamentary means, which is the way in which we like to do things in this country; they also terrorise their own supporters for, above all, they must maintain control over them if they are to maintain their authority. Therefore, I believe I am right in saying that it is no coincidence that the Provisional IRA has been responsible for murdering a greater number of its own supporters than it has members of the security forces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made abundantly clear, there can be no one in this House who does not feel the agony of the families of the disappeared. To know that a close relation has been murdered, almost certainly under sadistic circumstances, is bad enough in all conscience. Not to know where the body is buried must, almost by definition, keep the wound permanently open.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for the next matter I set out. I believe that it is important in the context of what I wish to say in the remainder of my few remarks. Like very many Members of your Lordships' House, many of whom have a tradition of military service, a number of members of my immediate family have served in the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. One in particular served in a capacity which probably exposed him to very high risk of capture, torture and death. As it happens, he escaped those dangers in Northern Ireland but was subsequently killed in another continent by another terrorist. We were fortunate in that we got his body back.
I say that because I wish to demonstrate that at least I have some immediate understanding, as do many of your Lordships who have suffered loss, particularly in the last war, of what the families have suffered. But in my case I believe that I have been fortunate that in the crucial respect I have mentioned I have been more fortunate by far than they. However, despite these ghastly matters, governments have to stand back and consider even broader and more compelling issues.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, says, as my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg pointed out on 12th May on consideration of the Bill in another place, this is perhaps not an amnesty in the fullest sense. But it is a partial amnesty. It is an amnesty which is granted at the Provisional IRA's request. That was clear from the debate in another place. And it was granted, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made abundantly clear, with no guarantee that the terrorist organisations would give up the bodies in return for this concession. The record in other closely allied contexts does not give me great cause for optimism. One has only to look at the organisation's record and its temporising over even a token surrender of weapons to see that it is all too much its habit to pocket a concession and give nothing in return; and then to yowl that it is the British Government who are being inflexible. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this is not the way to peace. It is the way to further conflict—the worst reward for the families who are suffering.
160
There is, therefore, the danger that the Government will find they have played perhaps the cruellest trick on the families of the disappeared despite what we all know to be the manifest good intentions of the Government. They would have raised their hopes only to dash them when once again the Provisional IRA breaks its word.
I very much fear that there is a broader matter which your Lordships should consider when looking at the Bill with all the sympathy for which your Lordships are rightly famous. Dealing with terrorists in the way that we have increasingly done in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland is like becoming hooked on heroin. It is tough at first to take to appeasing them, but it gets easier and more pleasurable, and in the end you like it so much that you take a high moral tone with anyone who takes another view.
I have another difficulty over the Bill. The Minister rightly suggested that those who would benefit from this legislation were not confined to the nine names he mentioned. Others would benefit. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will understand that there is nothing in the least personal as regards himself or the Government in what I am about to say. It worries me that we tend by implication, by our actions—not by what we say because we constantly pay tribute—to take our own Armed Forces for granted. After all, they have been covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister included, for instance, the body of Robert Nirac, as one of the possible beneficiaries of this legislation. However, I venture to suggest that it would have been a tribute for the Government to make it plain that the bodies of the disappeared servants of us, people who put themselves in the front line against terrorism for us and for the people of both communities of Northern Ireland, had been given a rather more prominent part in the Government's rhetoric in discussion of the Bill.
It distresses me to say this. For all its good intentions, the Bill is all too likely to be yet another example of a great many concessions made by us towards the IRA in exchange for very little. It is a protection that has been asked for by the Provisional IRA as part of its successful tactic of getting the British and Irish Governments used to dealing with terrorists as equals. I am highly sceptical that it will lead to the return of any bodies. Like the release of prisoners, under the cover of sympathy which we all feel for the victims' families it takes another step towards the rehabilitation of murder as a weapon of politics without any sign that the murderers have any intention of mending their ways in exchange.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric over the Balkans displays a very different attitude of mind. I should be extremely interested to know why there is one rule for the Kosovars and another for our own fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. I know that this could so easily be taken amiss by the families concerned; and I am conscious of that, but for these reasons I personally want no part of the Bill. With the greatest distress, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I find myself wholly unable to support it.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I refrained from intervening to ask whether he could give us guidance on the Salisbury document. Presumably this Bill was not even hinted at in the manifesto. Even if the spin doctors who drafted that manifesto over two years ago had been charged to do so, they would have exhibited rather better judgment and shied away from it.
The noble Viscount and I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister. However, on certain occasions such as this I wonder whether the two Governments are locked sometimes in a kind of death wish as regards the effect on the so-called peace process. At a time when desperate attempts are being made to conceal what some of us have been realistic enough to identify as fatal flaws in the Belfast agreement, the latest government blunders are certain to be very destructive.
It was always recognised that compromises would be required, and compromises have been given in large dollops but only by and on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland and, to a great extent, the law-abiding citizens of the entire United Kingdom. Those concessions were given, sometimes freely and sometimes under duress in particular by the First Minister Mr. Trimble. It is no fault of his. One understands the pressures which can be applied in those kinds of circumstances. For example, last Friday he was betrayed when the two Governments decided to somersault on the principles contained in the recent Hillsborough declaration for the simple reason that such principles were not acceptable to IRA/Sinn Fein.
In an irresponsible fashion, the two Governments responded to terrorist threats and deliberately and shamefully depicted Mr. Trimble as the one who had shown no flexibility whatever, despite the obvious fact, which we must face, that he kept the show on the road for 15 months. In present circumstances, that should be recognised.
Four weeks ago, it was said that the Prime Ministers were frustrated. That was similar to what used to be said by a certain gentleman on the continent in 1939 in slightly different terminology; his patience was exhausted. Exhausted or not, there was talk of the need to bang two heads together, but now, quite unjustly, they have decided to bang only Mr. Trimble's head and crown Mr. Adams' with a halo. That is how all this is seen in Northern Ireland and, I suspect, in the United Kingdom, too.
Against that background, the Government have introduced this nasty, sordid little Bill. Its real objective is not to help the suffering families of the victims, but to grant permanent immunity to terrorists who have tortured, executed and disposed of those victims. Many came from or lived in the constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I wish to pay tribute to him for all he did to protect, in so far as it lay in his power, people who had elected him to this Parliament. I want also to pay tribute to him as a neighbour because there was a certain overlap between our two constituencies. I wish to thank him for the understanding and co-operation
162
which he showed during the time of what we call in Northern Ireland "the march hedge". I like to chink that. we co-operated to the common good of those in West Belfast.
Let me make it plain that I, like the noble Viscount. have the deepest sympathy for the relatives of he victims tortured and murdered. I have equally sincere: sympathy for the families of 3,000 other victims of terrorism during the past 30 years. How do I forget comrades killed beside me in Normandy in the heat of the battle, not identified, and they, too, have no known graves?
Today, we are being invited to bargain with terrorists to locate the bodies of a dozen people dragged before kangaroo courts, subjected to unspeakable torture and mutilated in the most obscene manner until they died hideous death. Let us remember that these butchers would have claimed to share the same religious faith as their victims.
On 29th March 1999, the IRA announced flat it had located the graves of nine people. Having thus raised the hopes of the families, the IRA heartlessly prolonged the anguish by demanding that the British and Irish Governments pass legislation granting immunity from prosecution before the IRA would begin to reveal any further information—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would the noble Lord apply the same language to the Protestant terrorists who have killed rather more Catholics than the other way round?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I thought I had made it clear chat when I referred to terrorism I was condemning terrorism of every kind, from whatever quarter it conies, just as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I have done throughout our entire time in Parliament. I make no distinction; they are all equally evil men.
So, today we are doing the bidding of the terrorists. It should be remembered that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. Those noble Lords learned in the law will be disturbed to see that the core of the Bill, Clauses 3, 4 and 5, totally ignore the grieving families, but concentrates on protection for the murderers, providing for amnesty, immunity from disclosure of facts likely to lead to criminal proceedings anywhere in the United Kingdom. It does the cause of truth no good for anyone to say that these are not amnesties, immunities from disclosures, because the general perception throughout the United Kingdom at all levels and in all classes of people of all political views is that the acts are exactly what those words mean.
Further protection is provided in the cover-up in Clause 3. It places an absolute ban on disclosure of information uncovered in locating the remains and evidence as to where, when and how the victims were executed. It should also be noted that under Clause 3(2), if any person has been charged with that or any other criminal offence the information can he disclosed in his defence. That latter provision illustrates the professionalism of the legal guidance available to

163
terrorists who set down their arrangements with such clarity that I suspect the parliamentary draftsmen found that their work had already been done for them.
The shear fiendishness of the terrorists of all classes and creeds has forced the two Governments into a high risk strategy of extracting yet another concession from the First Minister, Mr. Trimble. Her Majesty's Government are under no obligation to heed me, but I cannot believe that they will disregard all the assessments from the field of deep intelligence, despite the regrettable publication of the names of those who are now put at risk. Therefore, I conclude with a plea to the Government. Think again while there is yet time; time which may be measured in the interval between this Second Reading debate and the Committee stage next week.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the very title of the Bill fills me with great sadness. It is the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill. It is not about the former Soviet Union, or Rwanda or Indonesia, where terrible murders have taken place. This Bill relates to the United Kingdom. Of all the legislation that has passed through both Houses since I came here more than 30 years ago, I find this the most unacceptable. I cannot understand the two democratic Governments, the Irish and British Governments, freely elected on a democratic franchise; a Parliament in Dublin which has one Sinn Feiner and a British Parliament which has two Sinn Feiners who have never taken their seats. Those people are dictating what the two Governments should do in relation to those bodies.
When listening with great interest to my noble friend Lord Dubs, I had vivid recollections of my term as an MP in West Belfast, Northern Ireland, when people went missing and rumours circulated about their murder and abduction. Perhaps I may illustrate one case. A lady called Jean McConville lived in Divis flats. She was a widow with 10 children. Her husband had died four months previously. One evening a gun battle was taking place between the British Army and the IRA outside her home. Some people would say that she foolishly opened her door to see what was happening. She went outside to find a British soldier lying dying where he had been shot by the IRA. She cradled him in her arms until he died. For that act of humanity, the next day the IRA called and took her away. They murdered her. Devastation was brought to that family, where the father had died four months previously. Ten young orphans were then handed out to different charitable societies and homes and lost each other. Helen McKendry, her daughter, who has been so courageous over the past years, tried to bring up what was left of the family.
The IRA took that woman away, as they did so many other people. They not only took them away and murdered them, but they then intimidated their relatives: "Do not say anything or we will murder you." For many years the relatives were unable to speak, until the recent cease-fires. Helen McKendry found the courage, with her husband, Seamus, to speak out against what
164
happened to her when she was a very young girl. The whole of Northern Ireland then became aware of the situation.
I pay tribute to a brilliant young Belfast Telegraph reporter by the name of Gail Walker who wrote a very poignant profile of Helen McKendry. Then the people in Northern Ireland who had been school children when these things happened were able to read the awful circumstances in which those murders took place.
I was in Northern Ireland for the past three weekends, and I have spoken to Protestants and Catholics about the Bill since the announcement was made on 29th March. There is deep and bitter resentment among those who believe in democracy and believe that justice can be obtained through legislation, and that parliaments for which they have voted will take a stand against murderers and gunmen. The people in Northern Ireland are now aware of the awful anguish that was inflicted on those families for far too long.
The Bill has nothing to do with the Belfast agreement; it has nothing to do with the peace process; this Bill is about appeasing the IRA. I cannot anticipate what will be said by noble Lords who follow me, but I am certain that if they are from Northern Ireland they will express the same point of view as the one I am expressing.
I attended last week in the other place and then spent a most depressing weekend reading the reports of the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill. Ministers were doing their damnedest to justify having made this further appeasement to the IRA. I found it absolutely sickening. One speaker stated that those who had spoken on the Bill referred to it as being obnoxious, obscene, distasteful and disgusting. That is no exaggeration. I have mentally ransacked Roget's Thesaurus to find other words which convey my detestation of the Bill and its further surrender to demands of the IRA.
The background to the Bill should be understood in the context of the families that have suffered so grievously. I met some of them here last week. They were my constituents, and they told me of some of their experiences. Members of Sinn Fein, which has no connection with the IRA, went to some of those victims and said: "We have good news for you; you can now bank on getting your bodies back". Who gave that information to Sinn Fein? The Minister in the other place stated that there was no contact with the IRA and that it was done through an intermediary. There are intermediaries from Sinn Fein running in and out of Downing Street every day of the week, so they do not have to go very far to know who speaks for and who speaks against the IRA.
The Bill flies in the face of every concept of democracy as we know it in these islands. I repeat that two democratically elected parliaments are now bowing to a demand and a threat by the IRA. Some people in Northern Ireland have asked me whether this is all about keeping bombs out of England. Is that what this blackmail is all about?
My noble friends Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Janner and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, fought tenaciously to ensure that the War Crimes Bill became law, and

165
I supported them because I could see its relevance to Northern Ireland. Two months ago a war criminal was brought before an Old Bailey court and sentenced to life imprisonment for murders he had committed fifty or sixty years ago in Belarus. That case would never have been heard, had it not been for those noble Lords. What is the difference? Why did the British Government go to such expense to bring that man here, to take the jury out to Belarus the place where the executions took place, and yet in Northern Ireland they do a shabby, underhand deal with the people who committed the same crimes?
On 29th March this year the IRA issued a statement, stating that they were prepared to identify the location of nine of the bodies. Some of the relatives contacted me that very evening and said: "Gerry, isn't it great, after all these years; we are going to get our loved ones back?". Within 48 hours the IRA had issued another statement, saying: "There is a pre-condition". This is the party that is always talking about pre-conditions, particularly in relation to decommissioning. They said: "Oh, no, we are not going to identify them until you give us an amnesty".
My noble friends will talk around the words of the Bill, but we all know that this is an amnesty. No-one will be brought before the courts for having committed these murders: otherwise, the IRA would never have agreed. The IRA will not make an agreement whereby their murderers will be brought before the court. They are now prolonging the agony. In answer to repeated questions in the other place, the Minister said he could give no guarantee that the bodies will ever be recovered.
I say with some degree of sadness that there were only two Government Back-Benchers in the other place when these issues were being debated. Roger Stott came in at a later stage for a few minutes. I would like to think that Members, by their absence, were indicating that they could not give wholehearted support to the Bill.
Those people from Northern Ireland feel the injustice of the Bill in their hones, as I do. The Minister asked why, as the Tories had granted some form of immunity on the decommissioning issue, we are so opposed to granting immunity. The two cases are entirely different. Anyone who is going to give information on where to find arms is in a totally different position from the person who is going to give information about a murder that has already been committed. Murder is the greatest crime in the English criminal calendar. It has absolutely nothing to do with decommissioning.
I have found it very difficult over the past two or three weeks to reply to people who have said: "Gerry, what would you do? You are only prolonging the agony of the people who want those bodies back. Please let it go through because the IRA will realise they have been appeased and they will release the bodies". I am not sure that they ever will do so. I want to place on record—although I probably do not need to—that my life in politics, from a Belfast city councillor to my arrival here, will show that I have the greatest and utmost sympathy in every fibre of my being with those who want the return of their loved ones so that they can give
166
them a burial with respect and dignity. In no way can anyone accuse me of trying to hold up the return of those bodies.
Last Friday evening, after a marathon session in Downing Street with the political parties, the Prime Minister issued a statement. He said that he was setting a deadline of 30th June for the culmination of the talks between the political parties in Northern Ireland in relation to the Belfast agreement. That is yet another deadline. However, he said that that deadline will be the final one and that agreement had to be found by 30th June.
If deadlines have to be met, and that is the final deadline, it is all right for the Prime Minister to lay down a deadline again to freely elected representatives from Northern Ireland, no matter how much they may disagree with each other. But he referred to 30th June, the date on which he demands that the political parties find agreement. Perhaps he could also say that those bodies must be returned on that date, so that we would have a date on which those bodies will be returned and that will prove the bona fides of both Governments.
I have spoken at some length and I could go on as this is an issue with which I feel personally involved. This Bill is a shabby deal, in violation of every concept of democracy and humanity as we know them. I could never support this Bill in the Lobbies if there were to be a vote.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I support the Bill for a number of reasons, but largely on the ground of the full support it was accorded in another place, the elected Chamber of the United Kingdom. At Second Reading on 10th May, after four hours of debate, the Bill was agreed on a Division by 289 votes to 10. Only three Northern Ireland Members of the House of Commons opposed the Bill. Two days later, following almost five hours of debate in Committee and on Third Reading, the Bill was approved by 324 votes to 5, only four Northern Ireland Members opposing the measure.
It is understandable, in the existing highly charged political situation in Northern Ireland, that the sensitive and difficult nature of the laws governing terrorism and murder are being challenged. However, issues arising from the experiences and suffering of families who have not been told where their loved ones have been buried must be addressed. In the interests of humanity, reason and justice—by all means let us uphold justice—we must be sensitive enough to distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate, between the media hype and the real, meaningful, neighbourly actions concerning the families of the disappeared.
The heart-rending stories of the victims of sectarian, bigoted, terrorist actions are distressing and harrowing. That goes for those who received the dead, those who nursed the dying and those who mourn without the bodies. The agonising suffering of the families who have not been told where their loved ones are buried must be given our earnest compassion. We must distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.

167
Noble Lords will have received reading material from organisations representing the families of the disappeared in Northern Ireland. I know that some noble Lords have already promised to visit. Some of the organisations span the Falls Road and Shankill Road areas. Catholics, Protestants, nationalists and unionists are gathered together in the group, not only those who are residents of the Falls Road and Shankill Road areas. Noble Lords are looking forward to meeting some of them.
Perhaps it would be relevant and helpful if I read an extract from one of the group's papers. I shall paraphrase, as the style is different from that which I could use before your Lordships: "As a victims' group we would normally oppose such legislation, an Act that proposes forensic evidence may not be used in relation to a conviction of any terrorist. However, realising there is no other way to obtain the remains of our loved ones, we would plead, in this instance, to dismiss any thoughts for the actual perpetrators. We are acutely aware of our feelings concerning them. We invite noble Lords to concentrate on the loss, the grief and the deep and lasting feelings of the victims."
Another note states, and again I paraphrase: "In our Shankill Stress and Trauma Group we represent 90 per cent of victims where no known perpetrator has ever been brought to justice." I am referring to instances where bodies have already been buried, particularly in circumstances when there was no respectful burial. The note adds: "We all realise that we have gone beyond our sense of personal feelings for such perpetrators."
Such in-depth feelings go beyond the ordinary feelings of human beings who have suffered murder at the hands of terrorists. Those who cannot grieve and do not have a grave by which to remember the victims have an additional suffering. We know what that would mean to most of us in normal circumstances.
The note continues: "However, we have found some relief by bringing into force the special time of mourning with our families, friends and loved ones, the remedial, peaceable, simple act of remembrance." So they come together for an act of remembrance for those whose burial place they do not know.
The note adds: "We invite noble Lords to support the Bill. Focus your attention and sense of humanity on the grief and continuing agony of the families of the disappeared. They need to have the remains of their loved ones buried, not in mud and concrete, but in a consecrated place and a place of eternal rest."
I believe that the Bill, when enacted, will go a long way to meet the needs of the families of the disappeared. I am aware that it is difficult, but so are many acts of justice. We should recognise that justice must follow with a sense of mercy and, above all, those who preach it must walk honourably before God.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is a most unfortunate Bill. It has resurrected memories in many of us which we hoped to have forgotten. The disappeared to whom we refer are all victims of the most
168
ghastly crimes and they all occurred in the 1970s, in a particular way. Unfortunately, they were carried out by the provisional IRA.
The apparent object of this Bill is to facilitate the return of victims' remains to their families in order that they can arrange a Christian burial. But it is not as simple as that and it is important to understand the circumstances.
This was a group of murders that took place in the 1970s. At that time the provisional IRA was determined to control what it called "their areas" and no opposition was tolerated. If anyone was suspected of informing on or opposing the IRA in any way, they were abducted and never seen again. They were tortured and mutilated. If they survived the torture, they were taken in front of a kangaroo court, sentenced to death and shot. The bodies were disposed of, generally believed to be in the most convenient way such as being buried in concrete foundations or under roadworks. I shall be surprised if any of them were buried in a place where the remains can be recovered. With the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I do not believe that any of them will be found.
All that must be recognised to realise that they were not ordinary murders—if there is such a thing as an "ordinary" murder. They were the vilest of crimes. The terrorists allowed some details of their horrific acts to leak out so that others would know what would happen to them if they did not accept IRA control.
The IRA policy remains in place in 1999 but the methods have changed. IRA/Sinn Fein has mounted a well orchestrated campaign to discredit the RUC and is attempting to ensure that the police service is rearranged in a way which will allow it to organise community policing. IRA/Sinn Fein will then remain in control of "their areas". But it has been embarrassed by the continuing pleas of the families of its victims of murder 20 or more years ago. The way it overcame that embarrassment was to request the Government to give it this amnesty; it will help it to get "Brownie" points from the families of victims, and it will be able to say what it persuaded governments in both parts of Ireland to do to locate victims' remains. It is significant that this Bill deals with location rather than return, which is most unlikely.
Governments are claiming that this Bill and the international agreements they signed are in response to the pleas from the families of the victims. I have no doubt that it is another example of the Government's desire to accede to every request from IRA/Sinn Fein. Why our Government with the Government of the Republic of Ireland signed this agreement in such haste speaks much for what they are doing. Now they seek power to tamper with the criminal law. That is very hard to understand and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—with my far less experience of Parliament than his—I never thought that I would be faced with a Bill which attempts to tamper with the criminal law to please terrorists.
I respect the wishes of the victims' families, with whom I have every possible sympathy. I remember at the time of these murders how much we felt for those families. They were in their own communities having

169
had their loved ones murdered by the people in those communities. They have suffered more than anyone else. But I cannot accept that it is thoughts for them that has brought about this Bill. The Government have done little for the families of thousands of other victims of terrorism. as was made clear in the excellent report recently made by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and in a different way I am saying the same thing. I feel exactly as they do. This is not a Bill to which I can give my support.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I do not need to come from Northern Ireland to share the feelings of horror and disgust expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We are being asked to rush a hateful Bill through the House. The last time we had to rush a Bill through the House happened after Ornagh; it was the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill. The Prime Minister said,
"There are few more important challenges to democracy … than terrorism in all its forms. We must fight it vigorously wherever it appears".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/98; Col. 696.]
I find it difficult to reconcile the two Bills.
The story begins earlier than 20th March 1999. In September 1998 the IRA, after many years of ignoring the most moving pleas from the Families of the Disappeared, suddenly became a caring IRA. On the day that a list of no fewer than 14 of the missing were named by the Families of the Disappeared, the IRA spokesman said that it,
"sympathised greatly with the families of those whose loved ones disappeared in the course of the conflict",
adding that,
"twenty years ago the Army Council issued a directive that anyone executed by the IRA"—
note the effrontery of its word for murder—
"should he left for their families. Prior to this directive, in the 1970s, the IRA was responsible for the execution and burial of a small number of people".
The spokesman went on to say,
"Last autumn [1997] the IRA established a special unit under the command of one of our most senior officers to ascertain the whereabouts of those graves".
He added that the passage of time, changes in leadership and the deaths of some IRA members had made that difficult, but that the work of the unit would continue and when it had established as complete a picture as possible, the relevant families would 'be notified. That was said eight months ago when the unit had already been established for a year and no conditions were then set.
The IRA has had 30 years and more to behave like normal decent human beings, so far as murderers can. We are entitled therefore to ask: why now? What advantage does it see in this? What deal has been done? According to the Minister in another place,
"The British Government have had no contact with the IRA on this issue, which has been handled through an intermediary with the Irish Government [the Government of the Republic of Ireland]".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/99; col. 347.]
170
Who initiated that contact? Who negotiated the terms which were then embodied in a treaty and are now to be enshrined in legislation which ensure that any evidence which might emerge from the coroner's examination of whatever remains may he produced. may not be used in evidence except for the benefit of any future defence?
It may well be that some of the murderers are themselves dead and beyond the reach of any prosecution. It is certainly true that the families passionately wish nothing to prevent the restoration to them of those pitiful remains, and it is hard to oppose that. But we can and must ask the Government about the precedent that will be set, since we are told that there is no time limit and the provisions of the Bill are open-ended. What happens if others now disappear? The IRA is still violently attacking its own nationalist constituency; still sending families into exile. What if more are executed? British subjects have had to live for years under a regime of terror. The families have never dared to speak and when 10 children were left without their mother, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, told us, no one in the community dared to help them. They were eventually split up and taken into care by the social services. Those were their own people.
What guarantee is there that this legislation, which utterly flouts the rule of law, will not be used again? Ii is of course a matter of extreme concern that even when the legislation is passed and the murderers are safe, the IRA may decide for tactical reasons and in order to bring pressure to hear, not to find those bodies—and certainly not to find those of any family which talks too much or on whose individual behalf we say anything which the IRA does not want said. What guarantee do the Government have that, having secured this automatic amnesty for all its murderers—I beg your pardon, executioners—the IRA will not be stricken with collective amnesia and find itself unable to remember where the bodies are? What sort of freedom fighters, what kind of national patriots could coolly bargain over the bodies of the dead, and those dead their own people? I hope there will be no words of gratitude or praise for them and that this obscenity among laws will not be described as yet another "confidence-building" measure by our Secretary of State; and above all, that it will not constitute a precedent.
I should add that I found it particularly horrifying, though I realise that it is now a standard preface to all Bills, that the Secretary of State should declare the provisions of the Bill to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, when it is a mockery of the human rights of both the families and the victims that the murderers should be both appeased and protected, and the rule of law flouted and set aside.
It is all the more hateful and reprehensible that it. seems likely to allow the IRA to impose a double standard upon us in this most delicate area of justice On the same day as the Secretary of State signed the treaty which gives complete protection and complete anonymity to IRA murderers, the RUC asked for anonymity for police witnesses at the Bloody Sunday inquiry because of well-grounded fears for their personal safety. But the family of one of the Bloody Sunday victims said, through their barrister:

171
"It would negate the very purpose of the enquiry. At its roots, the purpose of the enquiry is to discover and to bring to light who killed their relatives and other citizens, in what circumstances they were killed, and why and how they were killed".
That was the nationalist view. I suggest that it would be monstrous for the state to afford the Army and the RUC witnesses (servants of the state who are not even on trial for any crime) less protection than this legislation will assure the IRA's acknowledged, though anonymous, killers. I hope that urgent consideration will be given to this issue.
An issue which greatly concerns many of us emerged in a brief, informal discussion with representatives of the families for which we are greatly indebted to the Minister. I am sad, indeed, to have to speak in these terms about this Bill when such a decent Minister is putting it through the House. It was also raised as a result of the same discussion in the other place last week. I refer to the question of compensation. I understand that applications are entertained only within three years of the report of a death. Of course, the families have never known a date of death. When we come to the Committee stage, I very much hope that it will prove possible for the Government to propose an amendment which would create a special exception to the law as it stands in these cases. If the state cannot give the families justice, it can at least accord them, as of right, a benefit which they have been unable to claim within the required time limit through no fault of their own. I hope, too, that it can be given in such a form as to make it difficult or even impossible for the IRA then to impound the money from them as a "voluntary contribution".
I was glad to hear the Minister speak of the Government's concern for victims. I give him warning that I intend to ask what the Government will now be doing for the many RUC officers and reservists who were blown up, killed or shot over the past years; and who, since their 20s, have been tetraplegics and paraplegics for no other reason than serving their country. They, too, have suffered severely from the present very strict application of the compensation laws. I shall be returning to this issue in the context of the inquiry of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield.
There is one more aspect of this hateful Bill and of the whole question of "The Disappeared". We all know that we cannot even enlarge on what little we know of what goes on behind the iron curtain of silence from the occasional very brave man or woman who speaks out in the nationalist community, without putting them at risk from such grinning hyenas as Gerry Adams. Fortunately there is unimpeachable evidence of what is happening in the Rowe Report on the operation in 1997 of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act; this was published in June 1998, after the Belfast agreement. It says:
"There is intimidation of communities, and this is one of the really significant signs that the paramilitary organisations are continuing a high level of activity. Great influence is exerted in this way. Ordinary people feel threatened, they are obliged by extortion to pay money, or they are obliged to close their shops on certain occasions; and they are fearful of giving evidence or serving on a jury".
172
Mr. Rowe then goes on to say:
"I agree that there is a reduced amount of terrorist activity, and of course there are ceasefires and the April agreement and a "Yes" vote in the referendum of 22 May. But I have heard and seen real evidence of intimidation exerted by paramilitaries and the fear caused by it. I refer to Chapter 3 above where I survey the facts about the present terrorist situation and in my view those facts demonstrate what is the influence, still, of the paramilitaries. Furthermore, where a jury was empanelled to try a case which had paramilitary connections, jurors reported incidents in which they were obviously intimidated and they were made apprehensive and the trial was therefore aborted; and there were several attempts to complete the trial but each failed, and for the same reason. To my mind the case is a clear illustration that juries cannot yet be asked to try cases where there is a paramilitary connection".
Isolated as the republican community is, and despite the strong culture of distrust and even hatred of the forces of law and order which has been inculcated in them, the existence of the rule of law remains a vital part of life in a free country. The IRA is waging a powerful and unrelenting campaign to have the RUC abolished as a result of the report of the Patten Commission, and replaced by a so-called "people's police" or "community police". We all know who they would be. It is, incidentally, difficult to conceive how such "police", who would themselves be dealing in drugs and violence and murdering any troublesome rivals, could co-operate with any international force or even with the forces in the rest of Great Britain or in the Irish Republic. If it cannot secure the outright abolition of the RUC, the IRA, in the name of normalisation. wants it disarmed.
The Bill before us sends a terrible message of appeasement, though we all understand the reasons why the Government so wish to help families. It will, in my view, cause a very great loss of confidence in the will of the state to maintain the rule of law, to protect the weak and the innocent. Many will find it difficult to understand that this is being done for a small group of families. However, having met some of them, I fear we all recognise that it may have to be. But we do not have to compromise justice for all, we do not have to allow the IRA to presume to equate their murderers with our policemen and soldiers. We certainly do not have to disarm the forces of law and order as yet another confidence-building measure to encourage the IRA, while it does not give up even an ounce of semtex.
I think that the Government must stop thinking about normalisation in IRA terms. They must recognise that they now need urgently, and have done for many months, to restore the confidence of the good, law abiding majority. If the Bill brings that about it may not have been wholly a disaster, though I have to say that I am not sure, even in the face of the grievous suffering of the families, that I can bring myself not to oppose it should it come to a vote.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that this Bill applies only to murders committed before April 1998?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if that is so, I am extremely relieved to hear it. However, I shall be very interested to see whether the IRA does not in some way interpret the Bill in the way that I have interpreted it.
4.37 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it is difficult for me to welcome this Bill—a Bill to enable the Government to circumvent the democratic judicial system in the United Kingdom. However, I have the greatest sympathy for the families and relatives of "The Disappeared". They have been through hell and anguish during the past 30 years. For that reason, if this Bill achieves the recovery of the bodies and a decent burial, then, I suppose, it must go through. No reasonable person could deny the families that. But, at the moment, I do not know that the Government can persuade me that that will actually occur.
However, there is another matter. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others have said, this Bill is to appease the terrorists and to help the peace process go forward. I seriously doubt that it will. The Government have been bargaining and dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA for years. The Government think that this Bill is a good deal. If it is, it is the first one that there has ever been. Indeed, there have been no deals up until now and it takes two sides to make any deal. There is only one side giving concessions at present.
I, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—and, perhaps, in the United Kingdom—have supported the peace process from the Belfast agreement, through the release of prisoners, the legislation for decommissioning, the elections, and so on, because we fervently hope that Sinn Fein/IRA will give something in return. Virtually everything that the latter has demanded has been granted or been surrendered by us for nothing. Not one weapon nor an ounce of explosives have been handed in. If this Bill is thought by some to be a little footbridge on the way to peace and compromise by Sinn Fein/IRA, I fear that they will be proved wrong.
The Minister may say that I am ignoring the humanitarian reasons for the Bill. Mr. Ingram said in another place,
"it is a wholly humanitarian gesture that has been made because the Government genuinely care about the families, who have borne so much grief and hurt over all those years with quiet dignity".".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/99; col. 41.]
I do not question the Government's intention or sympathy. I have already said that I am extremely sympathetic to that. However, to use the word "wholly" is a contradiction of what Mr. Ingram had said earlier, or it seems to me to be so. He said at col. 39 of Hansard,
"We have had to introduce a considerable amount of legislation as the peace process has developed, based en the circumstances prevailing at the time. It would have been better if we did not need legislation, but if that is the way in which we achieve the objective, the Government must introduce it".
I am sure that the objective was clear to everyone; namely, the future of the peace process. At that stage I do not believe he was talking about the humanitarian aspect.
'Therefore we must consider what the measure will achieve for the Government. Will it achieve a change of heart on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA? I doubt it. The Government are relying on our humanitarian instincts and sympathy for the families of the disappeared to ensure that this concession to terrorism goes through
174
against all democratic and judicial principles. The Government are right; namely, that we may have to swallow a bitter pill. Our dignity and democratic right to fair play are being traded away on the back of our sympathy and humanity.
Let us consider the reasoning of Sinn Fein/IRA on this issue. When it brutally murdered these people that was not enough; it had to hide and dispose of the bodies secretly. It had to add to the intimidation and fear felt among the community. In that it succeeded. It was a card to hold for another time. That card has now been. turned up when there is something to be gained by producing the bodies. In this Bill it is achieving an amnesty for the perpetrators who are perhaps senior members of Sinn Fein/IRA.
The Minister will say—as Mr. Ingram did in another place—that this is not an amnesty. However, the IRA believes that it is. Sunday Life of 11th April states,
"The revelation comes after the IRA leadership announced they will not reveal the location of the secret graves, until they receive an amnesty from prosecution".
This is an amnesty because if the security forces already had evidence there would have been a trial and perhaps a conviction. However, there is none. Therefore the only evidence, or the only evidence that is likely to lead to other evidence, that could be found will concern the locations of the bodies or the bodies themselves.
In addition the IRA is continuing to use the disappeared to further its own terrorist aims. First, it talks about only nine bodies. What about the remaining figure of anywhere between six and 11, including Captain Nairac? I suppose we shall have to await the IRA's "deal" on that one. The IRA also continues to heap misery and sorrow on the families of the disappeared. I again quote from a newspaper. The headline of the News Letter of 12th April states,
"Bury them in secret, IRA tells families".
The article continues,
"IRA godfathers have ordered nine families of the 'disappeared' to agree to burying their loved ones in secret before the heartless terrorists will reveal where the bodies are hidden. It is the second cruel pre-condition imposed on the families in as many weeks".
Another headline states,
"Provos final insult".
Yet another headline states,
"IRA bars press at victims' funerals".
That headline appeared in the Guardian which is not even a Northern Ireland newspaper. I mention that to show that these headlines do not emanate merely from Northern Ireland. These matters are picked up by numerous newspapers. Another headline appeared in the Sunday Life,
"IRA's final insult".
So it goes on. Is this the talk of people who wish to end the misery and who are likely to carry out their side of this bargain to hand over the bodies? I do not think so. That leads me to the ceasefire. How did the IRA wish to stop the families from holding the funerals in public'? As far as I am aware, there is only one way to achieve that; namely, through intimidation, fear, weapons and more shootings. One cannot say that this is a case of a renegade group carrying out a kneecapping last night,

