Sitting of 26 May 1999

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

  Adjournment (Whitsun)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Joe Ashton: I do not usually waste the time of the House and I shall be brief today. I raise an important issue that did not arise until last weekend. The reports that appeared in many newspapers must have emanated from the Department for Education and Employment; they said that work permits for foreign footballers were to be changed drastically. Work permits are required for footballers who were not born within the European Community, and who come from Africa, south America and eastern Europe.
  In general, the game welcomes an examination of the rules; they were originally made in 1975 when Britain was not in the EC, when there were only a handful of foreign players and when large amounts of cash were not involved. Criteria were laid down stating that foreign players had to be internationals, that they had to make 75 per cent. of appearances, that their work permits had to be renewed every year and that they were not permitted to take British jobs. That situation has trundled on for 20-odd years despite massive changes in the game and the involvement of huge sums of money.
  There are good reasons for re-examining the rules. I shall not go into the details of the squad system, the Bosman ruling on transfers, the enormous amount of television money through Sky and all the other changes that have been made, but I believe that the system is unfair in that some clubs seem to get work permits for their players and others do not.
  This is not a discussion about football, but about jobs and work. I am raising the subject today because of the unfortunate timing of the press release. All players' contracts expire on 30 June, which is the deadline by which clubs must say to players, "We are very sorry, but you are not good enough. Your contract is over and you are free to go without a transfer fee," or, "We want to keep you on." The fact that the announcement was made five weeks before that deadline, with the House rising until 8 June, has plunged many clubs into doubt and uncertainty. We are talking about some 48 players, some of whom are very high calibre, have contracts worth millions of pounds and are being paid thousands of pounds per week.
  I understand that the Department for Education and Employment met the Football Association and the players' union this week for talks, but there must be an announcement from the Department in the next week or
  272
  so about certain issues. We have to know whether new rules will start at the beginning of next season or at the beginning of the 2000 season. How long will the talks continue?
  Last season—and practically every season—600 professional footballers were made redundant. Their clubs tell them that they are not good enough or say that they want to change the team. Many of them are British. The Professional Footballers Association protest that they can be replaced by players from eastern Europe, who are probably paid only £25 or £50 a week and who think that £200 for playing in the English third division is a great deal of money. The Professional Footballers Association is worried about that and about the effect on the English national team. It feels that if all our teams carry nine or 10 foreign footballers, there is not much scope for future Beckhams to come through the ranks. Their entry at an early stage is blocked.
  Those doubts have created a great deal of uncertainty concerning the 48 professional footballers from outside the EC. This very week, their clubs are deciding whether to renew their contracts and apply for new work permits starting on 30 June, or whether to take a chance on the rules being changed. They do not know what to do. I have been asked by the chairman of the premier league and other representatives of the game to make approaches to the Department and to ask for a statement. I rang the Department for Education and Employment yesterday and told them that I was raising the matter today. Instead of leaving everyone in limbo, there should be a moratorium or a freeze, and a statement saying that existing or renewed contracts will be exempt from the old regulations and will be covered by the new regulations, which will be more lax, until clubs and players know what to do.
  Some of the players come from the former Yugoslavia and places such as Moldova, where there is a war. They do not know whether they will have to go home, whether their clubs will renew their contracts or whether they should go to Spain or Italy. What advice or reassurance can they get?
  The new proposals, which were extensively leaked in the press, talk about young African footballers being sent here as apprentices, their schooling being paid for by British clubs that have their own outlets in Africa. African footballers have come to this country regularly via Belgium, which has strong African connections and less strict work permits. Some of the youngsters who have gone for trials in Belgium have done so without a return ticket home and have finished up virtually on the streets of a foreign country, unable to speak the language.
  The situation needs explaining. I hope that Ministers can make a written statement, preferably before the end of the week, because the announcement two days ago has thrown the game into chaos.
  9.40 am
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House this morning a situation affecting a group of elderly constituents. This is a problem of which many hon. Members will have had experience.
  The problem concerns those people who, in the 1980s, were sold home income plans—very often by companies or independent financial advisers—and who remortgaged a house. The mortgages on most of the houses had been

  273
  paid for. People did this to release capital, which was then reinvested into bonds, usually comprising solely equity funds. As a result of the transaction, when the people who were then remortgaged tried not only to draw an income from the investments, but to pay off the new mortgage, they found that the funds simply did not marry up.