175
tomorrow or any other time. We cannot any longer get away with saying, "This is not the real IRA". Who is giving up the bodies? It is the real IRA. Who has said that they should not be given a public funeral? It is the real IRA. Yet the Government expect the IRA to hand over the bodies. I am not convinced about that.
The terrorists will not produce the bodies out of sympathy. An amnesty is their target and in this Bill they achieve that. In County Fermanagh we have a saying, "I did not come out Lough Erne in a bubble". I and many others are not taken in by this. Are the attitudes of the terrorists changing? I do not think so. The weapons issue is one example and everyone in your Lordships' House knows that all too well. There are other examples. The headline of the News Letter of 15th May states,
"Every day, 20 people are abused in Ulster".
The article continues,
"Each day in Northern Ireland at least 20 men, women and children suffer one form or other of human rights abuse at the hands of the IRA and loyalist terrorists. These figures are not the rantings of a political propagandist but rather the figures confirmed by both voluntary and statutory agencies".
Those agencies have no axe to grind; in fact those victims are costing them money. Further, has the IRA stopped targeting? No, it has not. It has not stopped smuggling, money laundering and fraud. The godfather of them all—or so it is said—Martin McGuinness is about to receive an honest wage if he becomes a Minister. It will be about £70,000 a year. A journalist asked me the other day whether I thought this measure was a concession by Sinn Fein to walk into Stormont. The facts speak for themselves. They were hammering at the gates for a year trying to get in to get their hands on lucrative jobs. For most of the past year they have done that and now they have got there without a single concession being made. If anything, Sinn Fein is getting more ruthless. The headline of the News Letter of 15th May states,
"Out of bounds".
The article continues,
"Sinn Fein's anti-RUC campaign plumbed new depths yesterday, when it managed to prevent a handful of schoolgirls from enjoying a day's walking in the Mournes".
That walk was sponsored by the RUC.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Viscount. He referred to IRA and loyalist murders. Is he doing anything in his power to stop the loyalist murders?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I hope that my 17 years of counter-terrorism service in Northern Ireland have achieved a fair amount to stop terrorism of all kinds wherever it comes from. The article continues,
"The trigger for the cancellation came in a statement from Belfast City Councillor Tom Hartley, who attacked the school for going along with what he called the RUC's 'latest charm offensive'".
The problem is that the Government and Sinn Fein have two entirely different goals: the Government believe that their goal satisfies something that Sinn Fein will be happy with; and Sinn Fein is absolutely sure that what is riding on the back of it is satisfactory.
176
I wish to make one more point. It is always dangerous to make comparisons with what happens in Great Britain. But if the Government have produced the Bill for wholly humanitarian reasons, as we have been told, perhaps I may ask the Minister what the Government are doing about missing murder victims in Great Britain. I do not know how many there are, but one name is familiar—Suzy Lamplugh. The anguish, misery and sorrow of her family can be no less than that of any one of the families of victims in Northern Ireland. Her murderer might perhaps reveal the whereabouts of her body if the Government were to produce yet another humanitarian Bill to protect him or her.
4.50 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships long in making my contribution to the Second Reading debate on the rather sordid little Bill that is before us today. It has been said on behalf of the Government that the Bill is not appeasement. Anyone who believes that will believe anything. It is as blatant an example of appeasement as I have seen for some time—and we have seen some fairly flagrant examples, such as the release of condemned prisoners with blood on their hands, who were let out without showing any kind of repentance and without anything being done to ensure that they did not carry out any further activities.
I have the greatest sympathy with the families of the victims, as have other noble Lords, but I very much doubt whether they will gain much from the Bill. To say "We must trust the terrorists to carry out their part of the bargain" is not a strong hope to hand out to anyone. It is not justified by what the terrorists have done in the past.
I, too, have thought about non-terrorist criminals who have buried their victims. Some have killed children and buried them and have not said where they have buried them. If a Bill was brought forward which provided that if they said where their victims were buried they would be protected from prosecution, such a Bill would not stand up for very long in this House or anywhere else. It is only when murders are terrorist connected that one can do that kind of thing.
One other aspect of the Bill concerns me. The Government of the Irish Republic are referred to in Clause 1 as the Government of Ireland. Of course they do not have such a claim. That our Government should be colluding with another government who are making claims over a part of the United Kingdom—it is contrary to the spirit of the European Union for one country to start claiming the territory of another—and that the Government should be putting such matters into legislation, shows a lack of self-respect. I think that is the easiest way to put it.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I, too, will not detain your Lordships long. We have heard some very moving and excellent speeches against the Bill. I wish to associate myself with the speeches of, in particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord

177
Molyneaux and Lord Cooke. I, too, was in Northern Ireland for the weekend—it was rather longer than that—where I was carrying out some millennium engagements. I had the opportunity to meet a number of members of the media, councillors, Assembly Members and so on. Knowing that the Bill was coming before the House, I questioned them about attitudes. I did not receive one answer that supported the Bill in any way; I had several answers that condemned it. I also learnt, at rather closer hand than I have in recent times, of the horrendous things that are happening even now, daily and weekly, in the communities and on the streets, in the way of terrorism, thuggery and so on.
In my opinion, the Bill is almost an insult to Parliament. I cannot believe the literature that I have seen on the Bill. It is an unpleasant and cynical little Bill. It undermines and cuts right across the fundamental laws of our society. I would go so far as to suggest that perhaps we have it only because of the Government's PR system. Quite rightly, they have been doing a certain amount to rehabilitate those murderers and terrorists who have been let out of prison. Money has been spent and care and effort has been put into it. But they have not done much for the victims of those terrorists. It became clear to the Government, by one means or another, that it was time they did something. Out of that, among other things, emerged this rather nasty little Bill.
Although I did not hear much of the debate on this matter in the other place, I have read virtually all of the Hansard report. I have to say than I was extremely disappointed that my party sat on its hands and did not go into the Lobby with the Ulster Unionists and the right honourable Mr. Hogg.
I have great respect and sympathy for all the families of the victims of the IRA's fiendish torture and sadism. As most people know, I spent about 12 years in Her Majesty's service and fought terrorism on three continents, sometimes in rather strange ways and remote places, which the noble Viscount will know. It happens in all walks of life—both in war and peace—that we lose our loved ones, either in unpleasant circumstances or even in accidents at sea, and the remains of our loved ones are never returned for burial. I am not condoning anything; I am just saying that it is not a situation in which these families are isolated. Although I have great feeling and sympathy for those who are bereaved and whose loved ones have not had a decent burial, I cannot and do not think that the Bill does anything for the greater good of mankind. I am fairly certain that most of those families would agree. The Bill condones torture and the desecration of human remains by creating a safe haven for those who have perpetrated these awful deeds and by guaranteeing them the right to remain at large.
I understand to some extent the Government's need to try to bring about the return of these remains. I would make one concession that was refused in the other place; namely, that the Government could be persuaded to place a time limit on the effect of the Bill.
If the Government are right and the terrorists are prepared to deliver in exchange for immunity from prosecution—which I doubt; as others have said, I doubt whether it is physically possible to return the remains of
178
most of those for whom we are looking—six months should be more than enough time for them to deliver. In that way, and in that way only, is the Bill plausible. I suggest that a short time limit would help to prevent: serious misuse of the Bill as a political negotiating tool and underline the Government's case that it a credible, humane gesture to help the bereaved.
5 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I wish to add my voice to those of the majority of speakers in the debate in expressing deep concern about the Bill. No one could have expressed those views more movingly than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, more eloquently than the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, or with deeper knowledge than the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
Many of us who live in Northern Ireland, and who support the Good Friday agreement and yearn for a return to peace and normal life, view the Bill with some nausea. It was rightly described in the other place as a grubby and obnoxious piece of legislation. It is yet another sop to the terrorists following the release of prisoners, the reduction of security forces, relaxations in security and turning a blind eye to punishment beatings. It is another instalment in an appeasement process—an amnesty, however the Minister may wish to phrase it. It is another twist to morality and justice in the cause of political expediency.
Of course, we all have deep sympathy with the families of the disappeared and can identify with the agony they have suffered. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, so accurately warned, the Bill may provide the cruellest touch of all: to raise their hopes and then dash them. There is no guarantee that the Bill will, or can, deliver what it sets out to do. The Bill's aims on admissibility of evidence and forensic testing are confused, as the Committee stage in another place clearly indicated. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect deeply on the views expressed in this debate and take into account the strong and passionate feelings of those in this House who are closely involved in Northern Ireland affairs.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, during the Bill's passage in another place it was described as odious, nasty, obnoxious and outrageous, among other things. In that respect—and that small respect only—I disagree with those in another place and in this Chamber who say it. That is the only point on which I disagree in relation to today's debate. I read with great care the reasoning behind the Bill, given by Mr. Ingram in another place. And, as always, the Minister has introduced the Bill in this House today with the care, courtesy and consideration to which we are all accustomed. It is obvious that the motives behind the Bill are well intentioned and honourable.
However, the Bill is perhaps unfortunate. II: is certainly inopportune and most definitely inappropriate. Like all noble Lords and Members of another place, I totally empathise with the relatives of those who are

179
described as the "disappeared" or, more realistically, those who have lost relatives in the most savage and brutal circumstances as a result of the murderous activities of Sinn Fein/IRA. It is wholly understandable and legitimate that they should wish to recover the remains of their loved ones, to give them the basic and inalienable right to a Christian burial and to have a tangible memorial at which to confer their respects.
However, the concept of families not having a grave to which they can relate is hardly new. I doubt that there are more than a few Members of this House who did not lose relatives in the First World War and for whom there is no known grave. Agreed, there are memorials—headstones and graves known only unto God. Three years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the battlefields of northern France and seeing the memorial to the 36 Ulster Division at Thiepval. My own family was fortunate—if that is the right word. My grandfather's eldest brother was killed at Ypres while serving with the Irish Guards, but his grave is known to us and can be visited.
We then move to the Second World War and the number of allied sailors who were drowned as a result of U-boat attacks and naval warfare initiated by the Axis powers. Those men must have died in circumstances almost too harrowing to contemplate. Their relatives have no fixed point or remains on which to focus their grief. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, from his distinguished war service, could speak to that more eloquently than I ever could.
In the years since, in peacetime, the sea is no more a forgiving place. Every year, communities, and especially fishing ports, suffer tragedy and loss of life. Small and remote islands can lose most of a male generation.
Those are three examples of individuals or groups who do not have the remains of their relatives over which to grieve properly. There are obviously many, many more.
So the relatives of the "disappeared" are not a unique case. What is unique is that in this instance there are those in Northern Ireland who purport to be able to supply information to identify the location of nine of the 14 or 16 victims who have disappeared over the past 25 years. That responsibility lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein/IRA. Having ducked and evaded the issue for many years, Sinn Fein/IRA cynically announced that they would look into the whole issue of the location of these wretched victims' remains, having abducted, tortured and murdered those people in the first place. They then announced that they had discovered the locations of nine but would not reveal that information unless forensic evidence from the remains or their location was declared inadmissible as a tool in the prosecution's armoury.
It is most unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government have once again chosen to accept Sinn Fein/IRA's words at face value. Following on from the Belfast agreement, we have had prisoner releases, a commission of inquiry into the RUC, withdrawal of troops and dismantling of security installations among many other
180
concessions. In return, Sinn Fein/IRA has given precisely nothing—not one Armalite handed in; not a pound of semtex decommissioned; not one bullet destroyed. Why then expect it to be any different now? Why offer it further concessions?
The Bill sets dangerous precedents. It offers a form of immunity—I resist calling it a total amnesty—to terrorist murderers, and with no time limit.
As I said, Sinn Fein/IRA are cynical manipulators. With no time limit they can drip feed information on the location of the remains, one body at a time so to speak, and can clam up at any stage if they seek yet more concessions from Her Majesty's Government.
Surely the desire to locate the victims' remains should not in any way hamper the Royal Ulster Constabulary from using every scrap of evidence available to secure arrests and convictions against those responsible for these most ghastly of murders. It is sickening that the RUC, who have for so long and so courageously defended society in Northern Ireland, should now not only be subject to a systematic campaign to discredit them, but also not be allowed to carry out their duties to the full effect of what is the recognised rule of law.
I assume that even if anyone were arrested and convicted of these dreadful crimes, they would be released in short order—within two years perhaps—as the murders were committed before the date of the Good Friday agreement. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that. And if that is the case, is it not truly extraordinary that all these efforts have been made to safeguard the perpetrators of these crimes from a short sentence when they meted out the ultimate sentence to their victims?
To conclude, it is a matter of record that I have consistently supported Her Majesty's Government on the Belfast agreement and all the Bills that followed from it. I have no such commitment on this occasion. I am minded to oppose this Bill. I shall listen with great care to the Minister's reply.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap, which is not a habit greatly to be encouraged. I do so as an English person who has been visiting Northern Ireland for more than the past 20 years fairly regularly, and who now happens to have a daughter working in Belfast.
I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said, and I therefore welcome and support the Bill. I do so for three reasons, principally. First, the Bill is yet another example of the two governments, our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, acting in the closest possible agreement and concert. To my mind, that is essential if we are ever to emerge successfully from the present, I admit, very difficult situation. Some noble Lords have thought that the Bill implies an amnesty. I believe that that is something of an exaggeration.
My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I believe that it will help to break the cycle of violence, which has continued for far too long, over far too many generations. I think it will reduce the temptations to

181
revenge which may understandably be felt among the relatives of the victims. Here I beg to differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I am delighted that an independent commission will be involved in receiving the information and passing it on to the security services.
My third reason for supporting the Bill is that I see it from the point of view of the bereaved relatives. The point has already been well made today that they have been prevented from grieving in the normal way and from burying their relatives and other loved ones. In my view, they would not agree with those who oppose the Bill. It so happens that the only communication that I have received from that direction came from an organisation whose office is on the Shankhill Road. That is perhaps a little surprising, in the context of this House, where the nationalist point of view is almost totally unrepresented. There is perhaps a certain degree of self-indulgence among those speakers who have denounced the outrages and violence of the IRA and other terrorist bodies from the safety of this House. I wish the Bill a smooth passage.
5.13 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of his speech. I was unavoidably detained. I thank your Lordships for allowing me a few words in the gap.
Contrary to what has just been said, I find the word "Independent" in "Independent Commission" rather useful for two governments, the Irish Government and the British Government. If something goes wrong, they are not to blame; it is the independent commission. If the Government want to do something like this, they should grip the problem themselves and go forward.
The commission will win only by completely kowtowing to the IRA. There is no other way in which it will succeed, and all the fine words from here and another place do not really matter. I am not accusing the Minister, who, we know, works with great diligence, duty and honesty.
I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 4, "Restrictions on forensic testing". Some of us know the IRA quite well. There is nothing in the Bill that says that one gets the body of one's family member. There is no mention of DNA testing. It is quite easy to manufacture old graves.
If one was a terrorist in the IRA, one does not want the bones made public. Torture is apparent to experts from remains. That is well known. I am rather nervous that each of the nine families concerned—lovely families, good families—will get a bag of bones. It is up to the Government to ensure that the testing is such that: they get the remains of the true member of their family.
I do not go along with the idea that with the Bill all will be rosy and lovely and everything will work out. To me, it is a shoddy little piece of legislation, and, like other noble Lords, I am amazed that a government of the day—from these Benches I do not mind which party is in power—can bring forward a Bill like this. It smells of appeasement and it does show amnesty.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, all noble Lords who have looked at the Bill will have had a problem with it. We on these Benches have certainly had a problem with it, because of the difficulty it imposes on justice and the rule of law.
I shall not use the terms of derision that many noble Lords have used about the Bill, not because I do not feel that they are appropriate, but because it would be unfair to the Minister. I believe that the Government have brought the Bill forward genuinely as a humanitarian Bill. That has to be respected. The families of the victims have a need to bury their dead and to put their suffering to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that if we asked the families we would find that they want justice. Some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and I—have met members of the families, and we found that this was an issue that they wanted to be put to the House. They supported the Bill and wanted it passed.
A number of claims have been made. The first that I would like to address is the claim of amnesty made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I do not believe that this is the case. The murderers—that is what they are—are still liable to prosecution. However, the reality is that without the bodies no murderers will be brought to justice anyway. With the bodies, at least the families can bury the dead, and the murderers' cases are still open. I do not believe there is an amnesty, although, of course, there are problems. Many noble Lords will be aware of the difficulties associated with not using such techniques as those involved in gathering forensic evidence.
The second argument is that of appeasement. When the Bill was first introduced, I believed that: it was a form of appeasement, because it has advantages for the IRA, and it is seen as a concession gained by the IRA. Having talked to the victims' families and to the groups supporting them, I have come to a very different conclusion. I believe that the IRA will find this issue very difficult in the months and years to come. It will be a thorn in the side of the IRA, which declared that it could identify nine of the 14 graves of the murdered bodies for which it claimed responsibility.
This has turned into a public relations disaster for the IRA because questions have to be asked, such as why the IRA did not come forward earlier with information about the location of the bodies. I refer also to some of the proclamations made by the press, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, drew the attention of the House, relating to the IRA's outrageous claims that the victims should be buried at night and without any press coverage. I believe that such statements will come back to haunt the IRA.
In a peace process which I believe will go forward such questions will be asked in the future. I do not believe that this subject will become a closed book. 'The culture of intimidation, which has guaranteed silence on

183
this issue, will come to an end. Indeed, I believe that the Bill will help to bring that about. That culture of silence really should be challenged.
It is always interesting to reply to such debates because that gives one the opportunity to listen to all the Back-Bench contributions. I try not to write speeches in advance of debates because it is difficult to stick to them given that points are often raised which cause one to think again. I was particularly interested by the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, talked about the IRA "claiming responsibility". That is a particularly apt term in this context because in the coming years the IRA will not only have to claim responsibility, but also to consider its guilt for these actions and to answer why it carried out some of the murders which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out, were particularly barbaric and for which there was no justification.
This is a fairly short Bill and I do not plan to consider it in any great detail now. However, from these Benches I should like to refer to two issues which my honourable friends raised in another place. I refer to the families who have gone through a great deal of suffering because of the intimidation which still continues. My honourable friends referred to the issue of funeral expenses. I was gratified to hear the Minister say that that has been sorted out and that the victims' families are to be awarded grants of more than £4,000 to meet such expenses.
I refer now to compensation, a matter on which I was thinking of tabling an amendment. However, this is an extremely complex and difficult area. Given the amount of time that this Bill will be allowed in this House, an incredibly well drafted amendment would be needed to rewrite a section of the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Act.
I believe that there are several difficulties which will stop many of the victims' families being eligible for compensation, not least the time-barred limitation. I had planned to ask the Minister whether the fact that forensic evidence cannot be used may be applied to record the fact that the time of death has not been revealed, thus meaning that the time-barred limitation may not have effect. However, I believe that that would be open to challenge on a number of grounds.
Am I correct in understanding from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act that, under Article 9 of the appropriate order, the families will be eligible for bereavement provisions, which would give them a small amount of compensation? I believe that that too may be affected by the time bar. However, I hope that, considering their special situation, some form of compensation may be worked out for the families of the victims.
Many noble Lords have said that they should like to oppose the Bill's Second Reading and that they feel almost honour-bound to do so. However, perhaps I may point out that some cases are almost 30 years-old. I should like to stress the interests of the group to whose wishes we should listen most carefully. I refer to the victims' families and their support groups. They are
184
calling for this Bill to be passed. I believe that this is a humanitarian Bill. I do not have problems with it because I believe that either the bodies will be identified by the IRA or the IRA will have to answer many questions. It is paramount that we support the Bill.
5.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the background to the Bill and how it will work. I am equally grateful to other noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I have some sympathy for the Minister in his task of replying to the debate. We have heard many powerful and effective speeches this afternoon. It would be invidious to single out any particular contribution. Nevertheless, the view of this House is fairly consistent. However, both the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Blease, made speeches supporting the Bill in the measured and effective way that we have come to expect from them.
I am sure that all other noble Lords find the need for this Bill to be deeply distressing. We are well aware of the extreme ways in which the victims were violated and then disposed of; but so, too, are their relatives, many of whom hope that this Bill will enable them finally to lay their loved ones to rest. We also recognise that we may not be able to locate everyone, not least Captain Robert Nairac, GC.
We on these Benches believe this to be an odious Bill as it is offensive and repugnant. Moreover, the relatives themselves also appreciate the difficulty with this legislation, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. However, they are also desperate to be able to bury their loved ones properly. There is an understandable concern on their part that this House might delay or stop the legislation. We on these Benches will not do so. My noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and the usual channels have agreed that we should shorten the usual interval between Second Reading and Committee. In addition, all remaining stages will be taken next week. That is all, of course, subject to your Lordships' agreement. However, I should be surprised if amendments were not debated in Committee. I think that the Minister implied that he expected that to be the case.
The Minister has explained the background to the Bill and the way in which it will operate. Many noble Lords have voiced their strongly held views and given their wise counsel on the Bill. I believe that your Lordships are clear on one point: as the Minister rightly stated, it will still be possible to prosecute someone for these murders if evidence is forthcoming from an alternative source. However, we must be honest and accept that if a terrorist takes advantage of this Bill and gives the commission the information required, there is no realistic prospect of him ever being convicted of that murder.
I must take issue slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on this. There must always be a fear in the mind of a terrorist murderer that he may be exposed by an accomplice, that forensic evidence exists which will back up any allegation and that that evidence is

185
located with the buried remains. That fear will disappear under the provisions of this Bill should the terrorist take advantage of it.
The Minister drew parallels between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. He is right in that they both work in similar ways, but there are significant differences. Arms, ammunition and explosives are by definition designed to kill people and are therefore dangers to society. A large number of people—that is to say, terrorists—may be involved with illegal arms holding. There is every risk of the arms falling into the wrong hands, as has already happened. It is shameful that these people, with one exception, have not even begun the process of decommissioning.
There is another difference in the need for this legislation. There is no doubt that arms will continue to be found for a very long time. Indeed, arms are still appearing from the Larne gun-running period before the First World War. But the need for this legislation arises from the desire to have some information that relates to about 14 victims of the Troubles. The relatives hope to have this information within two or three weeks. I sincerely hope that their aspirations are met. But many noble Lords are not confident.
The agreement between the two governments that underpins this Bill is not very reassuring. Article 3(2)(c) helpfully states that the commission is,
"to report its activities to both governments no later than one year after the establishment of the commission and annually thereafter".
My greatest fear with this Bill is that it will not have the desired effect and that the relatives will continue to be strung along by terrorists who have managed to persuade the Government to introduce this legislation. It is legislation which suits the terrorists, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cranborne and others, as much as the relatives. But the terrorists either have this information or they do not, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I hope that the Minister can convince your Lordships of the desirability of such open-ended legislation.
I accept his view that many of the clauses must remain extant indefinitely. However, an interesting amendment was moved in the other place which well addressed that issue. No doubt something similar will be debated in your Lordships' House in Committee. I also note that the Bill does not create any new offence. So what happens if a terrorist organisation or individual deliberately and inaccurately tells the commission that the remains of a victim are located at a certain point, which happens to be underneath a building or within some item of infrastructure? The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, touched on that possibility. It may be an item that is not so big that it cannot be moved, but big enough to cause major destruction if it were. I stand to be corrected, but as I read the Bill the commission cannot reveal who gave it the maliciously incorrect information. The Bill may even protect the terrorists or troublemakers from prosecution in that case. That may not be a problem now, but it may be later due to the open-endedness of the Bill. I hope that the Minister can allay my fears on that point.
186
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the issue of conditions being made by terrorist organisations as regards funeral arrangements. Can the Minister assure the House that those fears are completely groundless and that no Minister or official has agreed on any restrictions on the funeral arrangements?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did not say that the Government were party to that at all, but that it was purely a threat made by the terrorists to the families of the disappeared.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the Minister can still reassure us on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the issue of compensation and funeral costs. That is yet another sensitive issue. I do not find the compensation culture that is developing in society very appealing. However, a burial grant cheque can sometimes be so pitifully small and impersonal that it can actually insult the value and the dignity of the human life to which it relates. I am sure that many will welcome the availability of grants from the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund to which the Minister referred.
We on these Benches have no intention of delaying this Bill any more than proper parliamentary scrutiny requires. I hope for the families that this Bill will be passed next week. I have already pointed out that we have agreed to shorten the time scale for the proceedings. I hope—and I have been expressing a great deal of it this afternoon—that the relatives' long wait to bury their loved ones will soon be over and that they will not be subject to further anguish and the cruellest of tricks from their tormentors.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. It has been a sombre and very serious debate. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Blease, Lord Hylton and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their strong support for this particular measure. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for agreeing to the timetable for this Bill, which means that we shall be able to dispose of it rather more quickly than our normal procedures would suggest. On one of the many debates when we discussed matters in Northern Ireland, I remember my noble friend Lord Fitt speaking very passionately about the appalling situation for families whose loved ones had disappeared, the bodies never having been recovered. I believe that he made the whole House aware, if it was not aware before, of the enormity of the issue, the terrible situation for the families and the urgent need for the IRA to reveal where the bodies were. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember very well how the House listened to him with enormous attention.
I am also grateful for the support for the Good Friday agreement given by those noble Lords who perhaps have doubts about this particular legislation. We all agree that terrorism is vile, cruel and absolutely barbaric. Therefore, our concern is properly with the victims. I

187
was asked what the Government had done for them. I believe that they have done quite a lot for the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We have established a new family trauma unit for young people and their families affected by the Troubles. We have supported a fund for community groups and voluntary organisations. We have developed an educational bursary scheme for children and adults whose education has been affected through the Troubles.
I have made reference to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund established to help victims in a practical and meaningful way. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield initiated a review, which is an important document for victims. He is also reviewing fitness for the purpose of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Grants have been given to the community and the voluntary sector. We have supported the commissioning of a survey of organisations supporting the bereaved or injured to assist in the development of government policy in that area. We have helped in the establishment of a Touchstone group to facilitate discussions between the Government and the victims in the community. We have tried to do a lot. Of course, one can never do enough for the victims of the Troubles, but certainly as a Government we have taken this matter as a very important responsibility. I believe that we have demonstrated our commitment by what we have done.
I repeat that there is one motive only for this Bill; namely, to help the families of those people whose bodies have never been found. The Bill is to support those families. We have no other agenda and there is no other motive. The Bill is simply and solely for that purpose.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I criticised the Government's motive. I would like to put on record that I accept entirely the Minister's explanation.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comment. A question was asked about funerals. When the remains of a victim have been revealed it is for the family to decide what sort of funeral it wishes to have. There is not, and should not be, any pressure on the families to have any specific funeral. If they wish to have one which is high profile that is up to them. If they wish to keep it quiet and discreet for their own reasons, that is up to them. There is no question of the Government conceding to any pressure from outside. I hope that none of the families will feel under pressure to do other than what is best for their loved ones if and when the bodies are revealed.
It has been suggested by many noble Lords and, I regret to say, by my noble friend Lord Fitt that this is a matter of appeasement, that it is a sort of amnesty for the IRA. I should like to ask your Lordships what benefits there are to the IRA in what the Government are doing. Surely this debate can be of no benefit to the IRA. I have said that the Government are not in a position to give guarantees. After the raising of consciousness in particular of the families concerned that the bodies may be revealed, everyone would know
188
what the IRA had done if, having announced the names of some people whose bodies it might reveal it were not to do so. If bodies are revealed, that is no help to the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. If bodies are revealed it simply confirms the tragedy that the families have suffered and shows the enormity of the wrong that the IRA has done to those families and the wider community. I suggest that there is no question of appeasement here; and there is no sense of an amnesty.
If the IRA does not reveal the location of the remains of a body, none of the provisions of the Bill applies. The only way in which the provisions of the Bill apply is if indication is given as to where the body or the remains happen to be. So I do not think that it is possible to argue that on the one hand this is a concession and an amnesty for the IRA, and on the other that the IRA will not reveal the bodies. It seems to me that either one or the other will happen.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was not accusing the Government of intentionally appeasing the IRA. I think that many of us talk of it as a by-product, that the Government do not seem to realise the dangers. If the terrorists do not reveal where the bodies are and there is no Bill such as this, they live continuously in the fear that in the future someone who has an idea of where those bodies are—in the new climate he decides to come clean or pillow-talk, or whatever—might lead the security forces to the bodies and the forensic evidence. The Bill refers to forensic evidence because that is the problem for the organisations. We would not refer to it if it were not a fact that might lead to conviction. Therefore the terrorists have something to gain. Quite simply they are taking that threat out of the book. They are clearing the decks. Provided they can find the body, they have got clean away with it. It will only be the threat of someone breaking his silence in the future that will bring the terrorists to justice.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is almost certain that these bodies have been hidden for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and although in theory it is possible that at some point in the future the bodies might be discovered, I am bound to say that on the face of it that is rather unlikely. Therefore the only way in which the families can have access to the bodies is through this measure. I do not believe that there is any other way in which the family can have any sense that the body may be discovered.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the advantage to the IRA is that it has demonstrated to its people that it is so strong that it can cause two governments to give what amounts to an amnesty to the people among them who have murdered. That is a message to its whole community of how powerful it continues to be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand the point, but I doubt that the majority of people in Northern Ireland will take it that way. The families do not take it that way. There is a sense on the part of the community in Northern Ireland that it wants the agony of the families

189
to be lessened. It will be lessened only if they can give their loved ones a decent burial. It is a matter of judgment. The noble Baroness may believe that it works one way. I am satisfied that the outcome is more likely to be as I have suggested.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the fact that it was an amnesty. That is simply not the case. The Bill provides some limited protection in cases where bodies are revealed. But I would not have thought that it is an amnesty because proceedings can still be brought if other evidence is available to the prosecution. It does not let the perpetrators of these murders off the hook. It simply means that the one piece of evidence that is revealed when the location of the body is identified cannot be used. But in all other respects the individuals who committed the murder are liable to proceedings.
I have mentioned the situation as regards funerals. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the issue of compensation. He also asked about time limits. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn to my attention in advance the fact that he would raise the issue. I have told him what is to be made available to the families of the victims.
If there is any doubt as to whether a family is within or outside the time limit for claiming compensation, they can claim for compensation. They probably will not succeed unless they can demonstrate that the claim is within the time limits. It does not stop them claiming, but it is unlikely that it will have a successful outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether the Government could put a time limit on the Bill. I think that I mentioned that in my speech. It is important to understand that the main provisions of the Bill must stay in place. It is impossible to say when those provisions might cease to be needed. I stress this again. We need to be flexible on timing as we hope that those with information about the remaining victims will come forward. I have already said that we shall keep the operation of the commission under review.
One question has not been answered. I throw it open to every Member of the House who spoke in the debate. What would you do? Not a single speech of those critical of the Bill has any solution. The only suggestion is that we do not have the Bill; let the bodies not be found and somehow or other we shall just have to forget the agony of the families. I wait here. Would any one of your Lordships care to suggest what you would do if you were in the Government's place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with all the caveats surrounding the sympathy that all of us feel for the victims, which the Minister amply demonstrated in the course of both his speeches, there is an alternative for the reasons that a number of us have suggested: that we do not introduce the Bill, and we do nothing.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there you have it. Because of the agony of the families, the Government are not prepared to do nothing. It is as simple as that. Our motive for bringing forward the Bill is the agony of the families. It is to lessen that agony so that they can give their loved ones a decent burial.
190
I appreciate the honesty of the noble Viscount. He said that the alternative is to do nothing. I think that that is the position in which the Government put the House. Having considered the arguments, I hope that the House will support the Bill. I commend it.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I listened with great care to what he said. I asked one question to which I do not think he gave an answer. If he can do so I should be grateful. If these people are caught and convicted of these crimes which occurred before the Good Friday agreement, what is the situation with regard to their sentences? Are they eligible for early release? I understand that they are. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is not within the Bill, but I understand that the crucial date is 10th April 1998. If they committed offences before that date, they would come within the scope of the legislation. If they committed the offences after that date, they would not come within the scope of the legislation.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question that I raised about what happens if the commission receives a malicious notification of remains?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is an independent commission set up to make decisions on the basis of information. If it decides to take action, it will decide how to do so sensitively. Each case must be decided on the basis of the information. The independent commission will decide how to tackle that. I believe that the position is clear and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House of Lords Bill
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Commencement and transitional provision]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 1, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("not")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 117, 118, 119 and 121. Earlier in the Committee stage, we considered a number of so-called "sunset" amendments suggesting what might happen if the Government's proposed stage

191
two to the reform of your Lordships' House had not come to pass within various times. A number of suggestions were made, none of which found favour with the Committee.
Amendment No. 116 makes a slightly different suggestion and relates to what might happen in any event. We suggest that the words on the Marshalled List, particularly in Amendment No. 117, might well be included in the Bill. It proposes that by 1st September 2001, or earlier on the dissolution of the Parliament in which the Act is passed, the House of Lords Act will come into force.
Amendment No. 118 makes a similar proposition, but is related to the work of the Royal Commission.
I do not wish to speak at length on these matters because they have been touched upon in earlier debates. I hope that the Committee believes that the concept is worth consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I did not expect to be able to speak so soon, but I wish to preface my remarks by saying that I was deeply shocked by what I considered to be the intemperate and undignified remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon. I believe that he will regret having spoken in that way. He is not supposed to be just another knock-about politician; he holds a very high office. I am a life Peer and I very much resent the idea that hereditary Peers come here to look after their own interests and that no one, apart from hereditary Peers, is interested in the Bill. That is complete nonsense.
I believe that the Bill is a constitutional enormity and I believe as strongly as any hereditary Peer here that it is entirely wrong that we should be required to debate it late at night. We are entitled to have our views considered with care and we should be entitled to be respected for our opposition to a Bill which anyone should recognise is of immense importance. Any Bill which drastically changes the composition of one of the two House of Parliament must be important.
There can be no guarantee that any second stage reform will get through the other place. I have made my views on that known on many occasions. I fear that there may not be a second stage. I remember vividly, as will many former Members of the other place, the experience of 1968. I know what Members on the Front Bench know; that the whole idea of a two-stage process was born of the fear that there might be a repeat of what happened in 1968. No one has made a secret of that. There was the fear that if one bundled together in one Bill both the abolition of hereditary Peers and an involved scheme for a reformed House of Lords the debate might go on interminably. It might become apparent, as was the case in 1968, that there were as many opinions about what should be the shape of the new House as there were Members of the other place. There was the fear that any such comprehensive Bill would run into the sand in exactly the same way as the 1968 Bill. That was the thinking behind the Government's decision to have a two-stage reform.
192
However, once this Bill is enacted the Government have nothing to fear. The hereditary Peers will be going and nothing will be able to change that. The advantage of at least some of these amendments is that the Bill would not come into effect until a little later. Those who are now Members of this place would be able to have a say in the debates on the Royal Commission's proposals. I believe that that would be highly beneficial because we have a great deal of wisdom and experience in this place. I believe that they should be entitled to express their views on any reform which is proposed by the Royal Commission. But even if I am wrong on that, what do the Government have to lose in delaying implementation? They will know that the Bill has been passed and that hereditary Peers will be going in due course. They will be able to tell the country that they have not been asking people to buy a pig in a poke. That is why I object so much to the measure.
We are told that we should, with dignity, give our approval, or at least be muted in our opposition to the Bill, because in due course there will be a second-stage reform. But we are not told what that second-stage reform will be. I do not believe that that is treating the House with respect. I believe that the least the Government can do in such circumstances is to delay the coming into force of the Bill so that those who are now Members of this place will be able to take part in the debates on the Royal Commission's report. All of us will then know what will take the place of this Chamber.
The Earl of Dundee: I support my noble friend's amendment. The arguments for taking stages one and two together are very sound and well known and I shall not rehearse them. However, today it might be helpful to address two different if related aspects of the question. First, to what extent does the incorporation of the Weatherill amendment within the Bill enable stages one and two to be considered together? Secondly, what is the best way now of redirecting the Bill to that end?
As we have heard, one argument which has been adduced for creating two stages is the difficulty hitherto of succeeding in carrying out reform of the House of Lords at all. The last serious attempt floundered in another place in 1969. For that failure we share no blame whatever. This House strongly backed the Labour government's Lords reform proposals in 1968. During the debate on this Bill, if there is one single point which should be repeated several times a day, perhaps rather loudly, it is that one.
The fact remains that in spite of solid support here, that Bill floundered in the other place and, therefore, not without justification, the architects of this Bill have felt "once bitten, twice shy". To make sure that this time the reform goes ahead, the Government have put in place two stages which, otherwise, would appear to be illogical and unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the Weatherill amendment has altered the position. It addresses the two main issues of Lords reform: approximate voting parity between the main political parties, and restriction of the parliamentary rights of hereditary Peers. However much fine-tuning it

193
may require—and many of us may believe that it requires quite a lot—that is not to under-estimate the achievement of the Weatherill amendment.
Nevertheless, in terms of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the point about the Weatherill amendment is that it can cause to relax those who until now have been anxious that yet again Lords reform would not go through. For there was nothing shy or diffident about the vote in its favour. Nor, as a result, cart the implementation of stage one be delayed for very long.
That brings me to the paradox of this matter. If the only sensible argument in favour of stage one has been to propel Lords reform once reform has become duly launched and inevitable, then there is no longer any point in stage one. That position, if nothing else, has been brought about by the Weatherill amendment. And once we have acknowledged that fact, it becomes clear that if only for the peace of mind and good health of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, let alone the best solution for Lords reform, stage one and stage two ought to be taken together.
If we agree with that proposition, the question then is: how do we direct the Bill to that effect? There are two constructive ways of so doing. The first opportunity is at the next stage of the Bill when, on recommitment, amendments to the Weatherill amendment are considered. A number of these amendments are useful and, by improving the Weatherill amendment, will also improve the Bill. Thereafter and secondly, if the Bill is withdrawn until the Royal Commission has reported, then, in the light of its advice, stage one and stage two can be considered together within the appropriate legislation.
The Earl of Northesk: I am mindful of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, yesterday, and I cannot resist quoting it:
"I think it is fair to say, without discourtesy, that we have rehearsed, re-rehearsed, reviewed and re-examined these arguments on a number of occasions. — [Official Report, 17/5/99; col. 114.]
That said, the amendments in this group are concerned with the distinct issue of commencement of the Bill. My opinion is that, viewed objectively, Amendments Nos. 116 and 118 are reasonable and could even assist the Government in so far as it is wholly credible that, notwithstanding the Labour Party's submission, from which we are advised we should not deduce too much about current government thinking, the report of the Royal Commission will undermine and make redundant most of the intellectual objections that so many noble Lords have to their current strategy.
What all the commencement amendments offer in their varying ways, had the Government thought it through, is the best of all worlds. Acceptance of any one of the alternatives would get their Bill enacted at the same time as maintaining the manifesto commitment intact and unpolluted. The price to pay would be to endure the presence of the hereditary peerage for, at best, a few more months and, at worst, a little over three years. Instead, the Government have set out their stall for the new Clause 2, the duration of which, whatever may be said about it from the Government Front Bench,
194
is a matter for speculation. This situation confuses me. It is a curious case for the Government to argue. However, they have committed themselves to their abandonment of the manifesto commitment. That being so, I do not suppose for a moment that any of our attempts at helpfulness will inspire any sympathy in the mind of the Minister.
Lord Elton: My noble friend Lord Waddington put his finger on the problem when he pointed to the concern of some noble Lords that there should be a voice from the hereditary Benches on the arrangements which are to follow phase one. Both the tone and the content of what the noble and learned Lord said last night from beside the Woolsack and not, thank goodness, from the Woolsack, casts some doubt as to how that is now to be treated. The Weatherill amendment secures a voice for a small proportion of the hereditary Members of your Lordships' House on proceedings into phase two. If that can be withdrawn, then clearly Amendment No. 118 would be of 'very much more interest than at present. It may be useful in eliciting a statement of opinion as to where we stand on the issue.
Lord Gisborough: I would have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment or one of the other sunset amendments. Stage two must either have hereditary Peers or it must have elected Peers who would be competing with the House of Commons and would therefore be totally unacceptable, as in 1968. If Peers are to be appointed, there is the quango problem. I do not see any chance of stage two coming about. The great advantage to the Government would be that they could bring pressure on the other place to accept some form of stage two, whatever that might be. If there is not strong pressure on the other place to accept something, they will not accept anything.
Earl Ferrers: I wish to refer to Amendments Nos. 119 and 121, to which I have put my name and which are part of this group of amendments. The name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is also attached to the amendments. He asks me to tell noble Lords that he is indisposed today and unable to attend.
These are important amendments. Amendment No. 119, proposes that the Act should come into force at the end of the Parliament and not at the end of the Session. That may seem a trivial point, but I recall the peerage renunciation Bill in 1958 when an individual by the name of Anthony Wedgwood Benn did not want to become Lord Stansgate and a Bill was produced allowing him and others who were already Members of your Lordships' House to renounce their peerages. The Conservative government of the day brought forward the Bill which stated that it should operate to the end of the Parliament, and there was then an amendment saying that it should come into effect at the end of the Session. The point was argued backwards and forwards, with all the possibilities and peculiarities that could arise, but it never occurred to anyone that, once the amendment had been accepted and within two months of it having been brought into existence at the end of the session, Prime

195
Minister Macmillan would become ill and would have to give up. That gave the opportunity to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and also Lord Home to renounce their titles and go to another place. The whole of history may have been changed as a result of such a small event.
It is therefore important whether the Bill should come into operation at the end of the Session or the end of the Parliament. Despite what has been said to date, I hope that the Government will consider bringing it into operation at the end of the Parliament for the reason contained in Amendment No. 121. The amendment proposes leaving out subsection (2), which states that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session."
I turn to the point made earlier which is fundamental to the Bill. As the Committee will remember, in Clause 1 the Bill refers to the fact that no one shall be a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. As was stated very early on, we are all here not by virtue of a hereditary or life peerage but by virtue of a Writ of Summons. That is what brings us all here. Once the Writ of Summons has been obeyed and your Lordships, individually, have appeared, then the Writ ceases to have any effect; it is spent; and it is done.
I cannot see how a government can then say that for some people, the Writ will last for a Session and for others, it will last for a Parliament. If we are to follow that line, we shall be entering the deep, muddy waters of hybridity. The Government would be extremely vulnerable if that issue were to be taken to a court with the Bill as it is drafted at present.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that everyone knows perfectly well what is meant. But the great legal issues are never decided on the major scheme; they are decided on the minutiae and the detail. I suspect that the Bill is likely to prove hybrid and the Government would find themselves in jeopardy in relation to that.
If the Government will agree that the provision of the Bill should be brought into force at the end of the Parliament as opposed to the end of the Session, there would be no difficulty. There would be no doubt and everyone would be in the clear. It would also resolve the problem which we discussed yesterday to which the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, referred, in relation to disenfranchisement. If hereditary Peers can no longer be Members of the House of Lords and cannot vote for Members of another place, then they are disenfranchised. But if these provisions are brought into force, in the common jargon—which I hate—there would be a seamless transition. That is what would happen. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, the minutiae are extremely important. They are more important to some Members of your Lordships' House than they are to others. I do not object at all to those who are affected deeply by the loss of
196
their hereditary title using every opportunity which can be devised to try to ameliorate what the Government intend to do. There is no objection to that and no personal animosity at all. In other circumstances and on other Bills, I have been involved in attempting to thwart the will of the Government in one way or another.
But there persists the argument that the Government started off on the wrong foot by having a two-stage scheme and that all matters should be dealt with in one stage. My experience is that if one stage had been proposed, those very same people would have argued that there should be two stages. That is the politics of the matter.
I understand that people speak with sincerity about why they are here; what drives them; what reward they receive. All of us who sit here share one bond; that is, that we are politicians. At the end of the day, we are motivated by decisions as to how we believe our political choices are best served.
The Government went to the country on 1st May and said that as a first, self-contained stage, they intended to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. Some Members of the Committee opposite seem to believe that somehow, that is negotiable. It is not. It was thought out very carefully. Members of the Committee may have heard my noble friend Lord Callaghan refer to his experience in 1968. He had a powerful position then. He explained why he had reached the conclusion that the stages had to be separated. There can be no doubt that from a practical political point of view, we are going about this reform in the right way.
Members of the Committee opposite persist in trying to devise delaying tactics. They are entitled to do that. But Members of the Committee on this side remember that for two or three years before the last election, the Labour Party made it quite plain what its intentions were. Members of the Committee opposite—for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—made notable contributions by addressing conferences before the last election. We are now being invited to consider devices which will help to delay the implementation of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the hereditary Peers would be denied a voice after the passage of the Bill. He corrected himself later, but he started by saying that the whole basis of the Weatherill amendment is to take account of the fact that in order to make progress with the Bill, it would be helpful to have the hereditary Peers here when those matters were being resolved.
I do not speak at all for the Government but it is in our interests, as a Government, to proceed as quickly as possible to demonstrate to the doubters not only that we mean business in relation to the first stage but also in relation to the second stage.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord explained the importance of the measure; how rapidly it needs to be taken into law; and how important it is that the

197
overwhelmiong Conservative majority in this House should be removed. Why then was this Bill not included in the Government's first Session?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I cannot speak for the Government but there are priorities and matters which need to he dealt with. If this matter had been dealt with in the first Session, the Government would have been criticised for doing so. Whatever the Government do, there is a counter-argument. I accept that. But as a business manager, I can well understand the priorities. Members of the Committee opposite who have served in Cabinet and on committees will realise the impossible job faced by business managers when priorities are being decided. I have no objection whatever to my Government deciding that there were priorities more important than the passage of this Bill in the first or second Session. But we have now reached it. We have now reached the third Session.
I am puzzled by the lack of confidence which Members of the Committee opposite have in a two-stage process. The first stage is the Royal Commission which is to be headed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and peopled by men and women of some experience. We do not know what they will propose and we may or may not like what they propose. But that has been built into the procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has pointed out the difficulties, which I accept, of sticking to a 31st December timetable. But eventually, we shall have the product of their considerations. The members of the Royal Commission are not untutored and unaided. They are experienced people. Everyone in this House has had the opportunity to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, how they see matters for the future.
When the Royal Commission makes its recommendations, it has been agreed that there should be established a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider those recommendations. I have more faith than Members opposite in the sagacity of their colleagues who sit in the House of Commons. The Joint Committee—comprising Members from both sides of this Chamber and the other place—will have the benefit of the Royal Commission's findings when it meets. Without interference from the Government, the committee will make proposals to the Government. After the proposals have been made, the Government will react by making their proposals, which will comprise the next stage.
At every stage Members of the Committee are trying to avoid, at all costs, the implementation of the first stage. I believe that the Minister who replies will be well advised to stick to his or her brief and to recognise that people in the country voted for a manifesto which the Government are trying to carry out. As far as I am concerned, the people of this country deserve the best.
Lord Waddington: I take it that the noble Lord is not arguing that a delay in implementation until a fixed date would be a breach of the manifesto undertaking, particularly when one has to bear in mind that there is
198
the new factor of the Royal Commission, which was not in the manifesto and the setting up of which, in theory, was a breach of the manifesto commitment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am not arguing that at all. I understand the amendment and I said that as far as I am concerned this is part of the delaying tactics of the Opposition to avoid the implementation of the first stage.
Lord Waddington: Surely the noble Lord realises that at least one of the amendments proposes the postponement to a fixed date. Therefore, there cart be no question, if that amendment is accepted, of indefinite postponement of the operation of the Bill.
Lord Harding of Petherton: I recognise the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I do not believe it is a valid argument. He says that the Bill was forecast in the manifesto and, therefore, it should be implemented. However, in the country people do not recognise that that is the correct way to proceed. Whatever was in the manifesto, as other noble Lords have said, people do not read the minutiae of a manifesto and they believe that the opinion polls have been held. The public believe that a second stage should be outlined before the first stage is implemented. These amendments go some way towards that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The argument is put that people who vote in general elections not only do not always agree with what they have voted for, but they also have ideas of how such matters should be implemented.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the situation in 1983, when he no doubt supported his party at the polls. The Conservative Party manifesto deals with local government saving ratepayers' money. His colleagues used that argument in the House when they abolished the GLC. The manifesto states:
"The Metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them".
It could also be argued that the people of this country did not understand what they were doing, yet that was the mandate upon which, in my view, the greatest example of municipal vandalism was perpetrated on the people of London.
Lord Harding of Petherton: I understand that argument, but I am not a politician. I do not look at such matters in the same way perhaps as noble Lords who were previously Members of the other place. I look at them as a member of the public. I do not accept the issue of the manifesto. I am interested only in the fact that a second stage should be a proper second Chamber. I am not here to speak or to vote just so that myself and other hereditary Peers will continue to have the right to sit and vote in the House.
I do not speak for other hereditary Peers on these Benches; I speak purely for myself. I accept that hereditary Peers should not be legislators, as do other Members of my party and some other Members on these

199
Benches. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that we are just trying to delay matters to save our own skins. Some noble Lords may be doing that. I do not know.
Lord Newby: Our approach to the Bill has two principal strands. First, we believe that the time has long passed when hereditary Peers should have a legislative role. Secondly, we believe that the House of Lords should be reconstituted on a more democratic basis. Noble Lords will recall that those are the two principal strands in the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, we believe that the time has long passed for both strands to be implemented.
As my noble colleague Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank explained several days ago, we are concerned that events may mean that stage two is delayed. In our view, that is absolutely no reason to suggest that the implementation of stage one should be delayed for a minute longer than necessary.
We have waited 88 years for the implementation of the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. There can be no argument, in our view, for delaying—
Lord Waddington: Surely, the noble Lord is not suggesting that by passing this Bill we shall be implementing the Preamble to the Parliament Act. We are doing precisely the opposite.
Lord Newby: My understanding of the Preamble of the Parliament Act 1911 is that this Chamber should be reconstituted as soon as practicable on a more democratic basis. In the 110 times that I have heard it quoted and the number of times that I have read it myself, I may have mistaken what the words say and mean. However, my understanding of the Preamble and the intention of those who passed the Parliament Act was that within a reasonable amount of time this Chamber would be reconstituted on a more democratic basis.
That Act was passed 88 years ago and I believe that this series of amendments would have the effect of delaying further the implementation of part of what lies behind the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, I believe that we should get on with it, and that any amendment that delays further the implementation of what lies behind that piece of legislation passed 88 years ago should be rejected.
Lord Waddington: The noble Lord is getting himself into a terrible tangle. A few moments ago the noble Lord was saying that by passing this Bill we would implement the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. He went on to put his gloss on the wording of the Preamble and he got it more or less right. The words refer to the House being reconstituted on a more popular basis. Surely, he is not suggesting that the passage of this Bill will have the effect of reconstituting this House on a more popular basis.
Lord Newby: I am afraid that that is what I am suggesting, in part at least. To reconstitute this House on a more popular basis requires two stages: first, that
200
the hereditary Peers should no longer be Members of the House and, secondly, that there would be a more popular basis for selecting Members. We would prefer to move more quickly. In my mind at least, there is no doubt that this Bill goes some way to implementing what was in the minds of those who passed the Parliament Act 1911.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord said that this Bill would reconstitute the House on a more democratic basis. How can an appointed House be more democratic?
Lord Strathclyde: As we must wait for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to think up a reply to that question—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Newby does not want to waste any more time.
Earl Ferrers: One wonders why he started wasting time with a red herring—first, using the word "democratic" and then reverting to "popular".
6.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lord Ferrers rests his case. But it was an interesting example of the development of Liberal Democrat policy that the hopes encompassed in the 1911 Act will be breached by the passage of this Bill. That was the impression that I and many of my noble friends gained from what the noble Lord said.
It is also a pleasure to join in a debate where we heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, make an important intervention, as he normally does when he intervenes in these debates. There is no doubt on these Benches what the Labour Party manifesto said or what the Labour Party is now trying to achieve. However, where I part company from him is in the idea that we simply have to accept that without any debate or scrutiny at all. I understand that the noble Lord was not intending to say that.
When the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was Opposition Chief Whip he ran an extremely effective operation of scrutiny, harrying and occasionally of delaying. He was most successful in doing so. It was not a waste of time; it was not needless delay. He achieved some notable changes to the effects of government policy at that time and it was almost certainly right that he did so. Anything that we are doing is no more and no less than he achieved during his time in opposition.
As has already been said, the purpose of this group of amendments is to delay implementation of the legislation. I remind the Committee of where we stand. We wish to seek to amend this Bill, but the amendments we seek should be practical improvements to the Bill on matters of principle; changes that the country can understand as being within our rights and on which we would be prudent to insist. However, simply to delay the Bill—desirable though that might be—when the Government are not minded to do so, would bring this House into an open and direct conflict with the Government; it would not prevent the passage of the

201
Bill. That is why, while I understand the principle behind the amendment and in an ideal world would sympathise with it, it is not the best place in which to expend our power. There are more fruitful areas for us so to do.
Of the choices that are practically available surrounding the birth, life and eventual death of the transitional House, I prefer the concept of a sunset clause. In that regard I add that I am not seeking to open the debate on the sunset clause; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, dealt comprehensively with that yesterday afternoon. But as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said in his wise words yesterday, a sunset clause would give us time to search for the kind of consensus which is necessary if we are to reach long-term reform of this House.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was seeking to be helpful in his Amendment No. 121. There is a logic in delaying the removal of hereditary Peers until the end of this Parliament. It is another example of the Weatherill principle working; that is. if the hereditary peerage is so abhorrent to the Government, it makes stage two more likely. Of course, that does not obstruct the Government; it urges them on constructively. Given the choice between the two, I prefer the sunset route or the pressure of the Weatherill amendment to the blocking route of commencement. I am therefore in the unhappy position of not being able to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his amendments.
Amendment No. 121 also raised the effectiveness of the ability to override the Writ in the light of the opinion which has already been mentioned, that of Mr. Lofthouse. I do not wish to go down this route again, but perhaps I might add this point. In the past few weeks the High Court offered a judgment in the case of Miss Jones, the Member of Parliament for Newark, which determined that she could return to another place because no successor had been elected and no Writ returned. It was remarked that, had another Member been elected for Newark and that Member had presented a Writ and the Writ had been returned, then that successor could not have been unseated in that Parliament.
I have drawn that to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who says that he remains unpersuaded. But is that not at least prima facie evidence that a Writ returned may not be overridden? It would be helpful if the Government could explain why, in the light of all the evidence, they are ready to risk reference to the courts or the Committee for Privileges rather than amend this Bill. At least the Government cannot say that they have not been repeatedly warned as to the risk they may be running of passing ineffective law, and they may well find it challenged in a suitable place.
I look forward to listening to the response of the Government on the principles behind the amendments of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was kind enough to say that I dealt with the principles behind these amendments comprehensively
202
yesterday. This was the group which was spoken to fully by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Elton. The amendments were Amendments Nos. 110F, 110G, 110H, 115, 120, 135A and 135B. It is fair to say therefore that these issues have been ventilated.
In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, if there is a court challenge, I am satisfied that we can overcome it.
This group consists of Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 and 121. Amendments Nos. 116 and 118 provide for the Bill to come into force after the House has accepted the report of the Royal Commission. Of course, it does not follow that the report will be accepted, and if so the Bi11 would never come into force.
Amendment No. 117 asks that we wait until 2001 or the dissolution of this Parliament whichever is the earlier. I dealt with that I hope—to use the noble Lord's phrase—comprehensively yesterday. It perhaps bears repetition, I cannot say for the last time. Our objective and our commitment are clear: we have already delayed too long.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 are also in this group. If accepted, it would mean that all hereditary Peers could remain in the second Chamber as of right until after the end of the Parliament in which the Bill was passed. They would be able to sit and vote in the Chamber during the discussion on the second stage of reform and any other government legislation. They are not acceptable and I invite the Committee, if any of the amendments are pressed, not to accept them.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether the Minister could expand a little more; he was marginally peremptory. In response to the suggestion that there may be a challenge in the courts, the noble Lord said that he is satisfied that the Government will win. That is not much of an argument when one hopes that we put forward substantial arguments as to the difficulties. Can the noble Lord say why he believes there are no such difficulties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. It is the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. I am convinced that if there were a challenge by the holder of a Writ in contradistinction to the sovereignty of Parliament. the sovereignty of Parliament would inevitably be upheld.
Lord Trefgarne: I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord which was rather short, even peremptory as my noble friend Lord Ferrers suggested. But the Minister is right; we have discussed this matter before. I will not detain the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), this Act shall come into force only to the extent that it is in full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the precedents established by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.")
The noble Lord said: The human rights problems with this Bill loom larger by the day. This amendment ensures the Bill's full compliance with the human rights clause, both European and British. I understand that the Government are advised that it would be impractical to implement fully the Human Rights Act 1998 before mid-2001 due to many practices and policies deep in our legal and administrative systems which are regarded as discriminatory and contrary to European human rights. Even the honours system is so affected.
Minorities such as hereditary Peers are classified by this Government as an "embedded Conservative majority". I refer to that phrase, as used by the Prime Minister in another place. I also refer to the labelling of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, of hereditary Peers in this House on 27th April as,
"an enormous in-built Conservative majority".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 212.]
With this political labelling, hereditary Peers must be removed completely from this House. It seems so easily forgotten that, for many generations, hereditary Peers have been excluded; first, from the democratic process in being disenfranchised from election to the House of Commons; also, from voting in general elections, at least so long as they do not renounce their titles and rights.
Now we are offered compensation with a granting of those rights. Human rights cannot be granted. They exist because we are human, and not because those rights are a gift of government or a state. But hereditary Peers do not have to wait until 2001 to enforce their human rights. The removal of a political group—the hereditary Peers, as an embedded Conservative majority—is a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no doubt, according to the Court in Strasbourg, that political groups are within the scope of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, an "association" of Conservative Peers is a political group, and, therefore, would not be denied the protection of the human rights convention, merely because its activities are regarded by national authorities as undermining the democratic structures of the state.
Indeed, other areas of vulnerability include the very process of awarding Honours. These may fail under this ruling because they are discriminatory. The Court's ruling embraces a non-competitive process whereby all Peers are appointed. I hope that that may help my noble friend Lord Montgomery with his question in the debate on 27th April at col. 262 of Hansard.
However, for the present, we may be willing to trust, but not blindly, that the Government know what they are doing with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, and its effect on the Weatherill amendment. That, too, appears to rely on a non-competitive process of selection and that would
204
render it open to reversal under European human rights laws. Can the Minister say whether that has been considered and whether that amendment would render the Bill contrary to European human rights laws? I believe that it would and that the Government have not considered such a scenario in their haste to get this Bill through quickly.
I referred to the case of the Turkish Communist Party in the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 in my previous speeches to this Bill. It proposes the abolition of the hereditary rights of a defined political group, simply because it is regarded by the Government as undermining, or contrary to, the democratic structures of this country.
It is clear that the Government will consider no amendments to the Bill, even to avoid human rights violations and even to comply with European laws. That posture does not sit credibly with the endorsement of this Bill as being compliant with human rights laws, as provided by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
Any British government that endorses a Bill as being compliant with the Human Rights Act must have been well aware of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. This House has the right to know the detailed basis and reasoning for this endorsement, in light of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated in the debate on 27th April 1999 (at col. 252 of Hansard) that the Government were not, by this Bill, excluding a group from participating in the legislative process. He explained this by saying the Government were giving the hereditary Peers, who have been deprived politically and legally, their full entitlement to participate in parliamentary elections. This was the benign face of motherhood socialism talking.
Voting in general elections is not normally regarded as a legislative process. With the greatest respect, I believe that the noble Lord has confused the making of governments with the making of laws. He then admits to taking with one hand and giving with another. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a truly generous soul, but I think that he is playing at magician. How can one give what one does not have the right to give?
My right to vote as a citizen has always existed since I came of age. It is my human right in a modern democracy. My right to vote is not for a government or any party to give. It is for a Parliament to enact. Hereditary Peers have always had the right to vote. It is a human right. Governments have refused to enact that right in our domestic laws.
This Government are giving nothing that is not already possessed by human rights. If that is not well understood and accepted, then we all have a much deeper political and constitutional problem than just this Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: No doubt whoever is to reply for the Government will be reminding the noble Lord. Lord Norrie, that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has stated on the face of the Bill that, in her

205
opinion, the provisions of this Bill are indeed compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Obviously the Government will have sought the very best and most expensive legal opinion on this question. Therefore, they can at least be 99 per cent. certain that they are correct in their assumption. The trouble is that where the law is concerned, no one, whatever their degree of expertise, can ever be 100 per cent. certain. So it would surely be prudent to accept this amendment by way of a safeguard. Indeed, one might describe it as a belt-and-braces safeguard. There could be no harm in so doing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I believe that my noble friend Lord Norrie has raised interesting points about the European convention. What I find particularly interesting is that an Act in this respect, which was passed with much trumpeting and one about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, feels proud, will not actually come into effect, as I understand it, for some time to come—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I signed a parliamentary Answer today indicating that the Bill will not be delayed until 2001 and that it will come into effect on 2nd October in the year 2000.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is still a year and a few months ahead. So it is a little ahead of right now. I suppose that making sure legislation comes into effect quite quickly is a good thing, but a delay of well over a year before this one comes into effect is quite interesting.
It is true, as my noble friend said, that the European Convention on Human Rights impinges on people's electoral rights. Indeed, I was reminded of a Gibraltar case, which one of its citizens—I believe it was a woman—brought, and won, against the British Government stating that it was against the convention to deny her the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. The Government are persisting with that denial of human rights, despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Bethell to help them get within the law.
When Mr. Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party was threatened with non-registration by the registrar, the very threat of taking that case to the European Court of Human Rights appears to have persuaded the registrar that he should register Mr. Sheridan. The latter eventually proved that he had political support by winning one of the seats in the City of Glasgow for the Scottish Parliament. I do not actually think that he will win for the European Parliament, because I believe that is rather too big a hurdle for him to negotiate.
There are some points here that are worth the Government's attention. My noble friend has already raised them, but perhaps I may restate them. First, is it the Government's view that an hereditary peerage creates a right or an interest in property? If that is not so, can the Minister tell us what is the Government's
206
view in that respect? Secondly, can the Minister set out the arguments against the latter? After all, it is the desire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to remove all dubiety from this Bill and to make it beyond doubt that all hereditary Peers will be removed in totality from the House. Therefore, it would be quite useful if the Government were to explain, even briefly, why they are confident—I am sure they must be—that their Bill is safe from the European Convention.
Lord Northbrook: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may make two points to add to my noble friend's recent comments. First, if indeed hereditary Peers do have property rights in this House, is there scope to claim compensation if their human rights are breached? Secondly, there may be a gap between hereditary Peers losing their voting rights here and being able to vote in a parliamentary election. That gap, however small it may be, seems to me to be a loss of human rights.
The Earl of Northesk: To endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Mackay I refer to the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne last night. In addressing the concern that Clause 4(3) in the Bill may offend against the ECHR, the noble and learned Lord gave a seven word reply. He said,
"The answer is no, it does not".
I gently suggest that your Lordships deserve a fuller answer than that. I have every respect for the legal expertise and acumen of the noble and learned Lord and I respect his opinion. However, in this matter do we not deserve a fuller explanation of why the noble and learned Lord's and the Government's opinion is as it is? Perhaps the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal will also elaborate on that point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who introduced the amendment we are discussing has neither apologised nor withdrawn the extremely unfortunate remarks that he made about me yesterday. I have now of course had the opportunity to read his remarks in Hansard. As regards Amendment No. 120A, I simply say to the noble Lord and to those who have spoken to the amendment that I was not—to use the unfortunate language of yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—dissembling, deliberately or otherwise when I signed the declaration stating that this Bill is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the other points raised about elections and property, my noble friends have replied fully to the relevant amendments on the third day of the Committee stage. This amendment is irrelevant.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's reply. I mention in passing the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the case of Mr. Demicoli and the Parliament of Malta. Further to the advice provided to the Joint Committee on privileges stated in its report dated 30th March 1999, page 76, paragraph 284, the several witnesses before the committee included the Lord Chief Justice who drew