  I am well aware that there are some bona fide and useful home income plans on the market of which many retired people may wish to take advantage. I am talking particularly about a period when these plans were sold—sometimes deliberately—quite fraudulently. I want to draw attention to a group of pensioners with mortgages against the property in which they live. The vast majority of them no longer have any income from the original plan, and are in a situation where interest is accruing against the value of their property.
  Many have been concerned that they will be turned out of their homes. In other such cases, the building societies or the lenders—it is mainly building societies—have said that they can remain in their homes. However, when they die, or if they have to move, the building society has first call on the value of the property. The matter has gone on for so long that the vast majority of those concerned are in a situation where if the house had to be sold and the capital realised, the mortgage would have to be repaid. The building society would then recoup the whole value of the property.
  As people get older, this is an anxious situation for them. Before I was elected in 1992, some of those cases were brought to me. After I was elected, I had some satisfactory outcomes in one or two places with the help of the insurance ombudsman. In some cases, but not all, the underwriting attached to the new mortgage fell within the remit of the insurance ombudsman. In the early 1990s, he and his staff were extremely helpful to some of my elderly constituents.
  I still have a batch of cases which fall into a particular category. A lady called Sonja Thompson, who resided in Devon—although she has a track record of living elsewhere—was brought to court on a charge of fraud. I have examined carefully the papers that she completed on behalf of my constituents in seeking to organise home income plans for them. There is no doubt in my mind that, although she was acquitted in the court case, it is as a result of her work that many of my constituents now find themselves in an anxious and difficult situation.
  One of the problems has been that the building societies concerned appeared to take no notice of the lending parameters that are usually enforced when considering making a loan or offering a mortgage to someone. It was the norm for people such as Sonja Thompson to go to one particular branch of a building society because they had made contact with an individual member of staff—one assumes the management—in that branch. Given the volume of cases over a short period that were processed by a particular branch of a building society, one must question the role of the building societies.
  In my constituency, the group of people who are left in this unhappy situation have mortgages primarily with the Britannia building society. I asked the Britannia building society to discuss the matter with me last year—which it did—and I was given a written pledge that my elderly
  274
  constituents would not be turned out of their homes simply because the interest on the mortgage was accruing at a rate much faster than any of them could hope to repay.
  That is not a satisfactory situation, and there is a need for some examination of the role of building society branches. It is incumbent on the head offices of building societies—which have reputations that they would wish to uphold—to take more responsibility for examining the way in which their staff dealt with such cases.
  At the moment, I have five constituents who live in a home that has always been their home, but which they feel no longer belongs to them. They are living there by grace and favour of the building society. They know that when they die, the proceeds from that home will not go to their children or heirs, but will be reclaimed, under law, by the building society concerned. We appreciate that building societies will not turn people out of their homes, but the justice of the case needs to be examined. Clearly, these elderly people were conned, fooled and—in some cases—quite deliberately defrauded into signing an agreement that they did not really understand.
  In one case, I have seen copies of documentation that has been altered by the person writing the details of somebody's income. Building societies accepted case after case without any proper scrutiny, and without checking that the information was bona fide or that the people concerned could afford to take out a plan that was in their best interests. We must look to bring some pressure to bear on building societies to take responsibility for the actions of their own staff.
  Many societies will say that mortgages do not come within the Financial Services Act 1986. I accept that, but that is not the point. A building society wants to know what one earns and how one will afford to repay a mortgage, as is right and proper. I have written to the Economic Secretary this month, as I feel that I have exhausted every avenue left to me through the ombudsman, the various other bodies and direct representations to building societies.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reiterate my request to the Economic Secretary to receive a delegation to talk this matter through. Some of these are complex cases, and solicitors have said that they would be happy to reintroduce some of them into the courts. However, there are difficulties because of the age of the client group. A solicitor to whom I spoke last week was willing to take the case on a no win, no fee basis, and he told me that he knows of barristers who are prepared to accept cases on the same basis. However, we must bear in mind the fact that we are talking about people who do not have a lot of money.
  The problem that the solicitor has encountered has been with the Legal Aid Board. He told me of one couple, aged 82 and 79, with a total income of £137 a week. They would qualify for legal aid, but the Legal Aid Board requires them to pay £67 a month towards their legal aid costs. That is clearly prohibitive for people on a modest income, and even though the lawyers are prepared to proceed on a no win, no fee basis, the need to find £67 a month to qualify for legal aid is holding up the case.