207
the committee's attention to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights concerning proceedings of the British Parliament.
These developments clearly indicate that parliamentary sovereignty in this country is reduced in its scope and power. Specific actions by parliaments are appealable to the human rights court. The abolition of hereditary and property rights, especially those of a minority group, are rights protected by the European Court. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 121A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We now come to Amendment No. 123 and also to Nos. 124, 125, 126 and 127 which have already been debated.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or the European Parliament")
The noble Earl said: I indicated last night that I would return to Amendment No. 127 and I shall do so briefly. It is a modest affair but it is no less important for that.
Earl Ferrers: I hope I may interrupt. Amendment No. 123 may have been debated but I do not think that it has been called. My noble friend is discussing Amendment No. 127.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope I may assist the noble Lord in the Chair. I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. The other amendments in the group stand in the names of other noble Lords who will decide for themselves what to do. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Northesk intends to speak to Amendment No. 127.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that Amendment No. 123 is not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 126 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We now return to Amendment No. 127.
The Earl of Northesk: I apologise for that little hiccup. As I said, Amendment No. 127 is a modest affair but it is no less important for that. The fact of the matter is that hereditary Peers are not disqualified from voting in elections to the European Parliament. Our debate last night on Amendment No. 114 demonstrated that quite palpably. I know that I have not inadvertently broken an electoral rule by voting in European elections. What, then, is the purpose of making provision for this existing right to be transferred, however temporarily, into the hands of the Secretary of State? As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish inquired last night,
208
"Are those words unnecessary?" The answer is, yes. I invite the Minister to accept the amendment and to remove them. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble and learned Lord replies I hope I may say that I share the mystification of my noble friend Lord Northesk as to why these words are included in the Bill. Noble Lords already have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. I myself have exercised that right in the past. I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The power in Clause 4(3) of the Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, rightly points out, allows the Secretary of State to make transitional provision in respect of the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages in relation to European parliamentary elections. As he rightly says, Peers are currently able to vote in European parliamentary elections. Neither the Bill nor any order made under it will affect that position. Why is the provision there? It is intended to use the power so as to allow a holder of a hereditary peerage who is resident overseas and who benefits from the transitional provisions in relation to UK parliamentary elections to be able to vote in European parliamentary elections on the basis of his or her entitlement to vote in UK parliamentary elections, without the need to show entitlement under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 which makes provision in relation to Peers resident overseas and European parliamentary elections. The power has been taken merely to relieve hereditary Peers of the burden of going through two administrative processes. Those immortal words I uttered in identical form yesterday.
The Earl of Northesk: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for my inattention last night; it was an interesting night. Nonetheless I am perfectly happy with his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("as he considers appropriate")
The noble Earl said: This is a modest little probing amendment. I fear the noble and learned Lord may say that he will utter the identical words that he uttered last night. The only trouble was that I was so excited by the fact that he was replying to an amendment of mine that I had not put down that I did not hear what he said.
Clause 4(3) of the Bill states that,
"The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections to the House of Commons…as he considers appropriate".
Therefore the Secretary of State may make such orders as he considers appropriate. What kind of things might the Secretary of State consider appropriate in the making of these orders? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yesterday in relation to other amendments I set out the circumstances in which

209
the Secretary of State would be minded to exercise the power under Clause 4(3). I made the point—I think moderately clearly—that the purpose of doing this through orders rather than on the face of the Bill was to obtain the maximum flexibility to ensure that hereditary Peers obtained the right to vote as quickly as is reasonably possible. I believe that the views of Members of the Committee and the intentions of the Government are identical; namely, to ensure as soon as is reasonably practicable that hereditary Peers obtain the right to vote.
Why are the words "as he considers appropriate" included in Clause 4(3)? The reason is that it may not be necessary to make any order under Clause 4(3). The example I gave yesterday was as follows. Let us suppose that this Bill becomes an Act and then becomes law before 10th October 1999, which is the date by which you have to put your name on the electoral register. The effect would be that hereditary Peers could get their names on the electoral register which would come into effect in February 2000. Let us suppose as well that no general election took place between 10th October 1999 and February 2000. which I regard as a not unreasonable assumption. There would be no need to make any special order in that respect. In those circumstances, hereditary Peers would be on the register for the purposes of parliamentary elections as soon as reasonably practicable and they would not at any stage have been deprived of a vote.
I recognise that an unlikely situation may arise where a hereditary Peer finds himself in a constituency where there is a by-election. But we are proposing the most sensible and practical way of dealing with the matter. We recognise that there might be one or two hereditary Peers who, in the circumstances envisaged, would be unable to vote for that short period. We think that that is not an unreasonable price to pay for ensuring that there is a reasonable means of getting people on the register.
Perhaps I should deal with a point raised yesterday. Some noble Lords asked why, as they were already on the electoral register for the purposes of local elections, we do not deem those on the register as available to vote in parliamentary elections. There are three reasons why we cannot do that. First, it might not be necessary for the reasons I have just indicated. Secondly, it would not be possible to do it that way. I am told that what you have against your name is not "P", as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said, but "L". "L" stands not for "Life Peer" but for "Local". The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, prompted me in relation to that. If one simply deemed everyone with an "L" against their name as able to vote in parliamentary elections, that would enfranchise noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which would be not at all what we had in mind. It would also not deal with the position of those who are hereditary Peers but disqualified for other reasons from voting in parliamentary elections.
Thirdly, we would still need to make provision in relation to the entitlement of Peers resident overseas at parliamentary elections, which could not be done by the same deeming provision. Equally, we would need to make separate provision in relation to European
210
parliamentary elections. For all those reasons, to take the course suggested by noble Lords yesterday would not be an appropriate or indeed the most effective method of ensuring quickly the ability to vote in general elections.
7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: That is all very well. The noble and learned Lord says that one or two Peers might be inconvenienced if there were to be a by-election in their constituency. However, I am told that at least a dozen noble Lords live in the London constituency of Fulham. Is the Minister happy that as many as a dozen hereditary Peers should be disenfranchised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have put forward a sensible proposal. We have to balance proportionality against common sense. It is possible there will be a by-election in Fulham. I have no idea how many hereditary Peers live in Fulham but, in my view, the balance we seek is sensible.
Earl Ferrers: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining so carefully the answer to my amendment. I am particularly grateful for the last part of his explanation about hereditary Peers who thought they were already on the electoral roll and how it was merely a question of removing the "L" or the "P". Listening to the debate yesterday, I thought that the noble and learned Lord was in error. Mostly, the noble and learned Lord is not in error over legal details, although he sometimes may be over political details. I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 129A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 134 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 135:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIFE PEERAGES
(" .—(1) During the period while the Act remains in force, recommendations by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1951 shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year.
(3) Not more than fifteen of the recommendations referred to in subsection (2) shall be for the conferment of a life peerage on a person who is a member of a registered party; and such recommendations shall be made in proportion to the respective number of votes cast for registered political parties at the previous general election.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to explore briefly the reaction of the Government to the idea of a limit on the exercise of patronage. The proposal is related to the idea that there should be safeguards in the interim House. It would prevent any government, of whatever colour, flooding the House to

211
support a programme that was being amended by a House in which they did not have a majority. I appreciate that it is not the Government's stated aim to seek a majority in the House. The Opposition have the same view. But we would be wise to avoid any government in the future coming into temptation in that way. The amendment proposes putting a cap on the number of creations in any year which would apply to all parties.
It may be helpful to examine briefly the historical precedents of the annual creations made by recent governments. My source is an excellent paper produced by the Library of the House. The Macmillan government created an average of 16 new Peers per year; the first Wilson government created 25 per year; the Heath government, 12 per year; the second Wilson government, 38 per year; the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, 19 per year. The government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher created 18 per year, and Mr. Major's government created 25 Peers per year. Mr. Blair's Government—and I do not wish to make any political point—created 67 per year. At least that was the figure at the time of the Library paper. I understand some of the reasons for the high number of creations of the present Prime Minister. A further rash may be on the way in pursuit of the Government's stated intention to achieve broad parity between the parties. We do not dispute that aim.
What will happen during the rest of the life of the interim House, to which this amendment applies? Has any limit been considered? Will a limit be considered? Given the practice of Prime Ministers who have been in office for 23 of the past 40 years, do the Government agree that there is nothing in the figure of 20 that could not be adhered to? I know that there is increasing fear that the exercise of patronage may well get out of hand in the interim House. This is one way of preventing it.
I am also conscious that on 13th May 1999 (at col. 1419 of the Official Report) the Leader of the House made a generous offer to my noble friend Lord Lucas to enter into discussions between the Committee and Report stages on the question of how an appointments commission and similar potential safeguards might work. I welcome that proposal. I wonder whether the amendment might form part of that meeting. Perhaps not, but whoever is to respond to the amendment may wish to deal with the matter. I assure the Leader of the House that we on the Opposition Front Bench will readily take part in such talks to see whether a consensus on an appointments commission can be reached. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that this is a probing amendment. I certainly do not want to delay the Committee but the amendment raises a number of interesting issues that go beyond the points made by the noble Lord. Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 135 states:
"Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year".
212
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned that in the period 1992–96 the average loss through death of life Peers was 19. So it must be noted that, give or take one or two, the noble Lord is proposing that there should be no more recommendations in a year than there is likely to be wastage through death. In other words, the Chamber will continue with a constant number.
It has been widely agreed in the terms of the Government's White Paper that there must be a balancing of the numbers on a political basis. Even were there to be no more nominations of Conservative Peers during the life of the new Chamber, it would still not be possible to redress the balance given the disproportionate numbers at present.
Paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the Government's White Paper and paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 set out the Government's understanding of the present position and also their intention for the future. The White Paper indicates the balance since the last election between the three principal parties. The figures are plain for everyone to see.
I seek to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there is no possibility, even if the new House survives a great deal longer than most noble Lords would wish it to do, in balancing the new Chamber, given the figures for votes cast in the last election on the basis of no change whatever in the numbers. That is the simple arithmetic which everyone must recognise.
It depends on when the figures are taken, but in broad terms 46 party life Peers are Conservatives, 42 are Labour, and 12 per cent are Liberal Democrats. So there must be some "coming down" in the number of Conservative life Peers. We all understand that there has to be an increase in the number of Labour life Peers. And there must be, to use the words in the White Paper, considerable proportionate creations of Liberal Democrats to obtain what would properly be our share of political life Peers.
So when we look at a figure of 20, and then allow, as I understand it, five for the Cross-Benches, it is plainly nonsense to believe that, were an amendment of this kind to be carried, it would contribute in any way at all to what I should like to believe would be the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well as those expressed by the Government—and which I am sure are shared by the whole Committee.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I suppose that we should be grateful in debating this amendment that the Opposition Front Bench officially recognises that some sort of proper balance of forces within this House is desirable. It has never seemed particularly to worry them in the past. Even last evening we were told by the Opposition Chief Whip that it is really this side that has the majority, and that is perhaps because we work harder.
There are two problems with this amendment. The first is that it is unnecessary. We have repeatedly made it clear that we do not intend to flood the House with new Labour Peers. We have committed ourselves, as the

213
noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, just said, to seeking only broad parity with the main Opposition party, to maintaining proportionate creations and to maintaining a Cross-Bench presence.
The second problem is slightly different. What the amendment does not do is enable any serious rebalancing of the relative party strengths in the House to take place because it deals only with new creations and not with existing numbers—what might be called the stock of Members. So although there is provision for new creations to be proportioned, the formula ignores both current disproportions and vacancies in the total existing membership created by death—as I said, the stock of existing Peers.
Would it, for example, under this amendment be open to the Prime Minister not to offer the Conservatives any new peerages on the grounds that they had suffered no deaths, but to appoint the seven new life Peers to which he was entitled, since Labour has suffered more than seven deaths, and to offer the Liberal Democrats their two; or would all batches of creations need to be in strict proportion regardless of the underlying circumstances?
I also remind the Committee that there are many more than three registered political parties. There are a dozen represented in the other place alone. Presumably they would have to share one, or sometimes two, appointments a year. Is that, for example, to be done on the basis of strict rotation, or on the basis of which party can put forward the most deserving candidate?
As I said, the Government's White Paper addressed the question of the stock of membership of the House, since it is that which determines relative party strengths and which in turn ought to reflect the outcome of a general election. A proposal which applies shares of the popular vote only to the flow of new creations, or seeks to put a ceiling on new creations alone does not take account of those realities. Therefore, this amendment is irrelevant politically and would not work in practice. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is anxious to join in the conversations that I have agreed to have with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the basis of his previous amendments. I should obviously be very happy if he would do so.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Baroness tell the Committee, as this is a probing amendment, whether the Government have in mind any optimum number for the total membership of this House? What is the proposed best size for doing the work that the Government have in mind for it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure that the noble Lord can do the arithmetic in relation to the subsequent House, which involves the 500-odd life Peers and other creations on whatever formulas achieve that. The longer-term arrangements would obviously be appropriate for discussion by the Royal Commission.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I was only trying to get to the principle; namely, the question put by my noble friend Lord Elton as to whether or not the noble Baroness felt
214
that it would ever be right to impose an annual cap, barring some of the difficulties that she raised. Obviously the answer is no, there should not be a cap; there should be complete freedom for the Prime Minister to choose as many as he wants. The intention of this debate was not to give the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the opportunity to make the case for more Liberal Democrat Peers, although I am glad that he did not miss that opportunity.
Is it the Government's intention to move to the composition of this House reflecting votes in a general election in the interim House, or is it to wait until we arrive at the longer-term, stage two reforms?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has read the very precise comments on this matter in the White Paper referring to the transitional House.
Lord Strathclyde: So there is no further thinking on that! Well, this has been a useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135A and 135B not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 135C:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

ATTENDANCE AT STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT
(" . Peers who are disqualified from attending the House of Lords by virtue of section 1 shall nevertheless remain entitled to attend State Openings of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 135D. Earlier in proceedings on the Bill there was some discussion about the so-called club rights. This amendment is not about those rights, but about a much narrower point; namely, the possibility—the desirability as I see it—of hereditary Peers attending the State Opening of Parliament, as I propose in this amendment. Amendment No. 135D raises an even more important point; namely, sitting on the steps of the Throne.
At an earlier stage I asked whether, for example, Privy Counsellors who were hereditary Peers would be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. At present, Privy Counsellors from the other place., from this House, or from neither House, may come and sit on the steps of the Throne. Indeed, I have discovered that one or two other slightly unexpected people are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. For example, I understand that the Dean of Westminster possesses those rights, and noble Lords may say that that is quite right too.
I should like to hear what the Government have in mind with regard to these particular matters. I believe that it would be appropriate for hereditary Peers to continue to attend the State Opening of Parliament. Of course, the hereditary Peers will not remain in the same numbers as now. I imagine that no new hereditary Peers are likely to be created in the foreseeable future; thus the number of hereditary Peers will decline. Indeed, I do not imagine that every hereditary Peer would want to attend anyway. I should also like to hear about the question of sitting on the steps of the Throne. and also

215
possibly about the question of access to this House by those who presently have access by virtue of their relationship to a hereditary Peer. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 135C would provide the entitlement as of right to continue to attend the State openings of Parliament. We do not see that there is any purpose, because after the passage of the Bill hereditary Peers will no longer be Members of the House of Lords. As noble Lords know, it is a matter for Standing Orders.
Amendment No. 135D, which is grouped with Amendment No. 135C, has to do with sitting on the steps of the Throne. This would also be a matter for Standing Orders in the context of Privy Counsellors. I thought I might have misread the amendment, because what is suggested is that all hereditary Peers—and their sons, and their daughters, and their grandsons and their granddaughters—will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. Assuming that they are even modestly prolific, and giving them 10 a go, that means 7,000 people. There ought to be a law against it.
Lord Trefgarne: The plain fact is that a number of the people that I set out in my amendment are already entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. I am not saying that they all are, but a number are.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that it is a matter for Standing Orders. But will the Government support the necessary Standing Orders? Is the Minister right to say that it is only a matter for Standing Orders? And if Standing Orders are the right vehicle, why should it not, in certain circumstances anyway, be right to put this on the face of the Bill?
We discussed the question of Privy Counsellors earlier. When the noble Lord says it is a matter for Standing Orders, is it a matter for Standing Orders, too, that Members of the other place who are Privy Counsellors may sit on the steps of the Throne, or are they here as of right? I am not sure that the noble Lord is entirely correct.
Nevertheless, it is not a matter that I shall pursue at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135D not moved.]
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux moved Amendment No. 135E:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

COMMISSION ON THE VOTING SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
(" .—(1) There shall be a Commission on the Voting System in the House of Lords.
(2) The Commission shall make recommendations on a system of weighted voting to be introduced into the House to ensure that the total number of votes eligible to be cast by members of that House belonging to the party or parties forming the Government shall be greater than the total number of votes eligible to be cast by members of that House belonging to the official opposition party.
(3) The Commission shall report its recommendations before the start of the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed.
(4) Standing Orders of the House shall be made to give effect to the Commission's recommendations, and may provide that any vote cast by a member belonging to the party or parties forming the Government shall have a greater value than any vote cast by another member.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
I appreciate that we are under pressure to get the business through tonight, so I shall be as brief as possible.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to inform the Committee that at Report stage I shall move an additional amendment calling for the establishment of a commission on weighted voting. This amendment will support the other two amendments which have already been debated in principle but not in detail. Briefly, they were, first, that the House of Lords should remain the same but on death hereditaries would not be succeeded by their heirs, and, secondly, that there should be a weighted voting system. All that one would need to do in this whole business of Lords reform would be to multiply the number of Labour Peers voting by 2.7. That would meet all the strategic objectives of reform. I will not go into the details any further; they are in the Library.
I should like to explain the rationale for introducing this new amendment. It is based on the fact that I have serious reservations about the reform process that we are going through. I believe that there has not been the openness that there should have been. Certainly, there has not been a consensus, which I believe could have been achieved. The timetabling has caused difficulties; we have only just learnt that there will be no elected Members, according to my party's submission. We have also learnt only recently that there will be a retention of hereditaries. The main cause of confusion is that there have been no strategic objectives. Reading last Tuesday's Hansard shows that there is a considerable level of disillusionment about the reform process.
How might we proceed with this reform? Because of the flaws in the reform procedure that I have described, I strongly believe that the House of Lords should be presented with more than one option, and the other options should be sensible and practical. The Committee has already approved the Weatherill proposal, with a huge majority. That was the will of the Committee, and I have no intention of challenging the will of the Committee.
However, my view is that we can have other options too. To me, that seems very reasonable. I have sought advice from the authorities of the House, and I have been told that this would be perfectly in order. I also believe that to have one option presented as a fait accompli is not acceptable, particularly when there is not the confidence of the Committee in that proposal.
I hope to be able to present at the Report stage a realistic alternative to the Weatherill proposal. If my alternative was supported, we should have two proposals in the Bill, and therefore the Bill would be in a mess. Therefore I propose—and I think there are precedents—that at Third Reading the House would make its own choice as to how it should proceed. This is a fair and reasonable approach to reform and is in the interests of

217
the House. In particular, it would show that there was a consensus in the House for the reform chosen, because there would be choice. The Bill would then proceed to the House of Commons in the usual way.
I return to the details of the amendment. Why do we need the proposed commission? First, the complete package suggests that we have a weighted voting system. The concept is new. For the House to have confidence in something new like that we need to move away from the idea of one Peer making a proposal as an individual. I do not think that that is acceptable, so, for the sake of the confidence of the House, there should be an independent assessment. That is what the proposed commission is all about.
The commission would be established by the Government. It would have to be politically independent, and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords would have to be adapted to give effect to recommendations made by the commission.
That is the essence of my case. I would appreciate it very much if my noble friend would accept in principle, in the interests of the House of Lords, the notion of having a multi-option approach to the reform process.
Lord Northbrook: I am extremely glad to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. In the rising temperature of the Committee stage in recent days, I am very glad that two Peers on opposite sides of the Committee are putting forward the amendment.
It may appear surprising to the Committee that the amendment is tabled by a Labour life Peer and a Conservative hereditary Peer. I believe that it is a great virtue of the House of Lords that that sort of thing can happen here, compared with the other place.
I came across the noble Lord's paper in the Library, and I met him shortly afterwards. I had been very impressed by the paper, and decided to give the amendment my support. The appointment of an independent commission to study the mechanics of the weighted voting system would be useful, and I hope that the Committee finds the timescale of its reporting acceptable.
As the noble Lord states, to have an alternative to the Weatherill amendment considered before the Bill comes back on recommitment is important. I shall not discuss the mechanics of the amendment on weighted voting, which can be easily understood from reading the paper of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in the Library. Suffice it to say that the improvements that he has made since he originally conceived the scheme are substantial, because the weighted voting system gives the Cross-Benchers a crucial say in determining the result of a Division.
Furthermore, it is highly likely that under the Weatherill amendment we shall have a caucus of hereditary Peers for many years to come. I believe that an alternative amendment, which also allows some hereditary Peers to remain in this House for a limited period, is not incompatible with what the Government have conceded under the Weatherill amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: If I were to stretch my generosity considerably, I could say that my noble friend's amendment is well meaning. However, the consequences of the amendment have not been thoroughly thought out. Its first subsection calls for a commission to examine a voting system for the House of Lords. Even if I were persuaded to support the establishment of such a commission—that is very unlikely—that provision is undone by the second subsection where the devil is concealed—or perhaps not really concealed—in the detail. I need. not go into the question of any possible criticism for reintroducing a novel form of block voting. However, the amendment could also be criticised because it does not refer to the means of weighting the voting of Cross-Bench Members. Even more importantly, if we were to have a weighted system which produced fewer votes for members of the Opposition than for members of the Government, we must ask how such a system could be regulated when Members from either side of the House break ranks with their Whips and vote on certain matters in opposition to their own party. It would be an absolutely horrendous system. Consequently, it seems to me that the amendment should be opposed.
Earl Ferrers: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Randall, speak to his amendment because he tabled it as an alternative way of trying to think through this matter. I was interested in what he said almost sotto voce. I do not know whether his Front Bench heard him say that some noble Lords on his side of the House were disillusioned with the reform process—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: On both sides!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, on both sides. I was anxious to ensure that the noble Lord's Front Bench heard that. I was seeking to remind the noble Lord's noble friends of what he had said. Some noble Lords are, indeed, disillusioned.
I should be interested to hear again how the noble Lord proposes that his system should work. However, he is a mathematician and finds all these things dead easy. I had the privilege outside the Chamber of the noble Lord explaining to me how his system would work. It was so unbelievably complicated that I could not understand it at all. I am quite prepared to accept that my IQ is very much lower than that of most people, but once one starts in the Division Lobby clocking in 1.5 votes for one Peer and 2.3 votes for another, that seems to make an absolute mockery of the whole thing. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, asked what happens when a Peer votes in the wrong Lobby, as happens periodically on both sides of the Chamber. Would such a Peer carry with him a 1.5 weighting or a 2.3 weighting? It really is too complicated.
We have had many electoral changes in the country from a first-past-the-post system to proportional representation and even to the curious system in Scotland where the two systems are used at once. We

219
are now suggesting that your Lordships' House should have weighted voting. The whole thing would be unbelievably complicated.
Lord Crickhowell: I am sorry to have to disagree with the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, because I greatly respect the stand that he has bravely taken on this Bill. In addition, I share many of his reservations and concerns, particularly in the light of the notable contribution last night from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who made it absolutely and unmistakably clear that there can be no certainty of a second stage and who said that there are huge problems in getting to that stage. Indeed, last night we had an acknowledgement from the Government Front Bench—from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—that the Government were coming forward only with proposals and not with a guarantee that they would be carried through. We are dealing with a proposal for an interim House that may last a long time.
My objections to the proposal are not simply those of complication, as voiced by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but also of principle. First, one of the great strengths of our parliamentary democracy is that individual votes and the decisions of individuals actually count. I see my noble friend Lord Jopling on the Benches behind me. As a former Chief Whip of my party, he will recall some crucial votes when we were deciding questions relating to Europe. He will remember, as I do, the agonising decisions that had to be taken by individual Members in deciding whether to break with their own party on a great decision of principle which was of immense importance for the country. Their votes were important because they were taken individually. However, they were also important because the vote of any one Member was equal to the vote of any other, whatever their position in government. That must be right. It is an extraordinary concept that, for example, apparently because one is a member of the governing party, one's votes might weigh more heavily irrespective of whether one is in the "Content" or "Not-content" Lobby, or for or against the Government. That is implicit in the wording of the amendment.
That brings me to my second objection to the amendment. It seems extraordinary that if it is proposed that there should be a commission on the voting system in the House of Lords, so many of the apparent decisions of the commission should have been pre-empted in the wording of the amendment. I see no purpose in, for example, the provision relating to the Standing Orders—partly because they clearly pre-empt the decision of the commission, but also because, as we have heard on previous occasions, there is no need to include in the Bill provisions relating to the Standing Orders of the House.
Although no doubt moved for all sorts of good intentions, this new clause must be objected to. I hope that we shall not, in last night's memorable phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, turn this House into a "genetically modified House of Commons". The noble Lord suggested that that might
220
happen if we had an elected rather than a nominated House. I have considerable sympathy with those arguments.
There is a great danger in the noble Lord's amendment in that we would, indeed, be turning this House into a genetically modified House of Commons because we would be making it a House in which membership of a political party weighed more heavily than the judgment of an individual. That is a wholly unacceptable proposition and I hope that the Committee will have nothing at all to do with it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Ferrers are being a little hard on the amendment, which I find refreshing, if only because it liberates us from the almost blind commitment which many Members feel that they have to the Weatherill amendment. It was certainly supported by a very large majority, but a number of us felt that it was only one solution and perhaps only one step on the way to a final solution. As I understand Amendment No. 135E, the commission would report to the House and the House would be required to agree Standing Orders. That might easily overcome many of the difficulties raised by my noble friends.
Another attractive feature of the amendment is that its intention is to ensure that the government of the day—or the governing parties of the day in the other place—can outvote the party of the Official Opposition. I am now seeking clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Under the present circumstances that would mean that the Labour votes would be weighted in such a way as to outweigh the Conservative votes on this side of the House. The Government of the day could easily lose an amendment to votes cast by the Liberal Democrats and, most important of all, by the Cross Benches. I certainly would not want to be as negative at this stage as regards this amendment as my noble friends. I would like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has to say. I repeat that the great attraction of the amendment is that it liberates us from the Weatherill amendment which has many defects, as we witnessed yesterday.
Lord Jopling: I was half-tempted to make a contribution to this debate before my noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to my previous incarnation as a Chief Whip in another place. I dislike this amendment for two reasons. One has already been explained by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Ferrers. It is much too complicated. I do not believe that it is within the traditions of our parliamentary democracy. All kinds of strange anomalies could arise.
My noble Friend Lord Ferrers referred to the possibility of someone voting in another Lobby. I vividly remember an occasion in the other place when one of my honourable friends, who had done himself rather well during the evening, voted in the Opposition Lobby by mistake in a very difficult vote for the Government. He went to cancel his vote in the Government Lobby, which one is entitled to do. He came to apologise to me. I was extremely angry and used words which I shall not repeat to the Committee

221
tonight. As a consequence he wrote me a letter which was on my desk when I returned to my room. It is framed in my lavatory at home to this day. It concludes with the immortal phrase, "If you wish for my support in future you had better mind your manners." That is the kind of situation which one could get into with this type of weighted voting.
I dislike the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for a rather different reason which I tried to explain when we debated the White Paper some weeks ago. I took a view with which I believe many Members of the Committee will agree; namely, that after this Bill eventually passes into law this House will become infinitely more political and far more like the other place. I speak from memory as a former Chief Whip with a duty to get government business through. I am very dubious about whether it is fair to successive governments in this House to have an arrangement whereby the votes of the government party are equal only to those of the main opposition party. It was in the White Paper. I criticised that. It is in this amendment, and I criticise it for the second time. I do not believe that that would be fair on successive government parties having to get business through the House.
Whether we begin by having parity between the Government and the main opposition party, I believe that that will have to change eventually because the Government need to have parity with all the opposition parties. Even if one does that one s still putting the Government at risk of being overturned by the votes of the Cross Benches. It would be the wild card in this House as regards voting. I strongly object to the proposal that the Government have made and which this amendment repeats; namely, to have parity only between the Government and the main opposition party. It should include all the opposition parties.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not normally find myself in much agreement with my noble friend Lord Pearson, but I agree with some of what he says. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, has tried to tackle the problem of the interim House by a slightly different route from the Weatherill amendment which the Committee has accepted. He looks not to the whole future, but to that of the interim House. We are continually told by the Government that that will not last very long. We should find a way to deal with the issue without the sudden death of the abolition of all but 92 of the hereditary Peers. The Government object to the hereditary principle. But, as I teased them recently, if more of the hereditary Peers were Labour Peers rather than Conservative Peers I am not quite so sure that their objection would be so deep-rooted. Their objection has a great deal to do with numbers. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said earlier, we understand that.
I make no complaint about the number of Labour life Peers who have come to this House since the election. I understand why that has been done. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said, I understand that the Government must get their business. By and large your Lordships' House accepts that proposition. Therefore we are sparing with our use of the sort of Gatling gun that
222
we undoubtedly have although the other place has a form of Gatling gun by return in the form of the Parliament Act. I have to make a little caveat. By and large that is not a sensible way to do business. All of us know exactly what our position is vis-à-vis the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has brought forward this proposal which addresses immediately the problem of the number imbalance in an interim House where the hereditary Peers remain without the Prime Minister having to create any more Peers. For the balance game he may wish to create more Peers for other reasons. But he does not have to do so just for the sake of balance. The noble Lord's amendment is ingenious and addresses at least some of the problems of the Government associated with the composition of the House. His suggestion of a commission is a way of avoiding the need to find solutions simply by sending the matter to some of the great and the good, preferably being mathematically literate.
I reminded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, earlier that the block vote was not entirely unknown in his party. It is not much of a block vote having 1.5 votes instead of only one. The Government may not like ingenious ideas. I find that strange coming from a Government who have just inflicted on Scotland and Wales and are about to inflict on the European elections the complicated calculations of the Belgian mathematician, M. d'Hondt. I was going ':o say the famous Belgian mathematician, but in all truth he is only famous for that formula. He is only now famous because we in this country have adopted it. Unfortunately, I do not believe that he is still alive; otherwise I would nominate him immediately for the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I cannot do that. I humbly suggest that I might be a suitable replacement to M. d'Hondt as I have had to study this issue in three different Bills. I do not believe that there is a problem here as regards some form of weighted voting.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, seems very concerned about rebels. I risk incurring the ire of my noble friend Lord Henley and also my noble friend Lord Jopling whom I still remember for the nice, cheery way he kept us in order in the 1979 Parliament. I suggest that any Member who wishes to vote against his party should receive double points for courage. I have been the recipient of some serious rebellions. Members of this House should be just a little freer than those in the other place as regards voting.
The noble Lord's proposal deserves serious consideration. It deals with the problem of the balance of numbers immediately the Bill is passed. That should be attractive to the Government. Other issues will have to be addressed. When looking at the balance in the House there need to be some Peers representing the Scottish National Party. I am not particularly keen on the idea but, if one is having fairness, it is fair to say that that party received a few more votes in Scotland than the Conservatives. For the record, we gained a few more votes than the Liberal Democrats. The SNP got many more votes than the Liberal Democrats. It is a little unfair that the SNP is not represented at all. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness the Leader

223
of the House that she talk to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the need for one or two—I would not go further—Members from the Scottish National Party. We have one Plaid Cymru Member. I am not sure that we shall see much of him; he has been elected as the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. The same argument applies.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, invites serious discussion. It is a serious effort to address the problems which I know the Government see in the current composition of the House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, my noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux described the process in relation to Lords reform as not being sufficiently transparent. We have always made clear our position. Stage one is the removal of hereditary Peers, a Royal Commission, and then stage two. It is hard to be clearer. The chairman of the Royal Commission is a Conservative Member of this House. Anyone can submit evidence in relation to it. I cannot think of a clearer way in which to have a debate.
Secondly, my noble friend asked whether the Government thought it appropriate for a number of options to be presented to the Chamber. The Government do not think that appropriate. The Government have a clear policy in relation to reform of this House, in particular stage one. The Government also think that the composition of this Chamber is not just a matter for this House. There are wider considerations beyond the wishes of this House, in particular the wishes of another place and of the people. The future of this House is not a matter to be decided simply by the Members of this House determining a menu for the other place. We do not think that that is an appropriate way to proceed.
Thirdly, my noble friend said that there were two prongs to his proposal: first, that hereditary Peers should survive until they die; and, secondly, that there should be weighted voting. He put that two-pronged proposal forward at an earlier stage of the Committee. At that stage it was not put forward for the interim House but as a long-term solution. He said fairly in the course of his speech on the previous occasion that he believed the general view in this House was that the time for a hereditary legislature was gone. With respect, we agree with him.
The proposal he makes in relation to hereditary Peers staying until they die means that after two parliaments the figure will be 50 per cent of their number. They would survive for about 60 years on the basis of actuarial tables. While I am glad that many of them will survive for a long time, that does not meet in any shape or form our manifesto commitment to remove the hereditary Peers. So we cannot accept the first part of his proposal.
The second part of the noble Lord's proposal is put forward on the basis that it helps the Government meet their proposal to have parity in relation to this House. The effect of Clause 1 to which this House has agreed
224
is that if all hereditary Peers were removed there would be a difference of approximately 13 between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in relation to the number of hereditary Peers. We believe that it is better to address that disparity by creations to achieve parity rather than a process of weighted voting in relation to Members of the Government and members of the Conservative Party. The way we suggest is more straightforward. It matches the tradition of Parliament in this country: that each person has one vote. It does not fall foul of the problems to which the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Jopling, referred; namely, what happens when advertently or inadvertently a member of one party votes in the opposite Lobby.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, we do not think that his amendment is appropriate as regards the whole scheme, or is the right solution.
The effect of the Weatherill amendment is that there will be a slightly greater disparity because there are more Conservative than Labour hereditary Peers. But it does not make the disparity so great that it cannot appropriately be dealt with by the direct method that I suggest. We believe that there is no need for a weighted system to achieve parity between the two main parties in the House.
I turn to the detail of the amendment. There is nothing in the proposals about the composition of the commission or its status. Is it to be connected with the House, or right outside it? Nor is there anything about the considerations which the commission has to take into account in formulating its recommendations. I can see considerable dangers in a number of schemes. How does one fix the ratios to take account of the changing membership of the House? Is it to be entirely a matter for the commission to determine how great the Government's advantage over the main Opposition party should be? Is any consideration to be given as to how likely people are to vote in drawing up the weightings? What weight does a vote carry when a Peer votes against his own party?
Finally, I must point out the logical flaw in this amendment. It requires the commission to report before the Session in which the Bill is passed. As I understand it, therefore, the commission has already reported on the basis of these proposals.
The proposals do not stand up either in detail or in principle. I hope that my noble friend will note that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, there was essentially no support in the Chamber for his proposal. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he considers what to do at Report stage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Randall, replies, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, forgotten my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is much too clever to support the amendment.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I refer to the motive underlying the proposal. It is to prevent a massive,

225
instantaneous removal of a huge percentage of the Members of this House. In principle that is the problem. It is the Big Bang approach. I put forward the amendment independently. I have no axe to grind other than to pursue the matter as a Member of this House. If one does not want an instantaneous removal of hundreds of Members of this House one needs a system of weighting in practice.
The Minister stated that he could not support the idea of options. That is a pity. I realise that both Front Benches have made a deal. I am aware that 80 or 90 Peers will have seats. However, I still believe that the House should decide on this issue.
I refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity. The issue has nothing to do with block voting. The point was raised that someone from this side of the Chamber might vote in the other Lobby. In that case, the weighted voting goes through. The situation is very easy.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the confusion. We discussed it over dinner in the Home Room one evening. Perhaps I may put it in practical terms. The position is simple. One would move the column one inch in the printed form which the Clerks fill in. Then one adds up the list in the same way as now. There is then a little "look-up table" because we do not want to do multiplication; and that is it. There is nothing complicated.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the issue is so simple. I can only say that his idea of simplicity and mine are totally different.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: We beg to differ on that. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that we seek to make this Chamber like the House of Commons. That is the last thing we want to do. We are trying to get a House which is independent and has maintained its level of expertise and overall parliamentary system. As regards the "contents" or "not contents", it does not matter which Lobby one goes through because the weighted voting system is exactly the same.
8 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I respect the noble Lord for the argument he has advanced about the Bill, but I do not understand why, if we go into the Division Lobbies, he should have two-and-a-half times my vote on any issue about which we might happen to differ.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: There is an arrangement in this House under which there is a much greater proportion of Conservative Peers than Labour Peers. I have been through the figures of every government defeat since 1997 and I believe that there is total inequity. I believe that the Government are having a rough deal. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to try to achieve equity in the voting, but, at the same time, to maintain the independence of the House.
My solution of "even Stephens" is equality for Conservative and Labour—the Government and the Opposition—and I have assumed that the independents
226
would come from the Cross-Benchers and the Liberal Democrats and others. That means that there is a great deal of independence, but at the same time the Government would be able to get their business through in a much better way than has been the case.
These views are debatable and the whole point of the Royal Commission is to confirm that situation. 'The commission will probably need to meet only on two days in order to discuss the matter. It would he extraordinarily simple.
Lord Crickhowell: The commission can decide on the technical details, but it cannot decide on the principle. Perhaps I may give an example of a particular issue which arose under the previous Conservative Government; the War Crimes Bill. I, with a string of Cabinet colleagues in the Conservative Government, went through the Lobby against that Government and against the majority in the House of Commons. It is not the kind of issue on which the membership of a political party should decide that one vote is greater than another. That above all was the kind of issue in respect of which individual Members of this House decided on the merits. I was in the Lobby not only with a number of former Conservative Cabinet Ministers but a large number of Labour Members who took the same view. I believe that all our votes should count as equal.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: That is the balance of argument between removing a large membership of this House instantaneously and having some other arrangement. That is the balance which must be struck. I have covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in some of my other answers and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his kind comment. The balance is very important.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should not like him to withdraw his amendment without realising that the work he has done on it is greatly appreciated by Members of the Committee, even though it has not been successful. It has been done with great courage because any deviation from strict protocol is obviously not welcome on his Front Bench. On this occasion, when they are anxious to move on fast, one wonders whether one hears the grinding of teeth from in front of him. He has shown great courage.
I say to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the system is not that complicated. A minority government is being given 1.7 votes per Member and one defector is worth 1.7 defections. That seems to me to provide a certain amount of equity. I do not want to hold things up, merely to say that the noble Lord has done a good job and I hope that he will not abandon it half-way through.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for those kind words. Perhaps I may say that there has been no grinding of teeth. The Chief Whip has been marvellous to me; he has not raised the issue and has been very kind. I am an ultra Blair moderniser in a House which may be having difficulty. Change is complicated and never as simple as one wishes. I believe that the benefits which can accrue from

227
going down this route are worthwhile and therefore it is my intention to bring an amendment before the House at Report stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Interpretation and short title]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 136 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 137 to 139C inclusive.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (1)
The noble Earl said: In addressing Amendment No. 136, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 to 139C.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I see from the groupings list that Amendment No. 137, which stands in my name, has been included. It deals with a different point and therefore we shall be removing it from the grouping and speaking to it separately.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sorry to say that the same applies to Amendment No. 138, which also deals with a slightly different aspect.
The Earl of Northesk: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is adamant that Clause 1 is wholly effective. Therefore, the purpose of the amendments is to attempt to tease out why the Government have felt it necessary to specify in the Bill any, let alone only two, of the dignities of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that that creates unnecessary confusion and obscures the Government's attempts to achieve exquisite simplicity.
My preference would be the solution offered by Amendment No. 136, but the fundamental point remains. If the Bill is as watertight as the noble and learned Lord maintains, surely there is no need to make any reference to any individual titles or dignities, to whomsoever they may belong. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Northesk and to Amendments Nos. 139 to 139C. The Government propose, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, that the Royal Members of this House shall cease to be Members of this House in the same way as the other hereditary Peers. Indeed, two of the Royal titles are referred to in the Bill. However, I am not certain or clear that the Government have got it quite right. For example, as suggested in Amendment No. 139, the Dukedom of Cornwall and the Dukedom of Rothesay, both held by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, may not be hereditary peerages. Indeed, in the view of some experts they are most certainly not. For example, if His Royal Highness were to die in the lifetime of his mother his title would not necessarily descend to His Royal
228
Highness Prince William. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has thought this matter through and will be able to reassure us.
Similar considerations apply with regard to the Dukedom of Rothesay. I understand that it was conferred on the original holders in the 14th century and that it is roughly equivalent to the Dukedom of Cornwall. However, there is doubt about it because the Letters Patent have been lost. No doubt the researches of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have clarified this matter and I look forward to hearing his reply in that regard. Can he also deal with the Barony of Renfrew, the Earldom of Carrick and the so-called Lordship of the Isles that are referred to in my subsequent amendments, which are also held by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
Lord Gray: I do not presume to know whether or not the Dukedom of Rothesay was a hereditary title, but it may be of historical interest that it once had an indirect effect upon your Lordships' House because the future King George II, when he was Duke of Rothesay, voted twice in elections for representative Peers for Scotland, and, again the future George IV similarly voted in nine elections between 1787 and 1807. Whether it is a hereditary peerage or not, it obviously held rights with regard to your Lordships' House and membership of your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, invited me to deal with his specific points, and to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk's, reference to a potential problem.
I am only dealing, because of the requests made, with Amendments Nos.136, 139, 139A, 139B and 139C.
As regards Amendment No. 136, the root of the problem is that there is some uncertainty as to whether the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are hereditary peerages. We wanted to make the position clear, and that is why those two hereditary peerages that are presently occupied by the Prince of Wales are specified.
Lord Trefgarne: Did the noble Lord say that the Principality of Wales is a hereditary peerage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is some uncertainty as to whether the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are hereditary peerages. That is why I should like to remove the ambiguity.
The same point is raised in Amendments Nos. 139 and those following. The same authorities which raised questions as to the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are unanimous that the Dukedom of Cornwall, the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick and the Lordship of the Isles are to be counted as hereditary, and that is why they do not need to be specifically dealt with. The Barony of Renfrew is not a peerage dignity at all; it is a feudal or minor barony of Scotland. That is why the Bill is drafted in this way.
Lord Trefgarne: I am troubled by the noble Lord's reply in respect of the Dukedom of Cornwall. I am told

229
that it is held by respectable opinion not to be a hereditary peerage for the reasons to which I have referred, among others. I accept that there is less certainty about the Dukedom of Rothesay.
However, the noble Lord has said his piece. He has access to at least as good professional advice as the rest of us and I do not propose to pursue that point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 2, line 4, after ("peerage"") insert—
("means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom other than those created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or the Life Peerages Act 1958, and")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.137 which concerns a rather different point. The Bill presents a very odd state of affairs in which the targets of the Bill—hereditary Peers—are not defined. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when pressed on the Lofthouse amendment, said that the man in the street would know a Lord when he saw one. I have not always noticed that, and in any event this is not a safe case for legislation.
Time and again during the passage of the Bill doubt has crept in, although during the debate on the last amendment the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, went out of his way to explain why he was taking certain actions in order to remove doubt. That is what the amendment is proposing. What could be an easier way of dispelling doubt but to include that bog-standard element of any Bill, the definition? The amendment provides such a definition and therefore should be more helpful to the Government in the face of any real challenge than the obiter dicta of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I wonder whether the Government will find something attractive in the amendment. I think it would remove some of the doubt hanging over the Bill. If they cannot accept it, perhaps they can explain why. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment is technically defective because it would insert the words "means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom". A peerage cannot mean a member of the peerage. It should, if that is the desired effect, refer to the peerages themselves.
The essential point is that the amendment is not necessary. It is quite clear what a hereditary peerage is and, more importantly, for the reasons I have specified on earlier occasions, what "by virtue of a hereditary peerage" means.
The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were: "We are looking for the bog-standard element of any Bill and interpretation clause." As noble Lords who have sat here for a while will recall, many Bills do not
230
have interpretation clauses where there is no possibility of doubt. That is why we have not thought it necessary to go down the route indicated by the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but there is a doubt that has crept in. For obvious reasons, that doubt is not conceded by the Government. There is a doubt about the effectiveness of the words in Clause 1, "by virtue of hereditary peerage". There is doubt about the overriding of the Writ of the Summons; there is doubt about whether all Peers are included and there is still some doubt about the position of Scottish Peers brought in in 1963, or of Peeresses in their own right.
I am certain that the amendment is technically deficient, so I will withdraw it and re-examine the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("peerage."") to end of line 5 arid insert ("does not include any of the peers of Blood Royal")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138 touches upon delicate ground because it proposes that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and their Royal Highnesses the Peers of the Blood Royal should be invited to stay on in your Lordships' House at least for the duration of the interim House.
Part of the reason for this was very well and very briefly stated by my noble kinsman Lord Charteris of Amisfield at Second Reading. He said:
"If all rights of hereditary peers to sit, speak and vote in the House are abolished, I believe that will expose the Monarchy. It will be the only establishment based on heredity".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; cols. 307–308.]
My noble kinsman went on to say that he was not worried for the immediate future of the monarchy with which, as noble Lords will be aware, he has a certain familiarity, but that he hoped that the Royal Commission would try to keep some element of the hereditary peerage in the long-term House so that the monarchy would be less exposed.
There has already been some discussion as to whether removing the hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House does indeed begin to undermine the Throne, but in all conscience many of us believe that it must. The principle of heredity is certainly weakened in your Lordships' Chamber, and the Throne is not very far away.
There is another reason for inviting the Peers of the Blood Royal to retain a seat and a voice in your Lordships' House, at least for the interim chamber. The reason is quite simply that although they have not been in the habit of attending much at all recently, which is perhaps a pity in itself, I cannot help feeling that were they to attend and contribute more frequently to our

231
debates in future, those contributions would be of enormous value to the House and to Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I need to take my cue from the noble Lord who moved the amendment in relation to the delicate area that we are getting to. I am grateful that he cautioned us all about that.
Perhaps I may say generally that this matter was raised on Second Reading. But on other occasions, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who is not in his place at present, has urged us not to confuse the question of the hereditary monarchy with the reform of this Chamber. I believe that he was right to give us that advice. I reiterate that there is no prospect whatever of any derogation from the status of the monarchy and the Royal Family.
I repeat what other noble Lords have said on earlier occasions. We know perfectly well of examples in continental Europe where the hereditary monarchy coexists amicably, fruitfully and happily with a second Chamber which has no element of the hereditary principle about it.
As regards the particular points, and treading with extreme caution, this amendment refers to Peers of the Blood Royal only. That means, if I have it correctly, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. It would not include Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. That is the status of the amendment.
The best that I can do is simply to draw the attention of the Committee to the words at paragraph 5.16 on page 30 of the White Paper. Having reassured the Committee, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw the amendment and reconsider the matter, I suggest that he should consider with care the views of those who may be affected. I do not believe that I can go further into that rather delicate area.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly I will take away his words and, together with others, consider them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 140 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("House of Lords") and insert ("Appointed Chamber")
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to make clear what is being done. We all know what is happening; that is, the hereditary Peers are being removed and instead there is to be an appointed Chamber. Therefore, I suggest that the Title of the Bill should refer to the "Appointed Chamber" and not to the "House of Lords". That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 142, which is an easy and simple amendment. It follows a precedent. It draws attention to a fact which
232
should be obvious and common ground. It is simple. We are witnessing a major change to this House. This is the most dramatic break in the continuity of this House in its history and it cannot be introduced without affecting the other place.
The Government used to say that their objective was to create a more democratic House of Lords—although that has been air-brushed out of the Labour Party evidence to the Royal Commission—and to increase the power of this House relative to another place. For that reason, and for many others, I wonder why this Bill is not called a Parliament Bill and, after Royal Assent, a Parliament Act. Perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord will say why the Royal Commission is denied the right to look at the working of Parliament as a whole.
It is striking what else the Government did not call this Bill. They did not call it a House of Lords reform Bill. They know, as well as we do, that it does not begin to pass muster as a genuine reform of this House. It will do nothing to make it more democratic, more representative or more legitimate. It will do nothing to make it more modern because a Chamber of appointees is a throw-back to the selection methods of ancient times.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to reply. I welcome him to our debates. I hope that he will take the amendments seriously. I very much look forward to listening to his reply. I should be interested to hear also what justification the Government have for choosing such a limited and misleading name.
Viscount Trenchard: The Committee may wonder why I have introduced further amendments concerning the name of the House of Lords Act in my Amendment No. 142A. I have great sympathy with the views of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which make perfect sense. However, in previous debates, unfortunately, I have not noticed much enthusiasm from the Benches opposite for the proposal that your Lordships' House should be renamed the "House of the Appointed". Therefore, I fear that there may not be enough support for my noble friend's Amendment No. 141.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is, at first sight, a very logical choice and I should be happy with that. I hesitate to propose a view different from that of my noble friend but there is one reason that I prefer my amendment.
The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 deal with the powers of your Lordships' House. This Bill purports to deal only with its composition. My noble friend may well be right that the Bill alters the composition of the House so radically that it affects the House's ability to exercise its powers, the nature of the House itself and its relationship with another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and other noble Lords have drawn your Lordships' attention to the politicisation of the House which will result from the passage of the Bill which, it has become clear, is regretted by many noble Lords. However, this Bill is supposed to deal only with composition. "House of Lords Composition Act" sounds rather unattractive and so I propose "House of Lords Membership Act". I know

233
that some Members of the Committee may not like it because the concept of membership of your Lordships' House has not been used much in the past. However, with the passage of the Bill, it will be altered and defined. Indeed, it is used in the Title of the Bill and in the Bill itself. I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Monson: Any of these amendments would be an improvement upon the wording of the Bill as it stands because they describe accurately what is happening. Being aware that governments of all political persuasions always opt for brevity in the Titles of Bills, I favour the amendment spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I calculate that I have spent 46 hours, 28 minutes happily listening to our debates in Committee. My reward is to answer this group of amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, returns to a consistent theme of his; that is, the name of the House of Lords. In Committee we have heard different suggestions for names—Appointed Chamber, Half House of Lords, Transitional House, a Chamber of Peers, Upper House, Second Chamber, Senate and House of Peers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, suggested yesterday in adding a Gilbertian touch to our proceedings. He did not get it quite right since the long title of "Iolanthe" was "The House of the Peer and Peri". As every schoolchild knows, penis appeared originally in Persian mythology and came to be used as a term for women generally. I can only suppose that W.S. Gilbert anticipated the remarks of my noble friend Lady Castle yesterday in calling for a non-sexist title for your Lordships' House.
What does that indicate? I suggest that it indicates little consensus and many different opinions about what the House should be called in its second stage. Those remaining in the transitional stage will be Lords. There will be no change in the function of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said yesterday, it would be confusing if the House changed its name during the interim stage.
Surely, this is a matter for the Royal Commission. As I understand, the Royal Commission has said that it would welcome suggestions for a possible new name for your Lordships' House to reflect the changing role, functions and composition of the Second Chamber. I do not believe that this is a matter for us, nor should it be so.
I turn to Amendment No. 142 and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which seeks to change the title of the Bill to the "Parliament Act 1999". The Bill deals with the first step in a long overdue reform of your Lordships' House, the House of Lords. That is why the Bill is known as the "House of Lords Bill" and that is why we consider it more accurate to call it the "House of Lords Bill".
The noble Lord mentioned the Parliament Act. It is certainly true that the reform Bill in 1968 was called the Parliament No. 2 Bill, but the Bill dealt with the
234
composition and the powers of the House of Lords and, in particular, replaced Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911.
I turn to Amendment No. 142A tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary. The Committee's acceptance of the Weatherill amendment ensures that alongside the substantial reduction in the number of hereditary Peers in membership of your Lordships' House in the interim phase, the broad categories of Members remain the same. We shall still have life Peers, the Bishops and the Law Lords and a proportion of hereditary Peers. However, the size of one element of the membership, the hereditary Peers, will change.
As we discussed earlier, the Bill also provides provisions about the disqualification from voting at elections to and from membership of the House of Commons. So the Bill is not just about membership of the House of Lords. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the points raised and that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that he had been waiting for 48 hours and 36 seconds, or whatever, I thought that he was about to please your Lordships by accepting one amendment. Alas! that was not to be.
The noble Lord made one mistake. He said that this is a matter for the Royal Commission, but it is not. We are dealing with the interim Chamber and the Royal Commission will deal with the subsequent Chamber. Therefore, I believe it is a matter for this House to decide what it should be called. I thought 'Appointed Chamber" would be an excellent name as the Bill would read "This Act may be cited as the Appointed Chamber Act 1999". That is what it is. However, I knew I would not get very far. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, with deep gratitude to the noble Lord for having spent so much time here and for putting so much thought into answering the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 and 142A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144A not moved.]
Schedule [Repeals]:
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 145.
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—

("15Edw. 2.

Revocation of the New Ordinances 1322.

The word "earls" in the last place where it occurs.

31 Henry 8.

The House of Lords Precedence Act 1539.

In section 4 the words from "above all dukes " to the end. section 7.")

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 145 is intended to clarify the effect of the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the spirit in which it is offered.
The first part of the amendment is to an ancient ordinance of Edward II and seeks to repeal the reference to "earls", appropriately, in the last section of the ordinance. The side note to the section states:
"Ordinances or provisions concerning the King and the realm made by subjects shall be void and none such shall be made except by the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament".
I feel that that is a fundamental constitutional document of our parliamentary democracy. It establishes for all time that the only legislative authority in the country is the sovereign in Parliament which is the Lords and Commons. In the text of the ordinance we find the words:
"By our Lord King and by the assent of the Prelates, Earls and Barons and the commonality of the realm".
At that time there were no Dukes, Marquesses or Viscounts, only Earls and Barons. Now we are contemplating changing the composition of the Lords Temporal who may assent to laws so as to validate them. They are no longer to include Earls, Dukes, Marquesses or Viscounts, but only Barons.
Therefore, it seems necessary to amend that ancient ordinance, to delete the reference to Earls so that it will state the position correctly for the future. I believe that there is no need to state expressly that the repeal is not to be retrospective. It is not, and Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 would remove any doubts.
The second part of the amendment repeals some provisions of the Act of Henry VIII which determines the precedence in which Lords may take their places in this House. Perhaps it is not surprising that the other place has not concerned itself with this matter. The words in Section 4 of that Act which are to be repealed are those that provide that,
"The great office holders of state, the Lord Chancellor being the premier, shall sit and be placed as well in this present Parliament as in all other parliaments hereafter to be beholden on the left side of the said Parliament Chamber on the higher part of the form on the same side, above all Dukes, except only such as shall happen to be the King's son or the King's brother, the King's uncle, the King's nephew or the King's brothers' or sisters' sons".
As Dukes will not be allowed in the Chamber once the Bill is enacted, no matter whose son or uncle they may be, it seems appropriate that the references to Dukes and the King's relations should be repealed.
It is also proposed to repeal Section 7 of this old Act as that provides:
"That all Dukes not aforementioned, Marquises, Earls, Viscounts and Barons, not having any of the offices aforesaid shall sit and be placed after their ancienty as it has been the custom".
As in future there will be only Barons, this setting of precedence becomes unnecessary and accordingly needs to be repealed. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Earl has raised two interesting new points. To that extent, this is a refreshing amendment. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—who is not in his place—on finding another issue for the Committee to debate. Today we are invited to consider the particular position of 168 Earls. Perhaps that is an improvement on the one or two noble Lords whom we were asked to consider in
236
relation to by-elections which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others, discussed so animatedly earlier today and yesterday.
As the noble Earl has pointed out to the Committee, the amendment proposes deleting the references to "earls" in the final part of—I apologise for my inaccurate classical pronunciation, if it is so—the Revocatio Novarum Ordinationum 1322.
In considering the provision, my expert advisers, in preparing the Bill, concluded that there was no need to exclude those references from the Bill and that they took precise notice of the terms of that arrangement. They decided that was not relevant to the Bill because the Bill before your Lordships will, impliedly, amend that Act of 1322 and, therefore, it will not be open to the courts to find a construction that is inconsistent with the Bill.
My expert advisers were conscious that it may be argued that the reference to "earls" required that some Earls be Members of the House of Lords, or that it required that Earls be voting for a measure before it can be passed. However, that argument was not considered valid.
Secondly, we were supported in our approach not to amend the 1322 Act by the Parliament Act 1911 which envisages the passing of Acts of Parliament without the assent of this House at all. The Parliament Act, as perhaps the noble Earl is aware because he is well versed in these matters, did not explicitly modify the 1322 Act. Thirdly, it is worth noting that neither of the two Houses of Parliament is giving consent according to the custom existing in 1322.
The second amendment to which the noble Earl spoke proposed to repeal a large part of the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539. We also considered that Act in preparing the Bill and decided against repealing any of it, in particular because in practice the Act only has an effect on three relatively minor aspects. The noble Earl mentioned some of them. The matters on which it has an effect are the question of the Lord Chancellor moving to the left when he speaks; that the Bishops sit on the side of the House designated for them; and that the Crown Office follows the order of precedence for officers in drawing up certain documents.
Without wishing to minimise or underrate the concerns which these matters reflect, we took the view that significant changes in these areas might be more appropriately dealt with in the long-term reform of the House. Therefore, I hope that I have convinced the noble Earl both that the Government were aware of, and also took cognisance of, the points he raised. We did not believe them to be immediately relevant and felt that those matters which might become relevant in the long term could be dealt with in the long term. I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to press his amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the response of the noble Baroness. I am also gratified that she congratulated me on introducing a new, if old, topic. Nonetheless, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 146 to 147 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 148A not moved.]
The schedule, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Weatherill Lord Weatherill moved Amendment No. 152:
Line 1, leave out ("End") and insert ("Restrict")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the agreement of the Committee to the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Carnarvon and Lord Marsh and myself which was agreed on Tuesday of last week. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 160 not moved.]
House resumed; Bill reported with amendments.

Tax Credits Bill
8.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("only after Her Majesty's Government have announced their intentions in respect of passported benefits").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, for which there appears to be ample precedent in Erskine May, is, first, to register some protest at the way in which the Government have dealt with the House in regard to the question of passported benefits; secondly, to relate specifically to that issue; and, thirdly, to ask the Minister to state the Government's present position.
There has been some concern about the way in which the preparation of this Bill has been made. The child benefit clauses were not produced until the last day of the proceedings in the other place, thereby not allowing any discussion other than the last day of Report stage. We therefore find ourselves in a situation where an important issue arising from the changes which the Government are proposing to make in the social security arrangements has not been clarified.
The House may recall that I raised this issue in Committee. The noble Baroness responded at cols. 641 and 643 of the Official Report of 4th May. I urged the noble Baroness that a decision should be reached before Report stage with regard to the Government's intentions in relation to passported benefits. In the subsequent columns the Minister repeated time and again that we would return to the issue before the Bill left Parliament.
It seemed a formula somehow ingrained in her thinking, but clearly it is not satisfactory, as I pointed out at the time. The reality is that the Government have had many months to work out the position in relation to passported benefits.
The change from family credit to the working families' tax credit creates a situation where entitlement to various passported benefits does not necessarily transfer from those entitled to one specific benefit to those entitled to the other. For that reason it is a matter of considerable importance. It covers a whole range of individual benefits; for example, prescription charges, exemption from the cost of dentures and dental treatment; free eye tests; vouchers for glasses, fares to and from hospitals; and much more. For that reason it is important that we know what the Government's position is. We ought to have known far earlier. If we wait until the period about which the noble Baroness is so concerned—before the Bill leaves Parliament—then this House will not have an opportunity of expressing a view on the way in which the new structure under the working families' tax credit should operate. Indeed, it is the case that unless we were to move an amendment to the Bill which covered this point, the House of Commons would have no opportunity to amend whatever the Government eventually propose.
The noble Baroness raised a number of reasons in Committee as to why it was difficult for the Government to reach a decision. In particular, she mentioned that seven or eight different government departments were involved. It is not acceptable that the House should be left in the dark and that Parliament should be prevented from considering the matter altogether because Ministers from seven or eight government departments have not managed to get together and decide an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
Having said that, the noble Baroness will know that we are concerned about the way in which the Department of Social Security is being taken over—I believe that that is the right expression—more and more by the Treasury. Indeed, not only is the Contributions Agency being transferred, but there are also a number of other important proposals in relation to this Bill. I believe it is true to say that the department is virtually being dismembered.
My own feeling is that it is very dangerous when the Treasury gets too much control over a particular government department. The system relies intrinsically on there being a conflict between the spending department and the Treasury. I well recollect many years ago when Sir Keith Joseph was responsible for social security. He thought that he was on the side of the Treasury, so instead of there being a balance between those conflicting forces the whole thing became unbalanced and the department's interests were not protected.
With the growing influence of the Treasury in all the social security matters, one fears that the tendency is for benefits not to be dealt with in the way in which the department itself would normally wish to deal with them. That applies especially as regards these passported benefits. The events during the past few days

239
in the other place certainly suggest that it is not only the case in relation to this Bill, but also in relation to another Bill which is being dealt with in the other place at present and will no doubt arrive here soon.
There are many areas, especially with regard to the disabled, where we find that the tendency is for the influence of the Treasury to be more and more prevalent. For that reason it seemed to me that it might be helpful to the Minister, because we all recognise the deep concern that she has for the disabled, and others, to table such a Motion so as to put some pressure on the Government between the Committee and the Report stages to sort out the matter. It should have been sorted out months ago. The noble Baroness has had another two weeks in which to try to knock ministerial heads together. One very much hopes that she will be able to tell us this evening what progress has been made in that respect.
As I say, there are two aspects involved. First, we should know what the Government's intentions are; and, secondly, we should be in a position to decide whether or not this House, with its responsibility for examining the implications of legislation, does or does not wish to amend those particular proposals. In Committee, the noble Baroness pointed out that, at present, such matters are dealt with in regulations and that a series of different regulations operated to bring about the passporting of benefits across a series of departments. None the less, it is certainly not impossible to draft amendments to the Bill—or, more accurately, it is not impossible for the Government to put forward proposals in the Bill. That is their responsibility. That would enable the House to consider what they propose. Indeed, there is no reason why they should not put forward such proposals so that the House can consider them on their merits.
I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. If the Government are bringing forward legislation of the kind that we have in this Bill, the implications of which are very serious for the disabled and other groups, they have the responsibility to ensure that the House has an opportunity to express a view as to how such matters should be dealt with. We well know from our earlier debates that there are problems because the Government have extended the working families' tax credit up to levels of income way over £25,000 a year in some cases. We can understand that perhaps the Government do not feel it appropriate that those people should, for example, get free prescriptions. But that is a problem which the Government have created, unnecessarily in our view. Therefore, having created it, they ought to say what they intend to do to solve it. We can then consider whether or not we consider their solution to be appropriate.
However, as the matter stands, we do not even know whether they are proposing to have some arrangement whereby those receiving working families' tax credit, or the disabled allowance, will receive these passported benefits automatically, as is the case at present, or whether they will only receive them subject to a means test, which is certainly something that the Government have extended time and again. Indeed, they attempted to do so last night and have done so in many other ways. The extension of means testing is certainly something
240
which gives us cause for concern. If the passported benefits, which are extremely important, are to be means tested in future rather than being given automatically, we ought to know. But up until now the noble Baroness has given us no indication of how she proposes to deal with the matter; indeed, she has given us no indication as to the way in which we can amend what the Government eventually propose.
In fact, to say that we shall return to the issue before the Bill leaves Parliament—indeed, I am not clear why the noble Baroness did not simply say before it receives Royal Assent—is not satisfactory. We gave her ample notice in Committee that we thought we ought to know about this before we proceeded to the Report stage. As I said, I have tabled my Motion in the hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us this evening that the Government have finally got their act together and that the government departments have finally managed to spare the time on this issue to reach agreement among themselves. We will then be able to consider what the Government propose and, if necessary, debate and amend such proposals.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, does not intend to divide the House on his Motion. If he does, I have to say that I will be unable to follow him. However, from the way in which the noble Lord introduced his Motion, I rather suspect that he does not actually intend to do so.
Having said that, in our view the complaint which the noble Lord makes is entirely justified. We quite understand the Government's difficulties, which result from the fact that the increased generosity of the working families' tax credit may lead to families with well over average incomes receiving the tax credit. Therefore, the Government may well feel that it is inappropriate for everyone who receives the tax credit to receive passported benefits in the way that those who received family credit were entitled to do. We also understand that this will involve the decision being taken by a number of different departments and that that will take some time.
Nevertheless, the fact that we have now reached the Report stage in this House without yet knowing what the Government plan to do about passported benefits, shows a very depressing lack of a sense of urgency. We realise that the right to passported benefits is something which, in the normal course of events, would be dealt with in regulations. The Government have very rightly and properly produced draft regulations as regards all other aspects of the Bill; for example, we have seen the draft regulations which fall under Clause 6 and those which come under Clause 15. We have also seen the draft regulations which amend the existing regulations governing family credit. However, we have still not seen anything that tells us what will happen about passported benefits.
I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward information, if not tonight then at least before Third Reading, which will tell us their decision about

241
passported benefits. Therefore, before the Bill leaves this House for what will no doubt be the last time, we will he able to see what the Government intend to do.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment to the Motion because I am extremely disappointed that so far we do not appear to have had the slightest indication of what the position might be. I of course understand the difficulty of involving a number of different departments but it was surely this Government who were going to pride themselves upon joined up government. What does that mean if not getting various government departments to act together where it is appropriate to do so? I am not impressed if it is the case that that difficulty is preventing the Government from making any decisions so far.
I ask your Lordships to look at this matter from the point of view of the individual and of individual families. The question of free prescriptions or other free provision is extremely important to people who have small incomes. Obviously the whole point of this exercise is that money will be paid to encourage people into work even when perhaps they cannot earn much when they first enter work. These are matters of great importance to individuals and to families. Therefore it is high time that the Government gave us some information as to whether they will allow passporting, or if that is not to be done as a whole as it was done previously, whether at least certain benefits may be passported. even if not all of them. At least that would give us something to work on. I beg the Minister to try to give us some indication of that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is a most unusual Motion and one that I do not recall previously in my 22 years in this House. However, it is quite right that the Motion has been put down. This House would be failing in its duty if it did not inquire into the position of passported benefits. I believe the Government have been lax in not coming forward with their suggestions at least by this stage of the Bill, bearing in mind that it has gone through the other place. We are now just about to start on the Report stage. We have Report stage to come and Third Reading only. This position may have arisen because the tax credits are being moved from one ministry to another. However, joined up government means that ministries talk to each other, or should do so. I am certain that if the Minister was sitting on the Front Bench on this side of the House and another party was in power she would be doing something similar to my noble friend Lord Higgins. She shakes her head. She may not have done it in the same way but she would still want the information that is required.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the amendment to this Motion would stop the House moving to Report stage of this Bill until the Government had stated what they proposed to do about prescription charges for those who from October will be on WFTC or DPTC. At the moment those on family credit and disability working allowance are passported on to free prescriptions. Their benefits act as proxy indicators of low income households. However, as your Lordships
242
have identified, WFTC and DPTC will target a much larger group of households and this raises the question of whether the tax credits will continue to be an appropriate means of automatically identifying the target group for the benefits provided by the NHS and other departments. The issue is a complex one, particularly given that there are half-a-dozen other government departments involved. The Government have been giving careful consideration as to how to provide help to those who need it through a scheme which is fair and simple to operate. It is not a question of whether but of how to provide help to those who need it through a scheme which is fair and simple to operate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes., said, we are all agreed that this is an important issue. It is therefore entirely proper that this issue should be debated at Report stage. I do not disagree with those noble Lords who wish to debate it. I entirely take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The matter should he debated at Report stage as it was at Committee stage; that is, it should be debated around an amendment in the Bill rather than an amendment to a Motion; namely, that the Report stage be deferred. I made it clear at Committee stage that the Government would make their position clear before the Bill left Parliament. I was in no position to commit us to a faster timetable than that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has now moved that we do not proceed to the Report stage of this Bill; in other words, that we abandon today's and next week's business until the Government have made a statement on passporting.
As I say, I believe that this is an issue that matters. However, it is not central to this Bill. It is one of several issues such as childcare proposals and the maintenance disregard which are affected by this Bill, which are consequential on this Bill but which are not central to this Bill. The issue does not require primary legislation and it requires no changes to this Bill. Indeed this Bill builds on family credit and DWA to create WFTC arid DPTC by renaming the benefits and then building on those foundations. Other departments—not the Inland Revenue, not the Treasury, not the DSS—notably the Department of Health, name the benefit recipients in their rules and regulations in order correctly to identify recipients. It will in particular be for the DoH to determine eligibility for its low income scheme.
Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said this issue was a matter for this Bill, I am afraid he was wrong. It is not a matter for this Bill. This Bill is about eligibility for tax credits and how they will be determined. It is for the separate departments to legislate in their regulations if they do or do not want to passport WFTC or DPTC as if those same recipients were still on family credit or DWA. As I say, like several other issues—childcare is one and maintenance is another—NHS charges, while properly of concern, are side aspects of this Bill. Therefore in my view it is wrong to seek to delay the entire Report stage of this Bill and to stop the Government getting their business through on a matter which is not central to this Bill and which requires no action in this Bill.