  Not all the cases are exactly the same. I have introduced the additional element of running a test case through the courts because if such a case is successfully prosecuted, many more could be resolved pretty rapidly. I stress that

  275
  the age of the people involved means that unless something is done quickly, even more of them will die without a satisfactory resolution.
  Many hon. Members have dealt with many complex and difficult constituency cases. In the previous Parliament, we had an ad hoc all-party group that invited the building societies and everyone involved to come and meet us. I think that it was useful, although I do not know that we resolved any individual cases. Now is the time for individual action. We should call in the building societies to discuss their role, and consider how to get over the legal aid block.
  Will the Minister endorse my application to the Economic Secretary? There are too many complexities for us to go into every individual case on the Floor of the House, but a meeting with the Economic Secretary and her officials, with appropriate representatives involved, would be of great assistance to my elderly constituents and those of many other hon. Members.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the House for having forgotten to declare an interest when I spoke. I am a vice-president and shareholder of Sheffield Wednesday, although I do not get paid. I intended to declare that earlier.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you.
  9.52 am
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I want first to say one or two words about my late colleague, Derek Fatchett. I know that much has been said in the House following his untimely and tragic death two weeks ago, but I want to add to the generous comments made by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, by the shadow Foreign Secretary and by the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon).
  When Derek's funeral took place on 14 May, there were well over 1,000 people at Leeds parish church—from all over the city of Leeds and from all walks of life, religions, races and backgrounds—who had come to pay tribute to a man who had served them very well indeed as a constituency Member of Parliament. Much has been said about his work in government, but let us not forget that he was a constituency Member for Leeds, Central for 16 years. He was a good friend of mine, and a mentor to me and to all the other Leeds Members who worked so closely with him.
  I want to raise an issue that came to me through two of my constituents, a couple in late middle age with a daughter who is now in her mid-20s and who, sadly and for all sorts of complex reasons, went into prostitution. My constituency covers the area of Chapeltown, which is well known, unfortunately, for its link with prostitution. I stress that my constituent does not live in the area, but in another part of my constituency.
  The couple who came to see me raised the issue not of prostitution itself, but of the pimps who make so much money in immoral earnings. Those pimps abuse the women who earn so much for them, and often steal their money and possessions to feed drug habits and expensive life styles, with fast cars and designer clothes. The women are made to suffer.
  276
  My constituents told me that their daughter's pimp, who must be typical of many throughout Leeds and the whole country, abused her, beat her and raped her. For all his violence towards her, it seems impossible to bring him to justice. When he is arrested after she has been beaten all night by him and his friends, she gives a statement to the police, but is forced to withdraw it because he sends his friends round. She is intimidated by his friends and allies, even while he is held in custody. The statement never sees the light of day in court, despite her bruises and the violence perpetrated against her.
  The mother addressed a conference organised by the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, known as CROP. The names have been changed to protect those involved. She said:
  "Until she was thirteen, Frances was a quiet, shy, generous, gentle child. A sudden change came with her going to high school. She was blind drunk at thirteen, egged on by new acquaintances, truanting, absconding all night, getting stranded in Manchester, shoplifting and in trouble with the police. She might have come through such a phase as many do, but at this disturbed time she fell prey to Yosh. At the time we had little idea what was going on, no sense of where it might lead and so, no chance to do anything."
  The mother continued:
  "With charm and presents—and sex and drugs—he laid siege to this vulnerable young girl with no obvious hard family protection … We were, however, also suspicious and one day when challenged she said that she could not tell me what she was actually doing which was acting as a courier for drugs. It is interesting that in the hierarchy of social problems, drugs are more respectable than prostitution. Prostitution is a complete taboo, and for years we could not talk about it to anyone, not even our close friends. It is too painful to think about your daughter's life having come to this."
  My constituent said:
  "She has been raped, beaten, robbed and emotionally abused. She has lost her possessions, including money from her grandfather and any jewellery, her self worth and, most recently, she has lost the care of her adorable son …
  Sometimes there were signs of hope. In 1995 she made a complaint to the police and Yosh was on remand for four months. It was wonderful to have him out of the way and we could sleep knowing that she was relatively safe. She had been assured, however, that if she made a statement others would come forward with corroborative evidence, but unfortunately apart from ourselves, no-one else completed what was needed. These cowardly men induce great fear and a sense of loyalty that seems to those outside quite incredible—and most frustrating! Eventually Frances was no longer able to live with the pressure that Yosh exerted from inside prison, both through phone calls and messages through his agents, male and female … she withdrew her statement … There is something wrong about a system of so-called justice that has to depend on the evidence of frightened vulnerable, essentially unprotected young women, it is not surprising that they often do not hold on through the inappropriately long delays in bringing a case to court. In addition, this episode highlighted another issue. One of Frances's friends was prepared to make a corroborative statement but on at least three occasions the police failed to keep an appointment with her,"
  so Yosh was released.