243
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, to force a Division to defer Report stage is without precedent in this House to the best of my knowledge. I do not think any of us can recall a Report stage being deferred in this way, let alone on something not even central to the policy of the Bill and not even part of the Bill's legislation. The resulting dislocation to government business would inevitably be taken seriously. I regret this method of proceeding. As I say, I think it is entirely proper to discuss this issue around an amendment later in the Report stage. However, I regret this method of proceeding even more because the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, gave me no warning either in person or by letter that he intended to take this action.
Following the Committee stage a number of your Lordships around the Chamber wrote to me following up issues of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wrote on issues of care and maintenance; the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, and Lord Rix, on issues of the disabled person's tax credit; my noble friend Lord Haskel on the issue of affirmative regulations for childcare. In all of the cases where people wrote to me I did my best, as I always do, to respond as positively as I could. Where it seemed that there were points of substance that we could and should take on board I would seek to bring forward either government amendments or to give assurances. As I have said, the style of the House is not confrontational. We take points on board and if we can and should address them we seek to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not choose to act as his colleagues did by writing to me to see whether we could clear up the matter, which would have been courteous and appropriate. That would have given me the opportunity of setting out a possible timetable by correspondence and clearing up the matter that way, rather than seeking to disrupt the entire Bill. I do not know why the noble Lord should choose the path of confrontation rather than that of discussion, as his noble friends and other noble Lords have done. I regret that he has done so. It is not appropriate to the style of the House.
We are giving careful consideration as to how to strike the right balance between protecting low income recipients of WFTC who would have been eligible while on family credit—a point made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—while not at the same time giving free prescriptions to those with much higher incomes.
I have already given a commitment that the Government will state their intentions before the Bill leaves Parliament. I have every expectation that I will be able to set out our intentions at Third Reading. That will give the House the opportunity to discuss the proposals. That would have been clear when we came to discuss the appropriate amendments either tonight or next week. Indeed, I could have made that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, had he chosen to write to me on the issue, as his noble colleagues did, after the Committee stage. Then perhaps the Motion might not have been necessary.
244
For all those reasons and the fact that I will be able to give a statement to your Lordships at Third Reading—as I have always hoped I would—I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion tonight.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. Let me say right away that it was certainly not my intention to be in any way discourteous to the noble Baroness. But I could not have made it clearer at the Committee stage that we did not believe the situation which she described was satisfactory. I said:
"I therefore urge the noble Baroness as strongly as I can that a decision should be reached on this matter before we come to Report stage".— [Official Report, 4/5/99; col. 641.]
Had I written to the noble Baroness she would simply have written back, as I understand it, and said, "I am very sorry, I am not in a position to say". That is not satisfactory.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is in no position to anticipate what I would have replied in a letter as he did not choose to send me one. It was a hypothetical statement.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, had I done so I would clearly have received the same answer we have received this evening. It is not a satisfactory answer. The noble Baroness has again come to the House and said that she is not in a position this evening to say what is the Government position. The Government have had months to get together the various government departments in order to reach a decision. They are treating the House with contempt—I overstate it perhaps. They are not enabling the House to do its job of examining these issues, which are very important to a number of disabled and other individuals outside, if we do not know what is the position of the Government.
The noble Baroness has said that we can debate the matter on amendments. We need to know what is the position of the Government before we know whether we need amendments. For us to table amendments and then for the noble Baroness simply to stand up and say, "We do not know what the answer is yet", is not satisfactory.
I simply do not understand why the Government have been unable to reach a decision on this matter. None of us disputes that it is a difficult issue—it involves a number of departments and so on—but as far as concerns timing it is simply a matter of the Government taking all the various issues into account and making a decision.
Having said that, it does not seem to me that this is an inappropriate way of proceeding. As far as concerns Erskine May, perhaps the noble Baroness would care to look at page 479 of the current issue. There the point is made very clearly that this procedure in one form or another has been used on a number of previous occasions. It seemed to me a matter of urgency to bring the issue to the House. It seems to me that the Government are not giving the House a fair opportunity to consider these issues.

245
The noble Baroness said, "This matter is not central to the Bill; it is a consequence of the Bill". Before we pass legislation that will affect a large number of disabled and other disadvantaged people, we have to consider what the implications are. It is not satisfactory to say that that is not central to the Bill. The fact that there can be serious consequences as a result of the Bill should be taken into account when we consider the specific measures which the Government have proposed. Those consequences follow from the actions which the Government are taking in the Bill. Therefore, to say that it is not central is to ignore the repercussions of the Bill. To argue that when considering a Bill one should not take into account its repercussions or ask the Government what they expect to do about the repercussions and, if necessary, have an opportunity to amend the Government's proposals about those repercussions is to take an extraordinarily narrow view of legislation and does not enable—
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, has not the noble Lord tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 15, which deals with passported benefits? Why is it necessary to move this Motion now?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, for the reasons I have mentioned, we should have known long since what the position is. We have tabled an amendment. But our tabling an amendment is not the way in which this should be done. The Government should put forward their proposals and we can then consider whether they are appropriate. If I understand correctly what the noble Baroness has said—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point is that there is nothing the Government can put down because what the noble Lord is concerned about is not part of the Bill. It is not primary legislation; it belongs to the regulations of another department. All the Government can do in due course is make a statement of their proposals. As my noble friend said, an amendment gives the opportunity for debate—precisely what we are doing now, and apparently we are to do it twice over—but there can be no consequences for this Bill. It is not part of the framework of this Bill and cannot be because it belongs to the regulations of another department. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand that point. That is not to say that this is not an important issue and cannot be debated. But the Government cannot bring forward amendments because it is not part of this Bill in terms of going from family credit to working families' tax credit. That is why there cannot be government amendments and therefore opposition amendments to amend the Government's position.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, that is not truly the position. If we can put down an amendment, so can the Government. It may be that such an amendment will require careful drafting, but there is no reason why one should not incorporate into the Bill an amendment to deal with this issue.
246
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made an alternative suggestion. In a number of respects the Government have been extremely good—I give them all credit—in putting forward draft regulations concerning both the Bill itself and the repercussions of the Bill. Therefore, it would have been possible for the Government to have done the same in this case. They could have put forward draft statutory instruments, although we would not have been able to amend them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may, with the deepest respect, suggest to the noble Lord that there is a difference between government amendments and opposition amendments. Opposition amendments can be probing amendments. They can be defective but still have a value to the House in enabling it to debate the issues before Parliament. A government amendment has to be necessary; it has to be perfect; and it has to be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Hollis has made it clear that any decision about passporting would not require primary legislation and the regulations that would be necessary for it would not form part of the regulations dependent on this Bill. Under those circumstances, the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government should put down an amendment to the Bill on passporting simply does not stand up.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, these are technical matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are not technical matters; they are essential to the way in which we deal with government business in this House.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the reality is that this is a matter on which the House should be able to express a view; and not only express a view but carry a view.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that surely is the purpose of Amendment No. 15, to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred. That is the appropriate point for this discussion—not now and riot on this Motion.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not proposing to discuss the specific point on this Motion. We shall come to it, as the noble Baroness rightly said, on a later amendment. But, given the repercussions of what the Government are doing, we ought to have an opportunity to amend whatever the Government have in mind. At the very least we ought to know what the Government intend. That is why the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to publish draft regulations would be a way of doing it, albeit that we could not then actually amend them. It would perhaps be a second best solution. Otherwise, the Bill will disappear into the public domain with our having had no opportunity of discussing the substance of what the Government ultimately have in mind. The crux of the matter is that they have failed to consider this issue in time to give the House an opportunity of discussing and, it is to he hoped, amending their proposals.

247
That said, as I say, there is certainly ample precedent for this procedure, but I do not wish for one moment at this stage to push the matter to a Division. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will take back the message to her ministerial colleagues that they have been appallingly slow and negligent in not sorting out this matter before now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions relating to tax credits]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Social Security Advisory Committee constituted under section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 shall be renamed the Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee.
( ) Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 shall have effect, in relation to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit, as if references to the Secretary of State were references to the Treasury or the Board, as may be appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a redrafted and, I hope, improved version of an amendment that I moved in Committee. The substantive part of the amendment is the second subsection. Its purpose is to ensure that the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee continues to be available to whichever government department is administering tax credits.
At present. the Social Security Advisory Committee is governed by Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It has a number of statutory functions. Under Section 170 of the Act it has a duty,
"to give … advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under the relevant enactments".
Also under Section 170, the Secretary of State,
"may from time to time refer to the Committee for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of any of the relevant enactments as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending any of them)".
Under Section 172,
"where the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under any of the relevant enactments, he shall refer the proposals, in the form of draft regulations or otherwise, to the Committee".
Under Section 174, the committee considers proposals submitted to it under Section 172 and makes a report on them with recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is then required, when laying any regulations before Parliament, to lay also a copy of the committee's report.
The relevant enactments are defined in the 1992 Act as including the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; the Social Security Administration Act 1992 itself; and parts of the Social Security Act 1998. There are also corresponding provisions relating to Northern Ireland. I have not attempted to cover them in this amendment, but if it is accepted similar amendments would obviously have to be made for Northern Ireland. "
The effect of the Bill on the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee in relation to tax credits is unclear. Under Clause 2(1)(c) and Part III of Schedule 2 to this Bill, the functions of the Secretary of State under the relevant enactments in relation to tax credits, so far as they are not transferred to the Treasury or to officers of the Board of the Inland Revenue, are transferred to the board itself.
No alteration is made by this Bill to the functions of the Social Security Advisory Committee. One of the functions of the Secretary of State is, for example, to refer any proposals for new regulations which he proposes to make to the Social Security Advisory Committee under Section 172 of the 1992 Act. Arguably, therefore, in relation to tax credit regulations, this is a function—that of referring proposals—which is transferred to the board, although not, it would seem, to the Treasury in cases where the regulation-making power is transferred to the Treasury under Part I of Schedule 2. But the Social Security Administration Act gives the advisory committee no power to advise anyone other than the Secretary of State or his Northern Ireland equivalent, and that power is not extended by the Bill so as to authorise the advisory committee to give advice to the board.
It seems to me, therefore, to be—if I may use an oxymoron—a plain ambiguity. It would seem absurd to say that one of the functions of the board is to refer draft regulations to the advisory committee, but the advisory committee has no power to comment on them. So does the board, by implication, have no power or duty to refer matters to the advisory committee, despite the general transfer of the functions of the Secretary of State to the board under the Bill, or does the advisory council, again by implication, have power to respond to references by the board, despite the absence from the Bill of any extension of the functions of the advisory committee?
In Committee I assumed that the board would have no powers or functions under Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act, and the noble Baroness replied to my amendment on the same assumption. I apologise for not warning the noble Baroness that I was going to raise a new point on the construction of the Bill. I would have done so, but it was only when I was preparing this morning for the debate that I realised that the assumption on which we had proceeded in Committee might not be correct. Obviously, she will need time to consider the position, and to provide for that it is my intention to seek to withdraw the amendment today, but it may be necessary to bring it back at Third Reading to consider the legal position.
Whatever the position may be under the Bill as it now stands, it is important that the advisory committee should have a continuing role. In Committee the noble Baroness acknowledged the valuable work which the advisory committee carries out. There are many matters covered by the regulations which will apply to tax credit in the same way as they apply to other benefits. These include how claims are to be made; how decisions are to be taken; how decisions are to be revised; how decisions are to be appealed against; and how payments are to be made where they are not paid through the

249
employer. The advisory committee has great experience in dealing with these matters, and it would be a terrible mistake to abandon this resource.
The noble Baroness said in Committee:
"I recognise the concern of noble Lords that draft regulations on tax credits should be exposed to interested and expert parties for comments, as happens with SSAC. However, I can provide a response in that respect. The normal practice of the Inland Revenue is to publish all major regulations in draft for comment. In practice, they are reaching a much wider audience than would be the case with SSAC".—[Official Report, col. 657, 4/5/99.]
With great respect, that is not an adequate answer. Of course, I welcome the fact that the Inland Revenue proposes a wide consultation. But, however wide that consultation goes, clearly the advisory committee should be one of the bodies consulted by the Inland Revenue. Of course, it should not be the only body that the Inland Revenue consults, but it should certainly be one of them.
should say that the amendment does not propose to include the Bill as one of the relevant enactments. Regulations under Clause 6 for payment through employers are different from the kind of regulation which is considered by the advisory committee, and I do not think that the advisory committee needs to be consulted on those particular regulations. Possibly the regulations under Clause 15 should be included, but that would have made the amendment complicated, and therefore I have not pressed for it.
Finally, I have not yet mentioned the first subsection, which relates to the renaming of the advisory committee. I have included that as what might be described as a "sop" to the Government. The Government are convinced that by changing the name "family credit" to "working families' tax credit", people's perception of family credit will be changed. That may be true. Many Members of your Lordships' House have had experience of changing their names and many have found that, on doing so, other people's perceptions of them changed, even if their own perception of themselves did not. If it will help the Government to accept the principle of consultation with the committee, I am more than happy to propose a change in its name from the "Social Security Advisory Committee" to the "Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee".
Be that as it may, the important feature is that this valuable source of advice on the sort of regulations that will have to be made to the administration of working families' tax credits should be made available to the Board of Inland Revenue in the same way as such advice has been available in the past to the Secretary of State and the Department of Social Security. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spelled out the points relating to his amendment in great depth and with considerable analysis. I do not want to add anything further, other than to say that it is right that he should raise such issues and to ask one very simple-minded question: Is there
250
any problem with the advisory committee advising a government department rather than a government Minister?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in Committee the Minister confirmed that there would be no Minister in the Cabinet fighting to improve the tax credits where necessary, and said that the only Minister in the Cabinet dealing with this would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as is generally realised, always attempts to cut expenditure. The amendment is extremely useful and should be given serious consideration by the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this proposed amendment seeks to provide that the provisions in Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act shall apply to tax credits, and that the Social Security Advisory Committee be renamed the "Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee''". So far, we are agreed.
We had some discussion of this issue in Committee. I explained then that, as it stands, the role of the SSAC is to provide advice to the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to the carrying out of his or her functions. We greatly value such advice, of which I have first-hand experience.
The position of the Board of Inland Revenue is different from that of the DSS. Noble Lords expressed some concerns in Committee to the effect that the Revenue would need advice on the issues raised by the tax credits because this is a new area of work for it.
The Inland Revenue may not have a formal advisory body, but as the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, acknowledged—in a back-handed if not a fore-handed way—it has a good record on consultation. Indeed, specifically on tax credits, there is a standing consultative committee of representatives from businesses large and small, payroll managers, and software providers. This committee has been meeting to discuss the scheme for the tax credits for over a year. The Revenue has also held regular discussions with other groups representing lone parents and people with disabilities and families on low incomes.
The Revenue regularly publishes regulations in draft for comment. For the DSS, that task is often carried out by the SSAC. As I said in Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recycled my words earlier—it thereby reaches a wider audience.
However, a similar situation arose recently as a result of the transfer of NIC issues to the Revenue, with the merger of the Contributions Agency, where the formal role of the SSAC has changed. That area of formal responsibility has moved away from the SSAC. Here, the Inland Revenue is currently discussing with the SSAC how best to establish appropriate arrangements for informal consultation on NICs regulations and is continuing to tap into its extensive expertise on social policy. As the recent 12th report of the SSAC states,
"We look forward to being kept in touch with relevant developments within the NICs system".

251
I am confident that similar, informal arrangements drawing on SSAC expertise will be developed for tax credits as for NICs which will prove satisfactory both to the Inland Revenue and the SSAC. Discussions to that effect are currently under way with the committee and the committee's chairman, Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter. I shall be happy to write to noble Lords explaining the arrangements when the discussions have been concluded. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the substantive points of his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also raised points about the interpretation of the legal constraints under which the Act works. The advice I have been given is that it is also a new point for us. We appreciate it and accept that it was put very clearly. As we were invited to do, we shall write to the noble Lord with our considered response. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I propose to withdraw the amendment, but before I formally ask leave to do so, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having indicated that the situation will not be quite as bad as I had feared in that it is expected that the informal consultation with the advisory committee will continue. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that formal role of the advisory committee is not to be continued. The advisory committee is a useful link between the normal tax collecting functions of the Inland Revenue and the new functions it will have under the Bill. Whether or not one describes tax credits as a benefit, the new functions will certainly be much closer to benefits than anything that the Inland Revenue has dealt with in the past. Therefore, it would be very appropriate for the formal role of the advisory committee to be continued. Nevertheless, I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread. I am grateful for that.
As regards the point of interpretation which I raised, it is a matter which needs to be brought forward again at Third Reading for clarification. By that time I hope that it will be possible, whether by correspondence or otherwise, to make a clearer statement of what is intended to be the continuing role of the advisory committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Treasury, in making regulations under any functions transferred to it under subsection (1) above, shall ensure that payments of the tax credit are not made to individuals who have an income, or to couples who have a joint income, in excess of the income at which the higher rate of tax would be payable by an individual.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I hope that it is convenient also to consider Amendment No. 3 because they are variations on the same theme. We discussed these matters in Committee. The amendments reflect the concerns we have expressed about the way in which the Government propose to change to a working families' tax credit, which means
252
that benefits will become payable to those receiving what might be regarded as very high incomes. The first amendment seeks to deal with the matter by capping—the expression I believe we normally use—at a level where a higher rate of tax is payable. Alternatively, there is a tapered cap which in some ways has an advantage inasmuch as it increases the withdrawal rate of the working families' tax credit from 55 per cent. to 75 per cent. for families with incomes over £25,000. That figure has been calculated as probably being high enough for the majority of people to be above housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers. Thus the increase in the working families' tax credit taper would not compound with other benefits to produce high withdrawal rates.
We believe that this amendment is worthy of consideration. I raised the issue at Question Time today with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He is not present. At some stage we must consider the way in which we are beginning to pay benefits to people with high levels of income of something over £25,000 a year, yet with other benefits, for example, income support, we are reducing benefits to those who may have a relatively small amount of capital. I may be somewhat out of date; no doubt the noble Baroness will remind me of the figures. Benefits used to be reduced if one had capital of more than £3,000. People used to say to me on interview nights, "I am in a bad way, but I do not wish to give up my last bit of capital which gives me a feeling of security".
We need to consider whether the balance is right. In the one situation it concerns income, and in the other capital. It seems strange if the taxpayer is paying out benefits to people with income of £25,000 a year but is taking away benefits from people because they have capital of only £3,000, or whatever the amount may be. We need to look at the system as a whole. I suspect that the measure the Government are now introducing does not take sufficient account of the overall structure of social security benefits. We should be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are sympathetic to the spirit underlying the amendment. The reduction in the taper rate and the more generous childcare benefit, as well as the increased generosity of the other benefits, mean that tax credits are payable to some people who have well above average incomes.
I believe that this Government or one of their successors will have to deal with the problem sooner or later perhaps by tapering off the benefit more sharply when income rises above levels where other benefits such as housing benefit are payable.
I am somewhat doubtful whether it is a problem that should be dealt with in primary legislation. However, it is an issue that the Government should take on board. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's reply.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting issue. Have the Government estimates of how many people would be affected by the overlap? Can that information be made available?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a more general point, it is increasingly realised that a large

253
expenditure is incurred by the state in transferring money from the same households within the tax and benefits systems. Households receive money in benefit and pay tax. The cost probably amounts to billions of pounds. The cost will need to be addressed and reduced. That is an undisputed fact.
In making the WFTC available to people on the higher rate and on an income of up to £35,000 a year, the Government are exacerbating the problem. More people will experience the receiving of the benefits and the paying of tax within the same household, adding to the expenditure of the nation. Do the Government consider that when they extend the dependency of people on benefit? It is a separate point, but I wonder whether the Minister is able to comment on it.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should love to, but I am not sure whether this is the time to do so in the detail required. The amendments seek to restrict the amount of tax credit available to households with relatively high incomes. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke about savings. I take his point, but given that Amendment No. 9 deals specifically with that issue perhaps he would allow me to deal with it separately.
The noble Lord raised some interesting points of a Second Reading nature which were followed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Without trying to recycle what I said in Committee, there is an interesting, difficult and decent problem about the shallowness of tapers so that as low a deduction rate as possible is gained. For every pound earned, people should receive enough of it to make it worthwhile to seek to increase their hours or earnings. The price of that is that they remain on those benefits for longer, at higher public cost.
The alternative route is to have a much sharper withdrawal rate, which gets them off benefits sooner. That is cheaper, but it also produces a strong disincentive to increase hours and earnings. We discussed that in Committee, but I do not believe that at this time of night your Lordships would wish me to repeat the argument. The debate has exercised all parties and all social policy commentators for a long time.
The Government believe that a 55 per cent taper, compared with the old tapers, has reduced the minimum deduction rates, particularly for those living in rented housing who might therefore be eligible for housing benefit, to a more acceptable figure. But for some people, the MDRs are still very high and to reduce them would require an even more shallow taper, going further up the income levels with greater public cost.
We believe that we have struck the balance right, but we must return to the issue whenever we are considering the integration of tax and benefits., or looking at the scope of the benefit or at what happens when a benefit becomes a tax credit, because they are proper and decent
254
issues to raise. We believe that we have got it right, but that is not to say that a 55 per cent taper, for example, is right for all benefits or all tax credits in future.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly says that Amendment No. 9 deals 'with savings in relation to WFCs. I was seeking to make a wider point which I made to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at Question Time. We are now extending the payment of these new benefits to people on what would normally be regarded as relatively high incomes while at the same time taking away benefits from people on, say, income support simply because they have a small amount of capital—10 per cent or so—of this amount of income. At some stage, one needs to sit back and look at the structure as a whole in order to see whether it is sensible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take the wider issue, but we are not paying benefits to people on higher earnings. We are offering tax credits as incentives for the most part to people on low to middle incomes to go back to work and to hold down a job. The reason it goes so high is the cost of childcare. That would normally apply where a couple is working and therefore it would be rare that one of them would be a high-rate tax earner. If one of them were a high-rate tax earner, almost by definition the other person is likely to be at home because of the way the sums work. Therefore, the tax credit would not arise and would not go up that income scale. The noble Lord is correct in saying that in regard to savings the figure begins to be reduced at £3,000 and tapers out at £8,000. We shall return to this issue when we consider Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 2 would stop tax credits going to families with a joint income equal to the higher rate threshold.
As I said in Committee in response to Amendment No. 12, I do not think that the amendment would work, even if I agreed with its basic premise. I do not want to overdo the point about technicalities, but it is worth saying that because the amendment appears in the same format for a second time, even though I pointed out its defects at Committee stage, it appears to limit the opportunities to pay applicants WFTC. It would mean that families above the threshold given in the amendment that met all the conditions for eligibility would remain entitled to an award that they could not be paid. That would obviously be inappropriate.
According to the amendment, you could be entitled to some WFTC each week, but the Inland Revenue could not pay it because the family had a joint income above the limit. That would mean applying an additional and overriding income limit on top of the normal threshold and taper which would act to target awards of WFTC.
That is not all that I believe is wrong with the amendment. As I said in Committee, the amendment links the award, which is based on a snapshot of current circumstances, to a ceiling, the higher rate threshold. The threshold can only be set by reference to an individual circumstance of the whole tax year and it cannot finally be known until the end of the tax year.

255
There is clearly a mis-match and it is not clear how it would work. It could in practice mean that the Revenue would need to hold that payment until after the end of the tax year, when the figure could finally be worked out, and in some cases until after submission of the individual's tax return. The ceiling that the amendment uses, the higher rate threshold, is not a set figure but will differ from person to person and from year to year, depending on a number of factors.
In addition, the amendment would introduce an undesirable and harmful cliff edge. A family below the limit would get help; a family that earned £1 more a week above that limit would lose perhaps £10 or £20 of WFTC to which it would otherwise be entitled.
I understand the concern that money is going to those on higher incomes; however, WFTC tailors the amount of the tax credit to family circumstances, with the threshold and the taper ensuring that the amount they receive is gradually reduced as they earn more. It avoids a situation where it is a positive disadvantage, because of the high marginal tax rates, to earn more.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to steepen the taper to 75 per cent where family income rises above 25,000. Again, the change from 55 per cent to 75 per cent at that income point will provide, if not a cliff edge, then a steep slope, which is a better situation than the previous amendment but still damaging in terms of encouraging people to earn more.
In the few cases where large income families would get some help when earning relatively high incomes because of their high childcare costs, the proposal is to introduce a complex second taper for this group only which increases the reduction rate and current withdrawal rate of 70 per cent in family credit to 55 per cent in WFTC. It takes it back up to 70 per cent as family credit and then, for good measure, adds another 5 per cent on top.
I believe that the single taper is easy to understand. It will allow applicants to see the rewards of work more clearly. Multiple tapers and special rules would bury the clear effects of what we are trying to achieve in a mathematical fog. I would not wish to go down that route simply because of the few numbers of people involved with large families that get help through family credit for their children and childcare.
The issue is how many would gain and what the numbers are of those on high earnings. There is a strict trade-off between incentive, the pitch of the taper and the scope of the help. A simple, single, shallow taper applied to all people is easier to understand and will send a positive message about working longer hours and getting better jobs, but it does mean that a few large families with children, where both parents are in work, will get help they would not have got under the preceding benefits. We accept that.
Perhaps I may give some examples as an instance of the figures for which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked. We calculate that only about 80,000 families—that is, about 5 per cent—of the 1.5 million eligible families have a household income of more than £17,000 per year. We calculate that about 5,000 families of the
256
1.5 million will be eligible for WFTC with household earnings of over £25,000. That is less than half of 1 per cent of the total for which one would introduce that extremely complicated second taper.
There is a balance, and the truthful answer is that we do not believe that it is worth it. The proposals to do away with that small number of gainers—less than half of 1 per cent for those earning more than £25,000 and less than 5 per cent for those earning more than £17,000—are not worth the complexity and the blurring of the message that that would cause.
I understand the concerns but I honestly believe that it would be a case of—I use a clumsy metaphor—the tail wagging the dog. We should lose so much in simplicity for very little clawback from a very few relatively comfortably off families, with large numbers of children, entitled to help with their children's care. Therefore, under the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness was in sparkling form in knocking down that amendment. I find her arguments very largely convincing and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 4
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

Tax Credits Bill

  WORKING FAMILIES' TAX CREDIT TO BE PAID TO PRINCIPAL CARER
  (" . Regulations made by the Board under section 2(1)(c) shall provide that where a couple is entitled to working families' tax credit the credit shall be paid to the principal carer.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to support Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with it.
  Amendment No. 4 is designed to protect the family by ensuring that payment is received by the primary care giver. The Labour Party manifesto stated:
  "We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of society".
  This amendment addresses closely the arguments put forward by organisations across the spectrum—from the TUC and the Low Pay Unit to the Institute of Directors and the CBI.
  The assumption of the Department of Social Security has always been that the best way to get money to the children is to pay the mother. After all, why pay child benefit to the mother if it is not the best way to ensure that it is spent on the children? Those concerns should not be readily dismissed by the Government. I urge them seriously to consider their approach. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 6 which is the second of a pair of amendments in this group, both of which cover the purse-to-wallet issue. I should say that until now the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Astor, and I have largely agreed with each other and supported each other's amendments. However, on this occasion. I am

  257
  unable to support Amendment No. 4 because, although there is a good deal to be said for it in principle, I must regard it as a wrecking amendment. It would mean the automatic payment of the tax credit to the non-working parent of a couple even though the couple wished the payment to go to the working parent. I recognise that that is what happens in respect of family credit at present but the main purpose of the Bill is to change that situation. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a wrecking amendment and like it or not—and I do not like the Bill very much on this point—I feel unable to support Amendment No. 4.
  Therefore, I turn to Amendment No. 6. The background is that the Government have not accepted the principle that in cases of disputes between parents as to which of them should receive the working families' tax credit, it should normally go to the caring parent rather than through the pay packet.
  The Inland Revenue stated that in a memorandum published in March, and that was strongly emphasised as being the Government's intention by the noble Baroness in Committee when the amendment was debated. However, the draft regulations said only that the working families' tax credit in the case of a couple should go to whichever of them they agreed, and the draft regulations said nothing about what happened in the event of a disagreement.
  Apparently, the Government are anxious to keep any references to disagreement or the consequences of disagreement between a couple off the face of the regulations. The result of that appears to me to be that the regulations give no authority to the Inland Revenue to pay working families' tax credit to either member of the couple in the absence of an agreement between them as to which of them is to receive the tax credit.
  The noble Baroness said that the Inland Revenue proposed to deal with that matter under its statutory powers of care and management. In Committee, I expressed doubts as to whether that power could be used to authorise payment to a person not entitled to it on the face of the statute or on the face of regulations made under that statute.
  The Inland Revenue have taken advice and, as I understand it, they have concluded that whether or not they agree with my arguments, there is at least enough force in them to make it advisable to give the Inland Revenue a discretion under the regulations to decide who is to receive the payment in the case of disagreement. That provides a legal basis of payment to the carer parent. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the Government's undertaking as to the way in which the discretion is intended to be exercised, subject only to one outstanding point.
  That point concerns the application forms and the explanatory notes. The drafts which the department produced and which I saw said nothing whatever about the procedure if a couple were unable to agree which of them should claim. The remarks of the noble Baroness on the 26th April at col. 114 of Hansard gave some degree of comfort, but not enough. On that occasion she said:
  258
  "As consultees have suggested. the form and guidance notes set out what needs to be considered by a couple when making the choice. More recent comments have suggested further changes which refer specifically to what happens in the case of a dispute or tell applicants where to go for help. We are looking for these. We very much hope that we shall he able to embody them to the satisfaction of all concerned in the forms that go out as of next April. In addition, the working families' tax credit helpline is always available and our guidance will be made public.
  We would like an undertaking that either the form or the notes, or preferably both, should contain information about the procedure if the parties are unable to agree. If not, a woman may come under pressure to agree to payment to her husband simply because of a belief that if she does not agree to that there will be no money. Now that the Government have agreed to extend the regulations to cover situations where there is no agreement, can the noble Baroness undertake that the forms given to the applicants will explain what happens if there is no agreement?
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the new clauses introduced by Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 bring us back to the subject, first, of whether couples be given the choice of who should be paid and, secondly, whether the safeguards we described in Committee are sufficient. They deal with choice and the disputes procedure which are made clear to potential applicants.
  Amendment No. 4 seeks to replace the Government's approach with a rule which would result in the addition that WFTC provides going to the principal carer. Not only do we believe that this is the wrong way in which to approach the issue, but even if we were to subscribe to the sentiments behind it, that would not be the way in which to put it into practice.
  The second amendment would support the Government's approach of giving the couple a choice, but seeks to ensure that legislation deals with the situation where a couple cannot come to an agreement.
  Let me return to Amendment No. 4. I shall seek to show why the new clause would be unworkable and say something about why the Government's approach is preferable. In the light of that I shall seek to address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 4 looks deceptively simple. It says that if a couple is entitled to WFTC, then make payment to the principal carer. But there are problems with both of those statements. The technical problem and the reason why that new clause would not work is that there needs to be an applicant. That is the core of the application procedure where the applicant fills in the left-hand side of the form—I have copies here should your Lordships wish to see them—and the partner fills in or supplies details for the right-hand side. Together the two sides of the application form comprise the family circumstances. So the new clause is defective.
  The amendment seeks to resolve the problem of what to do where couples may disagree by providing a statutory rule, and I sympathise with that purpose. But as I said in relation to defining principal care, there are difficulties in that regard. The clause, even if it worked,

  259
  would simply shift the issue of who is to be the applicant, which is what it is now and therefore the forms set it out, to who would be the principal carer. Therefore the tax credit would not necessarily be paid to the applicant, but to whoever was determined to be the principal carer.
  Let us think about that. Given that three-quarters of married women work, how would we determine who was the principal carer? Would the test be the hours that each party worked? Would it be the earnings, who did the school run, who went to the parents' evening or who did the dentist visits? Or if she were in waged work and he was self-employed at home, would the presumption be that he was paid because he was self-employed and working from home? Deciding who the applicant is on the basis of the choice that the couple have made is simple; deciding who the principal carer is when both of them may well be in work or have a complexity of family arrangements is much harder and much more intrusive. Therefore, we believe as a matter of principle that the way we have set out the provisions, to pay the tax credit to the applicant rather than to the principal carer though the applicant may well be the principal carer, is the right way to proceed.
  WFTC is a work incentive measure designed to help families; it is not a family support benefit paid to families; it is not child benefit paid to families. It is paid to someone in work. The way we dealt with it is for couples to have a free choice as to which of them is to receive the money. It is not a choice about how they are to be paid. If they choose for it to be paid to him and he is in work, it must be paid through the pay packet. If the choice is to pay it to her and she is in work, it must be paid through her pay packet. If the choice is to him and he is at home, it will be paid to him directly. If the choice is to her and she is at home, it will be paid to her directly. But it is their choice as to whom it is paid and following what their circumstances are—whether they are in work or at home—will follow a decision as to how it is paid. We do not expect that to be a problem in the vast majority of families. I hope that explanation is reasonably clear. It can go to either him or her, but according to whether he is or is not in work or she is or is not in work, so the payment will follow.
  Viscount Astor of Hever: My Lords, in principle, would not the Government rather see the payment going to the wife?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no. It is not a principle about it going to the wife. It is not child benefit. It is not support for the wife. It is not support for the children. I want it to go to the family, but I want it to go to the family in such a way that it is a work incentive. If it is detached from the pay packet, as the noble Viscount's amendment would make it, then we address the issue of family support—I give the noble Viscount all credit for seeking to preserve that—but it does not perform the function of being a work incentive.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, if the Government care as much as they say they do about the family, is
  260
  not the idea that this should eventually go to the children in the family and that, therefore, the wife is the best route to use to enable that to happen?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have two separate arguments going here. We agree that we want to support families. We are seeking to do so with increased child benefit. I do not need to go into the statistics but we are increasing it by £15 for the first child and £10 for the second child from this year. We are improving working families' tax credit and the array of in-work support that goes to families, as compared with family credit. There is no dispute between us. Above all, we want to lift children out of poverty. As we know, the best way to do so is not by payments of income support but by helping families into work and ensuring that they have a working member in the household.
  The reason children are poor and the reason poor children need our support as taxpayers is precisely that they live in households in which there is no adult in work. The best way to springboard those children out of poverty is to help one of their parents into work. The best way to do so is to increase the work incentives to go into work. Therefore, in my view, the noble Lord's amendment would not achieve what he seeks. If he wants to help children, the best way to help them out of poverty is to ensure that we make work as attractive and as feasible as possible for one of the parents. That will spring the children out of poverty. The best way of doing that is through the working families' tax credit and not through a disguised form of income support.
  Therefore, I am sure that we do not disagree about our philosophic objectives, but we do disagree as to what is the most effective way of achieving them. If we believe that the best way to help children out of poverty is to get one of the parents into work, I hope that the noble Lord also accepts that anything which strengthens the work incentive while also supporting the family—in other words, anything that gives you two gains rather than just one—must add to the public good.
  However, we recognise that there is considerable concern about how we handle the cases where couples cannot agree, for whatever reason, on who should apply for the tax credit and how it should be paid. My noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Lockwood also raised such concerns and, indeed, they have been raised again tonight. I hope that the explanations given in the other place set out clearly what we want to achieve. Again, we hope that we have got the balance right.
  I now turn to the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the concerns that he expressed at that time. We accept entirely the principle and the spirit of Amendment No. 6. We all want disputes to be underpinned by the best legislative framework. We want to make clear that it will be paid to him in work if both agree; but, if there is a dispute between the couple, then, by default—and this is a dispute as opposed to a technical mistake—it will go to the woman. Therefore, having reflected on what The noble Lord said both in debate and in the subsequent letter that he was kind enough to write to me after the Committee stage, I hope that we can see a way forward

  261
  that will address his concerns and put what we want to achieve and what my noble friends are both anxious to achieve on as secure a footing as possible.
  The board's powers of care and management are used to deal with rare cases at the margins of a system that it administers. While we believe that disputes will only happen in exceptional cases, doubts have been raised about their frequency. I agree that we can only know that after the event. Therefore, to ensure that we can apply the procedure we want, however frequent the disputes turn out to be in practice, we see the advantage of putting the necessary powers into regulations. I believe that that will address the noble Lord's concerns.
  The regulations would still give couples a choice upon which they must agree. They would then provide that, where couples cannot agree, the board will have the necessary discretion to pay WFTC to the partner it determines to be the main carer. Moreover, in those cases, the board would have the discretion to accept an application which would otherwise be defective only because it lacked a partner's signature. Noble Lords will appreciate that this must be a discretionary power because without the involvement of the dissenting partner the application may simply have been mechanically incorrect—some mistake made. To give couples the right to make single signature applications and have them paid automatically to the carer would be to invite such applications with obvious risks for the Exchequer.
  However, I hope that the noble Lord feels that we have met his concern, which was most thoughtfully expressed in Committee. As I tried to say earlier, we have taken the matter away. The noble Lord has a point. We hope that he is not right in thinking that the number of disputes will be higher than we anticipate. But if he is right, then, in the light of what he said, we believe that it will be only right and proper to put the procedure in place. That means that if there is any risk to the woman by default in such a dispute, the payment would go to her. Therefore, we think it right to accept the noble Lord's proposition that we should put the matter on a secure footing by having it covered in regulations.
  We want to retain choice for couples and we want to insist that the best way to address child poverty—which we are all concerned about—is to get one of the parents into work. The most appropriate way of doing that is through the working families' tax credit. However, we recognise that disputes could arise. In that situation we certainly want to protect the principal carer who is likely to be the mother. We propose therefore to put that on the footing of regulations. I hope that with those comments both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits clown, I hope I may say that I am most grateful to her for what she has said. That satisfies my concerns about the legality of the proposal—which, of course, I support—to ensure that in the case of a dispute the payment goes to the principal caring parent. However,
  262
  the noble Baroness said nothing about the final point I raised; namely, whether the draft forms—the application form and the guidance notes—will be amended so as to give some explanation of what the position will be if there is a dispute between partners.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness finally sits down—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage. I think it is legitimate for those who have already had an intervention to be reminded that we are at Report stage.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not finally sat down.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has spoken. We are at Report stage.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I was, of course, heartened to hear that she sympathised with our amendment. I shall want to read Hansard carefully and discuss the matter with the many organisations who have been in contact with us on this point. They feel strongly that the implication of "purse to wallet" is that the mother should receive the credit. I understood that that is what the Minister said. We shall probably return to this matter on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  CHILD CARE ELEMENT
  (" . Regulations made by the Board under section 2(1)(e) shall provide that, in the case of a claim for working families' tax credit, where a married or unmarried couple is included in the family and one member is in employment and the other member is receiving education or training of a specified kind and fix a specified period. the tax credit may include such credit for child care as may be specified.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed at Committee stage and it raises a short point to which I received a disappointing answer from the Government. The childcare credit is not available under the regulations unless both parents are working for at least 16 hours a week. In general there are obvious reasons for that which I can perfectly well understand, but it means that childcare credit is not available where a woman wants to get trained for a job. I am assuming here, of course, that it is the woman who has been looking after the children.
  There are a great many women who want to look after their children when they are small but who want to go back to work at some stage, most commonly when their youngest child reaches school age. The woman may have been out of the labour market for 10 years. If she did a skilled job before then she may need retraining. Anyone who was trained in information technology 10 years ago and has not done any since is likely to need retraining. The woman may have started her family

  263
  when she was young and not had time to acquire a skill before she did so. In that case she may need training if she is to get a decent job.
  Surely it makes sense—both economic and social—to make it possible for such women to train or retrain for jobs. That can be done only if the childcare credit is available. I do not propose that there should be a general right for a woman to attend whatever course she wants. It would be reasonable for the Government to say that childcare credit should be available only where a woman is taking a course which improves her job prospects. I am not suggesting that childcare credit should be extended to purely academic or recreational courses. The amendment leaves it to the Government to specify what kind of courses should qualify for childcare credit and to specify such matters as the minimum period per week that a trainee must attend a course.
  I believe that this is an eminently desirable amendment and I hope that the Government will be a little more receptive to it this time than they were on the previous occasion.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I support Amendment No. 5 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I wish to be a little more charitable to his amendment than he was to our last one.
  One of the many criticisms of the Bill expressed by many informed parties is that it removes potentially the main carer's guarantee to receipt of payment under the WFTC. The TUC—with whom I believe the Government are on good terms—stated in its 1999 budget submission that it was concerned that the WFTC might be diverted away from the family's primary care giver. There are currently 300,000 couples in which the man is the principal wage earner. Under the WFTC it could mean £900 million going to the man rather than to the mother. The wallet versus purse argument has been well documented and yet the Government have failed adequately to address it.
  Lord Swinfen: I also support the amendment. We should bear in mind that many people change careers today whereas some 30 years ago they were likely to go into a career and stay there for the rest of their lives. That is not the case today. It is not only women who need to retrain; men need to as well. Some of the retraining may be on a part-time basis as well as on a full-time basis, and I hope that that will be taken into consideration.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was disappointed with what we said at the Committee stage. I fear I may again disappoint him, but I hope that he will accept the substance of our argument in such a way that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  As I understand it, the aim of the amendment is to enable families whose income comes within WFTC limits, with one partner in work and another in education and training, to receive the kind of help with childcare costs which will enable the non-employed partner to study.
  264
  As to the narrow point of whether the amendment is strictly necessary, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked at the Committee stage for an explanation of how the regulations could be amended to provide for what the new clause aims at. All of the detail will be in regulations, as it is for family credit. With family credit, the rules for the childcare disregard are in Regulation 13(a) of the Family Credit (General Regulations) 1987. It is there that one will find the current condition that a lone parent or both members of a couple must be working 16 hours or more a week, or that one member works 16 hours or more a week and the other is incapacitated. The rules in Regulation 13(a) will be the basis for the childcare tax credit; in other words, WFTC takes over the FC regulations. Regulation 46(a) will set out the rules for childcare tax credit, as our draft amending regulations clearly show. An amendment to new Regulation 46(a) will be used to alter the qualifications for getting help through the childcare tax credit. Primary legislation of the kind put forward by this amendment to the Bill is not necessary. I hope that clarifies the points raised on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in Committee.
  To return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to the wider issue of whether it is a desirable thing to do, we have to look at the arguments for use of WFTC as a vehicle. The first issue is who it would help. First, the amendment would limit the credit to couples where one is working; it would do nothing to help lone parents get back into the labour market as there is no suggestion that they would get WFTC childcare credit while in education; and it would do nothing for families where both parties wanted to retrain.
  The purpose of the amendment is laudable. It seeks to ensure better educated and trained second earners. Of course that is a good thing, whether they are part time or full time. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that people no longer have 40 year careers and very often need retraining several times through their lives. But the social security system is not designed to support the education system; that is, students in education are not eligible for JSA, they are not eligible for housing benefit, and they are not eligible for a range of benefits of that kind. Neither will they be eligible for tax credits.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am thinking of the case where someone is made redundant and therefore needs to retrain, possibly because the whole industry in which he had been working had been running down. It is a matter of helping him get back into work. Very often the wife is working only part-time and drawing in a low income. That should be covered by this amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly recognise what the noble Lord is describing. But there is no difference in principle between whether she is in work and he is not or whether he is in work and she is not. The same principle applies. We do not believe it is appropriate to use the social security system to support students through education. We do not believe in building WFTC on family credit. We believe that

  265
  training, further education and so on are entirely laudable. But it is not the job of this benefit to do it. Working families' tax credit is a work incentive. Giving help to those with working partners who want to study is not a work incentive; it is an education incentive, the recipient of which may, but not necessarily will, subsequently return to work. The Government's priority is to give help to those who face the greatest barriers in returning to work, such as lone parents. Therefore, through the New Deal, the Government are providing help to lone parents in educational training with childcare costs, course fees, fares and finding childcare and are giving support, for example, where they are taking NVQ qualifications, either to Level 2 or, exceptionally, to Level 3, over courses lasting a year. All lone parents on income support are eligible for the New Deal though the programme is targeted specifically at those with children of school age. They are given support for their childcare costs in the New Deal.
  In Committee, noble Lords asked what other grants were available for childcare costs; in other words, if we were not willing to support students with childcare costs through the social security system and, building on that, through the tax system, what support was available for students through the education system—the alternative? Some grants are specifically available for childcare costs. Lone parents and students with dependants as well as the partners of those in low paid work are eligible for additional grants which are to help with the extra costs that those students incur—part-time students, full-time students, mature students or non-mature students.
  Educational establishments have discretionary funds in the form of access funds to help those who need extra help, such as childcare costs, to get proper access to education. It is for the educational establishments themselves to decide on their priorities in using those funds. I am sure that they will use them wisely to meet the kinds of need that have been described and to help those who would most benefit from education and training. From September these access funds will have £42 million available to them for HE. That will increase to £48 million in 2000–01. The kinds of student we have been talking about, with a partner in low earning work, would not be disqualified from those access funds any more than other students in potential hardship.
  Around £10 million will be available through the FE system as opposed to the HE system—through the Further Education Funding Council—to compensate further education colleges offering free or subsidised childcare places. At the moment it receives £4.5 million which helps some 18,000 students and 22,000 children. That £4.5 million will increase to £10 million. Again, the student partners of men or women who are in low paying work will also be eligible for those awards, which are discretionary. But many establishments already provide good quality subsidised childcare places for their students. The extra money will help to provide more places and, as I have said, students with working partners would be eligible.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will accept that it is not appropriate in our view to give additional support to student partners for childcare through WFTC. That has read-across implications for the whole field of
  266
  eligibility of students for social security benefits. It is appropriate to help them through the educational support system. They are not excluded from the discretionary schemes run by HE and FE establishments which could meet hardship, possibly incurred by childcare costs. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I think that she has to a considerable extent mistaken the reasoning behind this amendment. She suggested that we proposed to provide support for a student in education. That is not the purpose of the amendment at all. Its purpose, which is very much in line with the Government's intention for tax credits, is to provide not the student partner but the claimant working partner with a childcare credit where the other partner has a good reason for not being available to provide the care.
  Under the present system there are two reasons why a working claimant might be able to claim childcare credit. One of those, no doubt the commonest, is that the other partner is also in work. The second possible reason is that the partner is disabled. On the basis of exactly the same principle, this amendment seeks to add a third reason why the partner is not available to provide the care; that is, that she (as will usually be the case) is undergoing retraining. I do not think that that is any different in principle from the other two cases. One is looking not at the subsidy to the student but the subsidy to the working partner, which is the whole purpose of the Bill.
  I understand the Government's views on this matter. They have pointed out the various sources of help that are available to mothers who are seeking retraining. However, I regret that the Government have not been able to be more generous on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  CALCULATION OF TAX CREDIT FOR PARENTS IN RECEIPT OR NOT OF MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
  (" . No schemes for working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit shall be prescribed under functicns transferred under section 2(1)(a) until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement showing the calculation of the tax credit for lone parents who receive maintenance payments and the calculation of the tax credit for parents who do not receive maintenance payments.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a new clause to place an obligation on the Government to lay before both Houses of Parliament a detailed statement explaining how maintenance payments will be calculated under the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit before any regulations are made under the powers transferred to the Treasury under Clause 2. The new clause would require that statement to contain figures indicating how much credit a family would receive if they do not receive

  267
  maintenance payments—for example, a lone parent who fails to receive maintenance because the payer is in default—compared with that which would be paid to families who do receive maintenance payments.
  As the Committee stage debates indicated, the treatment of maintenance payments is both important and complex. The first indication that the Government were considering a change from the family credit treatment was given by the Paymaster General in an intervention in Committee in another place. In Committee in this place, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave an insight into the Government's thinking. But before either House is asked to pass affirmative resolutions approving these two tax credit schemes there is the need for a full statement supported by examples which show the amount of credit that would be payable to families in different circumstances. That would seem to be a reasonable request, given that the issue was not discussed in the Treasury's consultative document or by the House of Commons Social Security Committee.
  I am concerned that, without such a statement, serious anomalies may be created which would become difficult to correct and families with the same income would not be treated equitably.
  In Committee, the Minister said that one of the Government's reasons for changing the treatment of maintenance payments was that it would make, "a significant contribution to tackling child poverty". We all want to relieve child poverty. The maintenance payment proposals will increase a lone parent's disposable income and therefore make these families, many of whom are certainly not well off, better off. But the question that needs to be asked is whether the beneficiaries will be moved from below the poverty line to above it by these proposals.
  The poverty line is commonly taken to be half average household income. This is the measure of poverty used by the Treasury in Tackling Poverty and Extending Opportunity. According to the latest statistics published by the Department of Social Security, this means living on a weekly equivalised income of less than £125 a week. As the Minister will know, but others of your Lordships may not, and I certainly did not before I received the briefing, "equivalised income" means an income which has been adjusted, either up or down, by comparison with a childless couple to take account of family structure, size and ages. I understand that very few, if any, lone parents who will benefit from the 100 per cent disregard proposal would have an income below half the national average under the original WFTC rules.
  If I have correctly understood the Government's new proposals for maintenance payments—and no official examples, so far as I am aware, have been published—a lone parent with a net income of £90 or less will not benefit from the maintenance payment disregard, as they will already get the full working families' tax credit. I am told that a lone parent with one or two young
  268
  children, with net income before working families' tax credit of £90 a week, would already have an equivalised income of more than £120 a week.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may help the noble Lord if I try to clear up the previous point that he made. He may be misunderstanding the difference between the proposals that my honourable friend the Paymaster General described in the House of Commons and the existing family credit arrangements for childcare. He is absolutely right in terms of those arrangements, that if one is at maximum family credit level one gets no benefit, not from child maintenance, but from childcare credit, because one is already receiving the maximum family credit and therefore it cannot be extended by having an increased disregard for childcare.
  We are not talking about childcare; we are talking about maintenance payments from the non-resident parent. What will happen under these proposals, as outlined by my honourable friend, is that when it comes to calculating the lone parent eligibility for WFTC, if she is in work for more than 16 hours a week, whatever moneys she may get coming in from maintenance from the non-resident parent for her child will simply not be put into the calculation.
  Therefore, one lone parent getting no maintenance and another lone parent getting the average assessed maintenance of £28 a week will receive the same working families' tax credit assessment income, children for children, whatever. But the difference in the maintenance will not be brought into account. It is simply not calculated; it is totally disregarded.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness's intervention is necessarily all that helpful. I shall have to read what she said. I must admit that I have quite a lot of difficulty in understanding the matter, being a bear of very little brain.
  The other question I would like to raise is whether the proposals as I understand them—and, in the absence of official guidance, I may well not understand them correctly, as I have said—will be fair to all families.
  If I do understand the proposals correctly, the credit payable to families with the same amount coming in each week will differ significantly, depending on whether or not they receive part of their income in maintenance payments. I have written to the noble Baroness. I have not had a reply. It may be that she has sent one but that it has not reached me. A reply might have helped me. It may well be that I should leave the matter now and come back to it at Third Reading, if I need to, when I have read the noble Baroness's reply. In the meantime, I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is inviting me to do. I am happy to try to give a detailed reply to the amendment as drafted, but if it is based on a misunderstanding—that would be understandable because much of the explanation has been given verbally rather than in writing—of how the maintenance disregard will work, and if he would therefore find it

  269
  helpful if I wrote to him very fully on this point, and if that would allow him to withdraw his amendment at this stage, I shall not trouble the House by giving a full reply tonight to his amendment. I shall do whatever the noble Lord would like. I can either give him a full reply now or, if there is some misunderstanding between us, I can write to him and allow him to return with a further amendment at Third Reading, if that is his preference.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should be delighted if the Minister would write to me and perhaps copy the letter to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say that particularly as I have not had a reply to my original letter to the noble Baroness. It may well be in the pipeline somewhere. Indeed, I am sure that it is because the noble Baroness is a very courteous person. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 8:
  Alter Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS OF WORKING FAMILIES' TAX CREDIT IN CERTAIN CASES
  (" . Under any schemes for working families' tax credit prescribed under functions transferred under section 2(1)(a) —

  (a) comparable to the treatment of families under the disabled person's tax credit, families headed by a couple shall receive a basic tax credit, to take into account the second adult, between 55 per cent and 60 per cent greater than that received by families headed by a lone parent; and

  (b) families with a disabled child shall receive an additional credit comparable with that paid under the disabled person's tax credit.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also refers back to our debates in Committee and seeks to clarify further the basis on which the working families' tax credit has been drawn up. However, unlike my previous new clause it refers to the WFTC only because it seeks to draw on the principles which the Government have accepted for the disabled person's tax credit.
  This new clause is in two parts. Paragraph (a) is concerned with couples who, according to the information so far provided by the Inland Revenue, will he treated illogically and unfairly. The point was first raised by Professor Steven Webb on Third Reading of the Bill in another place. It was subsequently raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and myself on Second Reading and then again by my noble friend Lord Astor and myself in Committee, but so far we have had no response.
  Under the treatment which the Government propose for both WFTC and DPTC, the income and savings of a husband and wife, or of a couple who are living together, will be aggregated and added together. In many cases, that will restrict the tax credit which would otherwise be due. In no circumstances, as I see it, will it be to their advantage.
  At this point, the two credits take a different approach. Under the DPTC, a couple gets a higher basic tax credit than a single person. That takes account of the fact that the second adult, who will usually be the able-bodied person—we are not talking here of the
  270
  disabled person—has to eat, be clothed and incur other expenses of life. Under the WFTC, by contrast, a couple gets the same basic tax credit as a single person.
  Having restricted the credit due by aggregating the couple's income and savings, the second adult is then ignored. So far as the Revenue is concerned, that person can starve, go around without clothes and cannot satisfy any of the needs of life. In practice, of course, it will not happen quite like that. The family as a whole will go short and the children will be more likely to remain in poverty.
  Indeed, leaving to one side the treatment of maintenance payments, at any given level of net income the children in a family headed by a couple are more likely to be in poverty than the children in a family headed by a lone parent. In the consultative document Supporting Families, the Government showed themselves to be fully aware of the advantages to children if they are brought up in families headed by a married couple, yet the arrangements which the Government are currently proposing for the WFTC will give parents a financial incentive to separate or, if they are apart, a disincentive to come together again.
  There are two ways in which this illogicality and unfairness might be sorted out. One would be to follow through the implications of what the noble Baroness has told us many times, which is that WFTC is not part of the benefits system but part of the tax system. Under the tax system the incomes of husband and wife are not aggregated, but taxed quite independently. So the aggregation of income and savings of husband and wife for WFTC could be dropped. That would remove the inconsistency between the WFTC and the tax system. It would also then be consistent to give an additional basic tax credit to the couple in order to take account of the second adult.
  This new clause takes the alternative and more comprehensive way of sorting out this muddle. It accepts that, despite the claims of the noble Baroness, the working families' tax credit is essentially a benefit and not a tax. It accepts that the basic unit is for all intents and purposes usually the family and not the individual and the aggregation of the couple's income and savings is appropriate. It then provides for a higher basic credit for a couple than for a single person to take account of the additional cost of food, clothing and so on.
  This is not a radical proposal. It follows the practice in income support, the job seeker's allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on. In these benefits, as in the DPTC, the couple's benefit or credit is between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. higher than that of a single person. That is the figure adopted in the new clause. I accept that a couple does not get a higher credit than a single person does in family credit, but that benefit is the odd one out.
  This amendment is in two parts. The grouping also brings in Amendment No. 10, which was drafted for me by a different organisation. I believe that is better than the second part, paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 8. I shall not press that amendment and, because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not press Amendment

  271
  No. 10. As regards that amendment, the disability working allowance allows for a disabled child allowance, currently worth £21.90, when a disabled person also has a disabled child. That will be extended to the disabled person's tax credit when it is introduced in October. The calculation for a maximum family credit and its replacement does not include the disabled child allowance.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to provide parity for those eligible for the new working families' tax credit who have a disabled child, by extending the disabled child allowance to the new tax credit. The disabled child allowance was introduced as the disability working allowance in 1995 as part of a package to improve the benefit. The government at the time saw it as a substantial boost to the income of families in receipt of the benefit who have a dependant disabled child. The aim of the package was to improve the take up of DWA. The inclusion of the disabled child premium actually recognised the extra needs of working families with disabled children. There is little reason, therefore, for excluding the disabled child allowance from WFTC. The allowance reflects the additional costs and support needs of the family with a disabled child regardless of whether or not the working parent is disabled. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, my noble friend has moved two specific amendments. They raise some fairly complex issues. I believe that he is right in saying that perhaps the most relevant is Amendment No. 10, which seems to be in a more coherent form in some ways than paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 8. The crucial point is whether or not there should be parity as regards a family with a disabled child. If I understand the situation correctly, there appears to be some anomaly between disabled parents with a disabled child and parents who are not disabled but who have a disabled child. The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to ensure parity between the two groups, as my noble friend has just said. In that context it seems that there is an argument for parity to be established.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 attempts to align the structure of WFTC with that of DPTC. It focuses on two things: the two different basic tax credits in DPTC compared with the single basic tax credit in WFTC; and the presence of an additional disabled child tax credit in DPTC. I shall deal with them separately.
  On the first issue—that in DPTC there are two levels of family tax credit and only one in WFTC—the amendment calls for WFTC to have two types of basic tax credit: one for families headed by a couple; one for families, presumably a lower one, headed by a lone parent; and requires there to be a differential between the two types of credit on the ground that a second adult requires more food, clothes, and so on, as the noble Lord argued. I presume that the noble Lord is working by analogy with DPTC which has a basic family tax credit and a lower single person's tax credit. I hope to
  272
  persuade him today, as I clearly failed to do in Committee, that these are conceptually two totally different benefits; and it does no one any kindness to try to read across by saying that because there are two tiers in DPTC there should be two in WFTC, which is to add on beyond what a lone parent household would receive for a couple family. The noble Lord does neither disabled people nor lone parents any kindness in pursuing that argument.
  DPTC, like DWA before it, has one rate for couples or lone parents—just like WFTC—and a different lower rate for single people who are not responsible for children but who are disabled. There is no analogy between that single rate and the WFTC. The higher rate of DPTC is exactly the same as the single rate in WFTC. The higher rate of DPTC is for couples or a lone parent household where one is disabled. The difference is that DPTC has a lower rate which cannot exist for WFTC because it is for single disabled people by virtue of their disability, and by definition the WFTC is not a single person's benefit. It is a family, household benefit.
  I emphasise that lone parents are eligible for the higher family rate in DPTC. They do not receive the single person rate. Already the two benefits are aligned, just as the noble Lord argued. There is, therefore, no need for a single person's lower rate in DPTC if one wishes to align the two tax credits because WFTC applicants never qualified because that benefit is for single people.
  The first part of the clause would not be about aligning the two tax credits because they are already aligned. It would make them different. If the noble Lord wishes to do as he suggests, he can do so in only one of two ways. He must either make WFTC less generous for lone parents and align it with that of single disabled people; or he must make WFTC more generous for couples in order to produce a differential at considerable public cost.
  Which of those two does the noble Lord want? If he seeks to treat lone parents less favourably by giving them a new lower rate analogous to the single individual's rate in DPTC, even though it is a household, it would save the Government, the taxpayer. money. It would take something like £550 million, over half a billion pounds, out of the pockets of 600,000 lone parents and their children; that is, nearly £20 a week. I cannot believe that he wants that. I think that he made that clear.
  His only other option is to increase the couple's allowance for WFTC to maintain a differential. On his account, that would cost an additional £1.25 billion to create a new higher couple's credit. I cannot believe that he and his party want that either. We need to focus help where it is needed. We do not think that increasing the basic generosity of the tax credit by about 60 per cent would be one option.
  Nor is it true, as the noble Lord argued, that there would be an incentive to separate. I do not know from where he gets these figures. If a couple separated, she would receive what the couple would get in tax credit, earnings for earnings, because they would remain the same household. If they were separated, he would be a