  Yosh returned once again, demanding money, and Frances returned to prostitution because that was the only way of paying for his drugs and designer clothes. It is not just the life of this vulnerable young woman that has been ruined; her family has also been destroyed. Frances has no life: she lives alone in a house and is subject to emotional and physical violence from this man. She has nothing and she has nothing to look forward to.
  We need to ensure that, when there is plenty of evidence against that kind of individual, cases are brought to justice quickly. People such as Yosh should be

  277
  prevented from exerting pressure on vulnerable young women from inside a jail. A distinct but important point emerges from this episode. When someone is charged with various offences, they should be heard together. A dismissal of some of the charges should certainly not result in release—especially when the majority of charges have been dropped because the complainant is afraid. There is a danger that this case will never come to court because Yosh again has an opportunity to reach those who have brought the charges against him. The fear, misery and destruction of vulnerable people will go unchecked.
  I hope that, as a result of the points that I have made this morning, the Home Office will examine cases such as this involving not only the pimp, Yosh, and Frances, my constituent's daughter, but other vulnerable young women in the Chapeltown area of Leeds who are at the mercy of such individuals. I hope that the police will be able to gather the necessary evidence, and that the law will ensure that those people are brought to justice and removed from the lives of so many vulnerable people—especially women who have been abused.
  10.1 am
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the debate this morning. Recess Adjournment debates provide an ideal opportunity for Back-Bench Members to raise constituency issues that it is difficult to discuss on other occasions. I raise this matter this morning on the advice of Madam Speaker. I have referred briefly at Question Time to the road infrastructure in my constituency, and particularly to the need for a dramatic improvement in the A523 road leading from Macclesfield to the village of Poynton.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place and he will know precisely to what I refer. That road improvement, allied to the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport eastern link road—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I refer also to the A6(M)—is absolutely essential to the on-going economic development and prosperity of my constituency and the surrounding areas, particularly those represented by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is not in his place.
  I make a vigorous plea to the Government. I managed to get the Poynton bypass and allied road projects—the A523 road improvement and the Manchester airport eastern link road—included in a priority road programme in the last months of the Conservative Government in 1996–97. Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the new Labour Government was to remove that vital road project from the road improvement and construction programmes.
  The second runway at Manchester airport received substantial support in my area on the basis that an appropriate road and transportation network would be constructed to service that runway and the huge increase in traffic and customers using Manchester International airport. I am sure that all hon. Members can appreciate the concern felt by my constituents, especially those who live in the villages of Poynton, Prestbury, Withinlee and Mottram St. Andrew. The relief that they thought would be provided by the construction of new roads has not come to pass, and those villages are being submerged under a huge volume of traffic.
  278
  Much of the traffic from east Cheshire to Manchester, and from the south-east of Macclesfield to Manchester, the airport and towards the M56 and the M6 uses those villages as rat runs. The environment of those villages is being undermined, eroded and I would even say destroyed. Some of those areas are really delightful. Properties are expensive and people pay a great deal of council tax. I believe that they deserve greater consideration than the Government are apparently affording them by removing those vital road improvement and construction projects from the road programme.
  An event of considerable importance not just to my constituency and Manchester, but to the country as a whole, is the 2002 Commonwealth games. It is essential to ensure that the appropriate road infrastructure and transport and communications networks are in place to service those games. Such projects will be vital in the lead-up to the games and the new facilities will be used increasingly upon their conclusion. I make a special plea for the Government to consider those schemes as a matter of urgency. The south Manchester transportation module—I think that is what it is called; I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will correct me if I am wrong—must conclude its deliberations and consultations about those projects, and decisions must be taken urgently.
  I am aware that the Government are seeking to transfer responsibility for those roads from the Highways Agency to the highway authority, Cheshire county council. If that is to be the Government's policy, I hope that they will allocate appropriate funds to Cheshire county council to enable the construction of what I would describe as strategic roads. They are part of the country's infrastructure. I am sure that every hon. Member will accept that Manchester International airport serves not only Manchester and its surrounding areas, but the whole country. There will be a huge increase in business when the second runway comes into operation in 18 months to two years. No roads will be built for five, six or seven years, even if the Government give the go-ahead in the near future. However, this is an urgent matter to which I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically.