  273
  single man and as long as he is not disabled he would receiving nothing. The amount paid, earnings for earnings, would be exactly the same. I do not know from where the noble Lord received his briefing.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made my point. A single adult with children receives more than a couple with children. The noble Baroness said that if the couple separated the mother would still receive the same. There is no provision for the second adult. The family of two children with a second adult means that there are four people in the family; not three as with a single adult and two children. That second adult needs to be fed and clothed, too.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I dealt with that argument at some length earlier. I am happy to go over it again but, given the lateness of the hour, the noble Lord might prefer to read what I have said in order to decide whether there is confusion or misunderstanding. If so, we can follow it up in correspondence or at Third Reading.
  The point the noble Lord made, which I was addressing, was that, given this, there would be a positive incentive for couples to split up because they would both be better off. That was what he said—I wrote his words down. It is not true, because the lone parent who would be left with the children would receive exactly the same. His argument would apply only if the lone parent received the same and the other parent received something, too. Therefore, it would be financially sensible to separate. But the father would receive nothing because he would be a single person; and the mother, as head of the household, would receive the same as if they were together. The point the noble Lord sought to make, that there was an built-in incentive to separate, cannot be true.
  It is of course the case that all families are treated in the same way, whether they are headed by a lone parent or by a couple. That is what we were seeking to establish and therefore WFTC and DPTC are already allowed. I hope that the noble Lord, when he follows this up through reading or correspondence, will accept that.
  I turn to Amendment No. 10 in which the noble Lord suggests that DPTC has an additional tax credit for disabled children that is absent front WFTC. As I said in Committee, the disabled child credit in DWA was introduced by the previous government after discussions with disability groups during its development and it has never made its way into family credit. When we debated the point in Committee, I said that the Government would reflect on the matter. It is an anomaly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it is not a justifiable anomaly. Therefore, I am delighted to repeat what my honourable friend the Paymaster General said yesterday on this Bill: that the Government will be correcting this anomaly by extending the disabled child tax credit to WFTC families from October 2000. That means that extra help will be available not just to a disabled child living in a disabled family, but to a disabled child living in a non-disabled family. In other words, it means that if a WFTC family has a disabled
  274
  child, that child will not only receive, as now, the child tax credit worth £15 if the child is under the age of 11 or £20 if the child is between 11 and 16, but he will receive an additional £21.90, more than doubling the value of that tax credit.
  I am extremely pleased about that; I am absolutely delighted. I believe that it will help low earning families with a disabled child and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has their interests very much at heart. I hope that the House will welcome that very good news and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am not sure I understood correctly what she said a moment ago, although I congratulate her on her virtuoso performance on the previous amendment. which is linked with this one. She said that yesterday the Paymaster General said in relation to this Bill that the concession would be made. I am increasingly worried about the Treasury taking these things over. Surely, it would be more appropriate for the noble Baroness to have announced the change tonight. I believe that she is right to take credit for what is happening, but am I right in believing that she is therefore proposing to accept the amendment?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not personally taking credit for what has been achieved because it is to the credit of my honourable friend the Paymaster General. It is her Bill on behalf of the Government. As this is not part of the legislation, it cannot be done by way of amendment. It will be done by way of statement and then subsequently by regulation, as appropriate.
  My honourable friend issued the press release and statement yesterday, perfectly properly. It is her measure and it is to her credit. I shall convey all the thanks and appreciation of noble Lords to my honourable friend. The amendment rectifies an anomaly. It will help low-earning parents with a disabled child for whom life can be extremely difficult. It produces another £22 a week for that disabled child before the taper begins to take any money away. I am sure that the measure will be very well received. I have a copy of the press release if noble Lords wish to circulate it. Please join with me in welcoming it.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I apologise for asking the question again because I missed the beginning of the latest part of the Minister's peroration. Is she proposing to bring forward an amendment to put this into effect at Third Reading, or can it be done purely by regulations?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is like the situation with NHS prescription charges, childcare or maintenance; it does not need to be on the face of the Bill and therefore does not need a government amendment. It will be done either by regulations or by guidance. The Paymaster General announced her intent, and that is therefore what will happen. From October

  275
  2000 a child who is disabled and living within a WFTC family will get the additional premium that they have not so far received.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that, and therefore I shall not move Amendment No. 10. I shall read with care what the noble Baroness said in regard to Amendment No. 8. I reserve my right to come back at Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 9:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  PROVISION FOR MINIMUM INCOME
  (" . Any schemes for working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit prescribed under functions transferred under section 2(1)(a) shall provide that, regardless of any savings, all families with children and with an adult in full time work shall receive a minimum income of £200 per week.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not take quite so long. It is designed to get confirmation of various statements made by the Government.
  The new clause follows the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I initiated in Committee. I am not sure that the Minister fully grasped the point at which we were aiming. As a result we may have been speaking at cross-purposes. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion we will be able to establish the position more clearly.
  In his Budget speech in March the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "Every working family will be guaranteed a minimum income. It will be introduced in October, not at the previously announced rate of £190 per week but at £200 a week, more than £10,000 a year. No income tax will be paid until earnings reach £235 a week."
  Similar statements were made in the Red Book, which gives the background to the Chancellor's Budget proposals. When the new 10 pence rate of income tax is introduced in October the minimum income guaranteed for families with someone in full-time work will be £200 a week or £10,400 a year.
  Similar statements have been made by a number of Ministers on a number of occasions, and particularly by the Paymaster General in another place and also by the noble Baroness. They were given without equivocation, exception or qualification.
  However, let us imagine an individual, either a lone parent or someone with a partner, who stays at home to look after the child or an elderly or dependent relative. Let us assume for the moment that that individual has one child under 11 and works 40 hours per week at the minimum wage of £3.60 per hour. He will earn £144 per week, of which he will pay income tax of £6.32 and national insurance contributions of £7.80 to give a net income of £129.88 per week. He will then be entitled to working families' tax credit of £61.27 which, together with child benefit of £14.40, will give the family £205.55 per week. So far, so good.
  But now let us assume that an individual, either on his own or in conjunction with his partner, has savings of £8,000. That may come from a redundancy payment received when a previous job folded. Then he will not be entitled at all to working families' tax credit. At current rates of interest, he might, if he were lucky, earn interest on savings of £5 per week after tax, to give a total income of £149.28 per week. That is much less than the guarantee of £200 which the Chancellor gave.
  Equally, that individual will be paying tax on both his earnings and interest, even though the income is even further below the figure of £235 which the Chancellor promised. I should add that a disabled person with savings faces a broadly similar picture of broken promises. The figures are slightly different, but the story of unfulfilled commitment is the same.
  So how is the position to be resolved? One possibility would be for the noble Baroness to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the other place and to correct clearly and unambiguously the guarantees and promises that he had given with as much publicity for the correction as the Budget Statement received. However, although that would set the record straight, it would leave the highly unsatisfactory position that the individual would have a very strong incentive to spend his savings until they were reduced to £3,000. when the individual could draw working families' tax credit in full.
  The alternative is to follow the route taken in the amendment which gives effect to what the Chancellor guaranteed. The amount of working families' tax credit would not be restricted because of the family's savings if that would leave the family with an income of less than £200 or if it would mean that income tax were being paid on income of less than £235. There would still be exclusions because someone with a large amount of capital would be able to receive interest equivalent to the amount of the tax credit which was being lost so that the total income would be above £200 in any event.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on these proposals. However, bearing in mind my difficulty at school of taking down maths sums in a hurry late in the afternoon, it may be that the noble Baroness would prefer to write to me on that point. That may be easier. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, from time to time, I am suspicious about matters being dealt with in writing when they really should be on the record; for example, in relation to the position of the Chancellor. If, as my noble friend seemed to suggest, rather a lot of small print was left out of the Chancellor's Statement, we should be clear about that on the record.
  Nevertheless, my noble friend raises an important point with regard to savings. We need clarification after the success of the previous amendment in producing results, for which the noble Baroness is altogether too modest. If the Paymaster General had wanted to do it, he could have done it when the Bill was going through the other place.
  Perhaps the noble Baroness, even at this late hour, will clarify the position with regard to savings. If the

  277
  position on savings, as far as working families' tax credit was concerned, were not in line with the harsh regime that exists for those on income support, or in relation to pensioners and others who are not in the situation of getting working families' tax credit, that would be of concern.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we assumed, correctly, that the amendment probes the background to the announcement by the Chancellor in his Budget that the minimum income guarantee of £190 a week for working families would rise to £200 a week as a result of the changes introduced by the Budget.
  The £200 minimum income guarantee to which the Chancellor referred, is income for a household, whether a couple or a lone parent, with a child under the age of 11., where the adult, who works 35 hours a week, is working at the national minimum wage. As The noble Lord said, that £200 is made up of his net earnings, WFTC and child benefit. Therefore, it provides a minimum income guarantee. That is extended to everyone whether or not they currently qualify for a WFTC.
  All income-related benefits—of course, the tax credit builds on the benefits—have a capital test. People with capital of less than £3,000 and who receive income support, JSA and WFTC are unaffected by the test. People with more than £8,000 do not qualify for WFTC. Capital of between £3,000 and £8,000 is taken into account in calculating the amount due. We think that is fair. You cannot hand out tax credits without having regard to the applicant's capital.
  Perhaps I may step sideways for a moment. We wondered why so many pensioners were living below income support levels—for example, not drawing down income support—and we found that it was because they had capital. Nearly half of those who were not claiming that income support had capital of over £20,000. We cannot say that we should be handing out taxpayers' money as income support on top of an old age pension because pensioners choose not to use their savings or their capital which has been designed for that purpose. That is the position.
  If we were to do as the noble Lord suggested—to disregard savings for this purpose—that could not be restricted to WFTC. It would have to be extended to other income-related benefits, such as income support, JSA and the like.
  We estimate that abolishing capital limits would cost, for those income-related benefits, between £0.75 billion and £1 billion. That is the cost of abolishing all capital limits. If there were to be more generous capital limits, and we did not abolish them in total, but for example, we raised the lower limit from £3,00 to £5,000 and raised the upper limit from £8,000 to £10,000, the cost would be about £110 million.
  To disregard all capital, as the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, so that those with an income of £200 a week, regardless of whatever capital they may have, may receive benefits and to apply that across to other income related benefits on which the WFTC has
  278
  been modelled, would cost in the order of £0.75 billion to £1 billion. That would be public money from other taxpayers, who may have a slightly higher income, but often much less capital than those who would receive that credit or that income-related benefit.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have two questions. First, did the Chancellor make clear what the position was on savings in the course of his Budget speech, when he announced the guarantee? Secondly, I am somewhat astonished at how little the cost is. If I understood it correctly, the noble Baroness said that to raise the limit would cost £110 million and to abolish all capital restraints would cost £1 billion. From a personal point of view, I am rather surprised that that is so. One knows what frightful anguish there is, particularly among pensioners, who find that their last bit of capital has to be run down before they can receive any benefits.
  11.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. the noble Lord asks whether the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech. He made it clear to me. I am sorry if the noble Lord did not get the same understanding, but I was perfectly well aware that a minimum income guarantee, a disablement income guarantee or a pensioner's income guarantee was subject to the capital rules. That has always been the case. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had meant to say, "Irrespective of the capital they may have in this, and only in this, case", he would have said so. He did not. Therefore the existing framework of capital rules applies as elsewhere. That is perfectly unambiguous.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, did the Chancellor make it clear to the public at large, who may riot necessarily be aware of this point?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in all fairness, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly read out the Social Security Rule Book or the way he is building on WFTC. He made it clear, as the DSS in its turn made clear with the minimum income guarantee, that this is subject to the capital rules. The reason for that is a perfectly proper one. People who might have quite low incomes—say, a pension—who are in their sixties, and then their elderly parents die and they inherit a substantial sum of money from a property ;say, £50,000, £100,000 or £150,000), cannot reasonably still expect to enjoy income support corning from other taxpayers who may have fractionally higher earnings but no capital at all. That is the reason for the capital rules. It is not unreasonable that people should draw clown their capital.
  I said to the noble Lord that if we were to raise the capital ceilings from £3,000 to £5,000 and from £5,000 to £10,000—these figures came out in discussions with the honourable Member in the other place, Mr. Webb, of the Liberal Democrat Party—the cost would be £110 million; if we were to abolish the ceiling altogether, as a ballpark figure the cost would be £0.75 billion to £1 billion. Those are very large sums

  279
  going to people who have a generous amount of capital. That cannot be reasonable and I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I shall read with interest what has been said by all who have taken part in the debate and may possibly come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Clause 3 [Transfer of associated property, rights and liabilities etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [General functions of Board]:
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a person applying for working families' tax credit is aware that if she fears domestic violence from her partner she may submit the claim form without the signature of her partner.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that a woman fearing domestic violence from her partner should be able to apply for WFTC without first obtaining his signature. Writing this on to the face of the Bill would ensure that this option was made plain in all WFTC forms and leaflets.
  The proposed legislation assumes that couples are able to discuss together who should receive the payment. Indeed, the WFTC explanatory leaflet advises a couple to think how they budget and who organises the family's money in deciding who should receive the payments. But the CAB tells me that it sees many clients who are not in a position to reach agreement with their partners. In particular, women living in violent relationships may be afraid to assert their wish to receive WFTC.
  Many women seeking CAB help because of domestic violence are short of money and cannot meet the needs of their children. It is likely that those most in need of exercising the choice for WFTC payments will be those least able to exercise it. The CAB told me of a typical case in the south of England of a woman with one daughter whose husband was both an alcoholic and violent. He spent all their benefit income on drink and she had no money at all. She and her daughter were afraid to live at home.
  According to a women's unit fact sheet—Better for women, better for all—the Government are making violence against women a priority, as women themselves are telling them that it is one of their biggest concerns. Indeed, the Women's Unit commissioned a package of research into the accommodation support services for households experiencing domestic violence.
  The noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, is the Minister for Women. Indeed, according to this fact sheet, she is a member of the ministerial committee overseeing the Violence Against Women crime reduction programme. When the Minister responds,
  280
  perhaps she can tell me whether she has discussed this amendment with her noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and whether or not she welcomes it.
  At present, family credit must be paid to the female partner. Under WFTC, it is proposed that the couple will decide who is to claim. We wish to ensure that a woman, fearing domestic violence from a partner, should be able to submit a claim for WFTC on her own, without the signature of her partner. We believe that that should be stated in the WFTC claim pack and contained in primary legislation so that it cannot be ignored in the future. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I certainly support the spirit behind these amendments. As far as concerns Amendment No. 12, I believe that what the noble Baroness said in response to Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that the Government have already gone some way towards this position. In the event of the couple failing to reach an agreement as to which of them is to receive the tax credit, it is now clear that the Government are prepared to authorise the Inland Revenue to accept applications submitted by the caring parent herself, without the signature of her partner. The only practical question is whether the parties need to have made an attempt to agree; in other words, the right of the caring partner to submit an application without the partner's signature can only be done if there has been discussion about it. At any rate, in exceptional circumstances, it would mean that the caring partner could do it without reference to the working partner.
  It is desirable, in general, that this should only be done where there has at least been a discussion on the subject. If Amendment No. 12 were adopted, there would obviously be the risk that it could merely postpone rather than avoid the incidents of violence which will happen, not when there is discussion about who is to receive the tax credit but when the man, whom we assume to be the violent working partner, discovers that his non-working partner has already claimed for credit. Of course, that would be an unfortunate situation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there may be exceptional cases where it would be desirable to have the possibility of applying, even if a previous attempt has not been made to reach an agreement.
  I strongly support Amendment No. 13. Indeed, it merely raises again the point I made on Amendment No. 6. At that stage, the noble Baroness's reply was cut off by circumstances before she could make it. Although she indicated by sign language that she would write to me, perhaps this would be an opportunity to put a statement on the record about what the Government intend as regards providing information on this issue in the claim pack.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should also like to express my support for Amendment No. 12. However, we have been given an example of a situation where the husband drinks. I just wonder what the position would

  281
  be where the wife drinks. There is no provision for that and I am not sure that such a situation would be covered by Amendment No. 6.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with all due respect, I do not think that in this Bill we can sort out all the problems of drinking partners. Other agencies such as Alcoholics Anonymous, or even the police where the situation has escalated into violence, may be more appropriate agencies to deal with the matter.
  As regards Amendment No. 12, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for raising the issue of domestic violence. It becomes your Lordships to discuss this matter even though the hour is late. The noble Lord asked about the work of my noble friend Lady Jay in this respect. She chairs a women's committee which considers violence, among other issues. I represent the DSS on that committee and I 'work closely with my noble friend, as with other Ministers, both male and female, across government to ensure that issues such as domestic violence are reviewed across the waterfront of government, if I may put it that way.
  The noble Lord is quite right in assuming that the Government regard this issue with great concern. Under the guidance of my noble friend we are doing our best to respond to it. We know of some of the circumstances that trigger domestic violence, such as drink and drugs. We are studying anger management. We are also considering issues such as child contact and family contact centres. We recognise that domestic violence occurs but we do what we can to ensure that children at any rate are protected and enjoy a decent quality of family life in so far as the state, in its limited capacity, can ensure that. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Jay will be willing to write to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, if he wishes to know more about our initiatives on this front. I am happy to send him literature, if he wishes.
  There is a difference between whether the presumption in a situation of domestic violence is that the couple are still together or whether they are separated. Clearly, if they are together, if she fails to sign his form, or he fails to sign her application form, the money goes to her as the applicant. This position will now he protected—as we said earlier on Amendment No. 6—by regulations to that effect. If they remain as a couple despite domestic violence, the regulations are in place to ensure that she will get the. money. If he knocks her around subsequent to that, I am afraid that her recourse then is to the police, women's aid and the like. If the violence has resulted in the couple separating, at that point she becomes, for our purposes, a lone parent. If she is in work, she will qualify for WFTC on her own. If she is not in work, she will not qualify for WFTC; she will be eligible for income support and related benefits. He, as effectively a single, separated man, will qualify for nothing at all. That is the situation as regards domestic violence. I am happy to try to enlarge on any of the wider issues of domestic violence through correspondence or literature, if the noble Lord wishes.
  282
  The second amendment in the group—
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I believe there has been some misunderstanding. The two amendments raise quite different issues. I had understood that they were to be taken separately but the initial typing went wrong. I was told that the typing would not be corrected but we would take the amendments separately. I think that would be more convenient.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought the second amendment in the group had already been moved and spoken to. Am I incorrect in that belief? I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, thought that too.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I was just speaking to Amendment No. 12.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was under the same misapprehension. I had not realised that the amendments had been degrouped. I simply assumed that because they appeared in the same group on the Marshalled List I should speak to both of them simultaneously.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the lateness of the hour I wonder whether it would help your Lordships if I said that all the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that I am sure would have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—sought to make it clear that the couple have a choice as to whom the money is paid and payment is made to that person. Page 6 of the guidance notes points out the things a couple should bear in mind in making that choice and emphasises,
  "that the person receiving the payment does not have to be the person working".
  The substance of the amendment is that it should be made clear that the choice may be made in that way to that person. I agree with that. If the noble Lord has any worries or concerns about the forms, I am happy to discuss that with him.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the noble Baroness does not mind—I do not think this will greatly inconvenience the House—there are one or two points on the second amendment in the group I should like to have raised, but perhaps the noble Baroness would like to end her discussion on the provision we are discussing and then tackle the next one.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, had hoped I had done that. I hope that in that context the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. She offered to ask her noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to write to me. I would be grateful if she would do so as it is an important point. We wish to consider the matter carefully and may return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a couple applying for working families' tax credit is aware that it may be paid to either partner, and that it may be paid by the Board direct to a partner not in employment.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are one or two points which we have not covered for the reasons we have just mentioned. There are very strong feelings, particularly among the Citizens Advice Bureaux, that it is extremely important that the points covered by Amendment No. 13 are accepted by the Government. The CAB have described it as vital that it should be made clear to people that they have the option and the choice. They even recommend that it should be made clear in statute that that is so. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the Government accept that point completely? What steps are they taking to ensure that the parties concerned are aware of the choices in this matter?
  At the risk of trespassing on the noble Baroness's generosity, perhaps I might add one other point. In the earlier discussion about whether the credit should go to the carer and so on, the CAB has also in the context of this amendment raised the whole question of purse to wallet. As we are a little uncertain at the moment, it would be helpful to know before Third Reading where the noble Baroness stands with regard to the credit being paid to the mother, which is currently the situation under family credit. Does she have a view on whether it should be paid to the mother rather than to others? The CAB stress very strongly that they have a number of specific cases where that would have been helpful.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what should be provided by way of information in the forms and the guidance notes is not merely the options that are open to the parties if they agree, but also guidance as to what will happen in the event of their failing to agree. That is the last point where I believe that the present information provided is seriously defective. I am hoping for some indication that clearer information will be given when the forms are produced.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, three points have been raised: first, what information do we give; secondly, whether we believe that essentially the mother should be the recipient of WFTC; and thirdly, the guidance to be given if the parties do not agree.
  I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has seen the draft of the October form. I am not sure that I am allowed to do this in your Lordships' House, but perhaps I may point it out.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord, Lord Henley, from a sedentary position, wishes to assist the House, he will allow me to read the words that clearly
  284
  cannot be seen from across the Dispatch Box by the noble Lords opposite. It says in bold type:
  "Please read this note before"—
  and the word "before" is in heavy capitals; it is the biggest word apart from "Revenue" on the entire form—
  "you complete the form".
  It goes on:
  "If you are a married couple (or a man and woman who live together as if you are married) you must decide who is going to apply for and receive the payments. That person completes the form as the applicant and the payments will be made to her or him. Once we receive your application, you cannot change this decision. You do not have to be working to receive payments as long as you have a partner who works".
  That is written in bold type; it asks people to read the form before they fill it in; I do not think it can be made more visually prominent typographically than it is—even if your Lordships cannot see it across the Dispatch Box. I think your Lordships will agree that the forms are as unambiguous as they can be. These are the October forms; they will be revised again from the following April.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. Does the form also make it clear that it may be paid by the board direct to the partner not in employment?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that was the point I was making, perhaps slightly opaquely, by saying that I have the October form, under which it would be paid directly at home, whereas from April it will be paid through the pay packet to the partner who chooses to receive it if that partner is in work. At that point the form will be changed to reflect that additional information. That takes place from April, not from October. I made the point that the form will need to be changed in April.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when reading from the form the noble Baroness said that once an option had been taken by the couple as to who was to receive the credit, it could not be changed. What would be the position if the person who was receiving the credit was involved in an accident or was taken ill so that he could not handle the credit? Is there a method for dealing with emergencies such as that?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I may, I will follow up that point in writing. What is certainly the case is that the decision cannot be changed within the six-month period. A WFTC claim runs for six months. The couple could choose to make a different decision at the renewal of the claim after six months. Their circumstances may very well have altered, as they usually do, in that situation. However, the presumption is that, to make it easier for employers and also for the couple concerned, a claim runs for six months. If there were an emergency such as he was no longer in work, it would depend on whether he was still on the employer's payroll on statutory sick pay and therefore whether it could be paid through that if he so wished or whether he was no longer employed at all. In that case, the WFTC

  285
  payment would run and be paid by the board and the couple's income would be topped up by JSA or income support, as appropriate, for the remainder of that six-month period.
  The noble Lord raised a specific point about a sudden emergency. It may be helpful if I simply write to him on that point. But normally those circumstances would prevail.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Baroness. I was thinking of the case of an injury that prevented the person actually dealing with the money, particularly if it was paid into a bank account. Sometimes salaries are paid directly into an account and the other party to the partnership may not have access to that account. That is not at all unusual.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. I do not need to write to him. I can allay his concerns. Under emergency procedures, the partner is the alternative payee. So if someone was incapacitated, the other partner could be authorised to receive the payment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point and for allowing me to clarify the position.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether I agreed in principle that it was right for the payment to go to the mother. I have said it so many times that your Lordships must be tired of hearing me say it—this is a working families' tax credit. It is not income support. It is designed to do two things. It is designed to give families support but it is designed to do that by encouraging parents into work. It is a work incentive. We believe that the best way of helping families and children out of poverty is to see one of those parents in work. We believe that the best way of ensuring that one of those parents is in work is to pay the entry wage if they are going back into work, or the minimum wage, so to speak, if they are already in work but their income has fallen by virtue of shorter hours, loss of bonus or loss of commission through the wage packet. But at the end of the day we respect the fact that this is a couple's choice. If they prefer for it to be paid direct to a mother who is not working for waged work at home, that is their choice. That is the Government's view. It is intended to be a work incentive. We believe that that is the best way to alleviate family poverty. But if the couple so choose for it to be paid to the mother, that is their choice. It would not be my preference but it is their choice. That choice is being fully respected.
  Finally, the noble Lord asked about guidance if they did not agree. This point was also raised by my noble friend Lady Lockwood during the Second Reading debate. We gave an assurance that we shall seek to amend subsequent forms to cover that point.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking the two matters separately. Even at this late hour the debate covered points which would otherwise not have been clarified. In the light of her helpful remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Freeman Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall issue a code of practice as to the operation of both credits, after consultation with interested parties.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to take this amendment before the House rises. It is a further probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his very helpful responses in Committee, in particular the agreement to change the nature of the claimant's declaration on. all the forms, which was most welcome, and for promising a rolling programme of review of the tax credit forms, in particular WFTC501. The noble Baroness referred to that or a similar form.
  I readily appreciate that no fundamental changes can be made to the forms because they are geared in to existing computer systems and procedures in departments. But the commitment to that rolling programme of review, subject to one point that I wish to make, is accepted and welcomed. I am grateful to the Minister for also ensuring that there will be reporting to Parliament by the Board of the Inland Revenue on the operation of the tax credit scheme.
  Clause 5 gives to the Inland Revenue the normal care and management responsibilities that we find in much tax legislation. It gives the Revenue broad discretion to operate the system and gives it non-legislative powers. But in this kind of legislation the devil is in the detail. It is important to continue probing some of the unanswered questions.
  The issue I want to address is the normal Inland Revenue practice of issuing a code of conduct for the operation of a scheme such as the tax credit scheme. The code of conduct, which has not yet been issued, is separate from the explanatory booklet which is available in this House. Many noble Lords will have already read the draft that has been circulated.
  I say to the noble Lord at the outset that, because I am dealing with practice, not policy—and I hope my noble friend Lord Higgins will agree with me—a reply in writing will be perfectly acceptable. I should not expect the noble Lord to go into detail as I did not give him notice of the points that I wished to raise.
  My first point is: when will the code of conduct be issued? I assume that it will be as soon as possible, and well before the commencement date in. October. Secondly, will the noble Lord confirm that there will be proper consultation on the code of conduct before it is put into its final form?
  I wish to make four specific points on what could, in my judgment, be included in the code. First, we need to be clear as to when formal entitlement starts. Is it when an application is received, or when it is validated? 'That is an important point, simply because the practice of the Inland Revenue is very different from that of the Department of Social Security. Noble Lords will recall that the department's procedure regarding the payment of benefits is to receive, process, pay and then sample check at a later date. The practice of the Revenue, certainly when it comes to tax repayments, is to make sure that a particular claim is validated before payment

  287
  is made. Therefore, if there is to be any significant gap between receipt of an application and payment, it is perfectly appropriate to raise the issue of back-dating to the date when the application was received.
  The second point relates to the need for exemption of small self-employed applicants from having to file complete accounts and answer the detailed questions in WFTC501 and instead use the present system operated by the Inland Revenue for the small self-employed; that is to say, a simplified system, a simplified application form dealing with turnover, expenses and profits.
  I am well aware of the argument that the Department of Social Security's system is being inherited by the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue may well in week one be dealing with the small self-employed, using the simplified form of reporting, and in week two, unless there are changes, being asked to administer the working families' tax credit scheme, asking for a complete set of accounts. That will be confusing to perhaps 10 per cent of the total applicants for this credit. We should address this. There is plenty of time for the Inland Revenue by a code of conduct, a code of practice, or by amending its procedure, to simplify the reporting, to simplify the claim for the self-employed where turnover is beneath £15,000 per annum.
  Last year the President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said that he thought it unlikely that the existing form—in its new form WFTC501—could be completed correctly by more than one in five inspectors of taxes. Having read the form, I must say that if I were in the position of a small self-employed individual I would find it very difficult to complete it. Please may we have an assurance that this will be put right before April 2000?
  Thirdly, a small point perhaps to your Lordships, but significant to many claimants, under the old DSS system one could send one's application form in using a post-paid envelope. The Inland Revenue, I think I am right in saying, withdrew that procedure some eight years ago, and it is now seeking to employ the same principle: that is, as far as I can see from the forms lodged in your Lordships' House for perusal, no envelope and no postage paid.
  Finally, it is important to apply the principle of the helplines for both credits being at local phone charge rates. The Inland Revenue gives this benefit not only during weekdays in normal working hours, but also in the evenings and at weekends, for income tax self-assessment. I beg to move.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for his comments in an area where he has very considerable expertise. I am sure that the Government will wish to take his views into account.
  As to the form of response, I have a slight feeling that we are in danger of becoming a correspondence college rather than a debating chamber, and that would be dangerous. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will not think me discourteous in making
  288
  that point. None the less, I hope that we shall get a response one way or another from the Minister concerned.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when people ask us to write to them I am reminded of "Yes, Minister", when Jim Hacker asked "How can I write letters?" and Sir Humphrey replied "But, Minister, you don't write letters; you sign them." We should always bear that in mind.
  The simple answer to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, when he said in the amendment that there should be a code of practice, is that there will be. I have to say a little more, because he asked some very precise questions.
  In the Inland Revenue, as the noble Lord well knows, there are always codes of practice to explain the administrative procedures and how they will operate in practice. That is the way it has always worked, particularly in those parts of the tax system which relate to compliance, where codes of practice help ensure that customers know their rights and know that they are being treated fairly and reasonably, in the way in which all customers in their position would be treated.
  For example, the Inland Revenue has codes of practice on investigations, on reviews of employers' and contractors' records, on inspection of schemes operated by financial intermediaries, on inspection of charities' records and on investigations by the specialist investigation branch where fraud is suspected and in cases of other suspected irregularities. There are also codes of practice covering the Revenue's policy on giving advice and on dealing with any serious or persistent mistakes that might occur.
  Clearly, the payment of tax credits is a new line of business for the Inland Revenue, but it will be conducted in the Revenue's usual effective and efficient manner. Tax credits will need to be looked at with the same critical eye that secures tax revenue, and many of the same sort of skills will be brought to bear to combat fraud.
  The Revenue will, after consultation and by October 1999, be issuing a code of practice about how it will handle inquiries into tax credit applications. This will be in addition to the existing codes of practice about inquiries into taxpayer's tax affairs. As the amendment suggests, consultation on the code will be essential to ensure that it commands broad acceptance by applicants and that they can be certain of fair and appropriate treatment by the Inland Revenue. This consultation will begin shortly.
  Finally, from April 2000 employers will also have responsibilities to administer tax credits—much in the same way they already administer PAYE and NICs. Because the handling of tax credits will be part of their PAYE and NICs systems, the guidance for employers about how the Inland Revenue will handle examination of these records will be included within the current code of practice on review of employers and contractors' records. The additional material will be developed in consultation with employer representatives, as has been the Revenue's normal practice.

  289
  The noble Lord asked me four specific questions. The first was whether the code of practice will cover the start of formal entitlement. He asked that it should be backdated to the date of receipt of the form. We can do better than that. It will be backdated to the date of the intent to claim. If necessary, that can be made clear.
  Secondly, the noble Lord asked about a simplified form of accounts for exemptions for those self-employed with small businesses. We need to stay within the current system of reporting, which is not unlike the current standardised accounting information within self-assessment. The form for the self-employed will be kept under special review to keep it as simple as possible.
  The noble Lord also asked about post-paid envelopes. They will continue.
  The noble Lord asked finally about the availability of helplines with local call charges on a seven-day basis. I do not appear to have an answer to that so I shall have
  290
  to sign a letter to him—which somebody will write! On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Freeman: My Lords, I have learnt a lesson. Some 30 years ago, the training for accountants in this country was entirely by correspondence course. I have learnt that that is not really appropriate in your Lordships' House and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes before midnight.

  Smoking Policy: House of Lords Refreshment Department
  Smoking Policy: House of Lords Refreshment Department
  Judicial Studies Board: Domestic Violence Issues
  Judicial Studies Board: Domestic Violence Issues
  Overseas Diplomatic Posts: Policy on Tobacco Products
  Overseas Diplomatic Posts: Policy on Tobacco Products
  International Fact-Finding Commission
  International Fact-Finding Commission
  PRODECHACO Project
  PRODECHACO Project
  Economic Crime Units
  Economic Crime Units
  Police Resources: National Objectives
  Police Resources: National Objectives
  Police Resources: Deployment
  Police Resources: Deployment
  Police Resources: Tackling Fraud
  Police Resources: Tackling Fraud
  Combat 18: Definition of "Right-wing"
  Combat 18: Definition of "Right-wing"
  Licensing Hours: St. Patrick's and St. George's Day
  Licensing Hours: St. Patrick's and St. George's Day
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Co-operative Initiatives
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Co-operative Initiatives
  Human Rights Task Force
  Human Rights Task Force
  Human Rights Act 1998: Departmental Audit
  Human Rights Act 1998: Departmental Audit
  Human Rights Act 1998: Implementation
  Human Rights Act 1998: Implementation
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Steering Group
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Steering Group
  Domestic Violence Policy: Interdepartmental Co-ordination
  Domestic Violence Policy: Interdepartmental Co-ordination
  Millennium Bug
  Millennium Bug
  The Learning Age: Responses
  The Learning Age: Responses
  M.74: Emergency Telephone and Hazard Lights
  M.74: Emergency Telephone and Hazard Lights
  Disability Living Allowance: Over-65s
  Disability Living Allowance: Over-65s
  Social Security Tribunals: Mileage Allowances
  Social Security Tribunals: Mileage Allowances
  SERPS: Spouses' Benefits
  SERPS: Spouses' Benefits
  Aircraft: Cabin Ventilation
  Aircraft: Cabin Ventilation
  M.4: Elevated Section Speed Limit
  M.4: Elevated Section Speed Limit
  M.4. Bus, Coach and Taxi Lane Project
  M.4. Bus, Coach and Taxi Lane Project