  The road projects are supported fully by Cheshire county council, Macclesfield borough council, Poynton with Worth parish council, local people, the chamber of commerce and enterprise and the large employers who generate so much wealth and so many jobs—Ciba Specialty Chemicals and Astra Zeneca, the pharmaceutical company. Many other companies are also urging the Government to act in this regard.
  I turn now to one or two other matters that need to be raised, and on the first—developments in the health service—I make a particular plea about the East Cheshire NHS trust. I understand that there may be changes in the health service and that where community and mental health services are currently part of a united trust, they may well be separated. My area has one trust that deals with everything within the national health service, including community health, mental health and acute services.
  The East Cheshire NHS trust is highly successful and efficient, and very well regarded by general practitioners, who look to the hospital to provide all the services and specialties. It has an excellent chairman in Mr. Peter Hayes, a fine executive board and non-executive directors who reflect the interests of the whole area. It would be a

  279
  total waste of Money to separate services from that trust, thus duplicating or triplicating the bureaucracy and costs of managing the health service. If separation took place, the trust would be a less viable proposition.
  I have represented Macclesfield for 28 years, and its people feel immense loyalty to the local hospital. I put down a marker that I hope that where an area is keen to retain a united, single trust covering all NHS services which has proved to be successful, it will be able to do so.
  Finally, I turn briefly to building societies, particularly mutual building societies. The Cheshire building society, which is based in my constituency, is excellent. It is Macclesfield's own; its head office is in Castle street, in the centre of the town. I got my mortgages from that building society. Another, the Vernon building society, is just outside my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. That is also a highly popular, regional building society which does an excellent job. It is competitive and well run, as is the Cheshire building society.
  A few people, however, seek to manipulate the market by buying into those building societies and then trying to turn them into a bank, which is not in the best long-term interests of the investors or those who borrow from the building societies. I am interested to note that a Liberal Democrat Member has, in the past day or so, tabled early-day motion 681, which says:
  "That this House urges the Government, in the interests of equity, to consider raising the percentage of borrowers needed to support conversion or take-over of building societies to 75 per cent., on a minimum 50 per cent. turnout, to bring them into line with the criteria required for savers, recognising the long-term interest of borrowers in the future of their society."
  I have corresponded with the Government on that matter, and they are concerned, but they do not know exactly how to deal with it without, perhaps, in some way distorting the free market. However, I believe that the proposals in early-day motion 681 would be ideal. I say that as a Conservative Member who believes in the free market, but I believe also that the mutual building society movement has done a magnificent job for many decades, servicing those who want to buy houses and providing sensible, rational investment opportunities for those who want to put their money into them and receive a fair return.
  I hope that the growing concern in all parts of the House about a few people who want to earn a quick buck and who have no interest in the building society movement will prompt the Government to take the matter seriously, and to limit the takeover of building societies and their conversion into banks.
  I am grateful to have had this opportunity to speak. I hope that action will be taken on the road projects in my area which impact on adjoining constituencies. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle fully support my remarks. I hope that the Government will respond and that even if the Minister cannot himself give a substantive reply, he will ensure that the matter is passed on to the appropriate Minister and the necessary response made.
  10.16 am
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I should like to associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the mutual building society movement. I am sure that his views are shared by Members in all parts of the House.
  280
  The matter that I would like to raise appertains to a subject that is not only close to the interests of my constituents but, is of national importance. That matter is the Essex and Southend-on-Sea replacement structure plan, but, before eyes glaze over, I point out that beneath that tranquillising title are some important issues that affect the lives of not only my constituents, but those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
  Taken at its most simple level, the structure plan deals with, among other matters, housing need and allocation in the county of Essex and the borough of Southend-on-Sea, and covers the years from 1996 to 2011. The initial plan identified certain potential growth areas in the Al2 corridor. The Al2 runs out of London towards the east coast and passes through or by Chelmsford and Colchester. It also runs through my constituency, which is between those two towns.
  The identification of that corridor as an area for growth caused considerable consternation not only for Braintree district council but for Chelmsford and Colchester because the road is not sufficient for the traffic now on it, without adding substantially to the housing in that part of Essex. Following representations to that effect, which were supported by the strangely named GOER—the Government office for the eastern region—that aspect was withdrawn from the structure plan.
  The plan has now been released, and the panel will inspect and receive representations, and therein lies the concern of my constituents and people from other towns and districts in central and north Essex. The inspectors on the panel have an ominously named matter No. 4, on potential strategic development locations. Amazingly, in the light of the history of this matter, those locations are Chelmsford; Hatfield Peverel, Witham and Rivenhall in my constituency; Colchester; the western side of Tendring, and Uttlesford. Four of those places are in or adjacent to the A12 corridor.
  Those who have been invited to make representations to the panel include developers who have already expressed a strong interest in green-field site development on the western and north-eastern sides of the town of Witham and the eastern side of the village of Hatfield Peverel. The proposals for housing allocation on pure green-field sites could add as many as 10,000 new dwellings to those being built in or close to my constituency. Another area of concern is further north in my constituency, abutting the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), in or near to the village of Feering. All those locations are prized by developers as locations for mini towns or expanded villages.
  The district of Braintree, which was created in 1974 following one of the periodic local government reviews, was allocated 10,300 dwellings for the period between 1996 and 2011. My district council assures me that all those dwellings are already built, planning-consent granted or identified except for 1,150. I am assured by my local authority officers that sites for those remaining dwellings can readily be found, and that, indeed, some of them will be brown-field sites.
  The investigation of green-field sites adjacent to existing settlements under matter No. 4 makes the equation an entirely new one, going way beyond what was previously contemplated. If the district requires only

  281
  1,100 new dwellings, why are we considering debating and taking evidence from those who say that we should have in excess of 10,000 dwellings?
  Save for the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), hon. Members may not be entirely familiar with some of the villages and towns that I have mentioned. One of the proposed developments is west of the town of Witham, which was a market town in the 1960s and 1970s, taking to itself what was then called London overspill. The building of houses in Witham at that time was entirely linked to employment; hand in hand with that development went the growth of an industrial estate to provide employment for those going to the town. These new proposals are purely speculative and will result in more and more commuting to and from Witham, Hatfield Peverel and other villages near the railway line to London.
  I am concerned about this matter—I am sure that other hon. Members have similar difficulties in their constituencies—because it seems to fly in the face of our concepts of housing development and location. I try to avoid as much as I can the strange languages adopted by those in public affairs, which include such terms as "hierarchies", but I understand that if there is a hierarchy in development, it starts with brown-field sites and, only at the very last, occurs on a green-field site. Another notion, that has great merit is that of integration—integrated transport policy, for example. As I understand that, it must surely integrate with housing requirements.
  There is no obvious employment need for this housing in the middle of north Essex. The road system and structure is beyond capacity at the present time. Save for the Witham and Hatfield Peverel link road, which I was pleased to be able to put before the House soon after I was elected, and which the Government approved, there are no major schemes for improving that section of road. Yet developers appear to wish to destroy what in many ways is idyllic countryside. Some who do not come from the eastern counties might not take such a poetic view as those of us who do about the scenery of that part of England. Parts of the areas that I have described are completely unspoilt countryside, which should be preserved in any event and not earmarked for speculative development.
  I hope that the Minister and, indeed, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the Opposition spokesman, will concur with my view that the Government and local authorities must be ever vigilant in staying with our principles on housing, transport and employment development, and that we should not be led along to build in areas where it is easy to build, and, in so doing, destroy our heritage and create innumerable problems for us and those who come after us.
  10.24 am
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I assure the House that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I are not colluding in this debate. It is fair to say that we relish the political differences between us, despite sharing membership of two Select Committees and a constituency boundary. However, even without collusion, we have reached the same conclusion.
  To make it an all-party plea, I very much support the hon. Gentleman's words about the Cheshire building society in his constituency and the Vernon building
  282
  society in Stockport in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able not only to say warm words but to give some indication of positive action on that issue. I do not discount the fact that the Government have made some helpful moves, although, as we have seen with rogue shareholders in ballots, to whom the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred, such moves have not been sufficient to damp down pressure on such building societies.
  The more urgent issues for my constituents relate to transport and the environment. Again, I very much sign up to the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, although I should correct him on one point. It may help the Minister to know that the study to which the hon. Gentleman referred is called the multimodal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester—superb gobbledegook.
  My constituents are astonished to find that they live in the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester—I am sure that the residents of Macclesfield would be even more astonished to discover that they do so. This multimodal study is the replacement offered to me and my constituents for the necessary transport infrastructure to deal not just with today's congestion and difficulties but that which we can reasonably predict as a result of the expansion of Manchester airport.
  The second runway at Manchester airport is under construction. I live in a house that backs on to a freight line on which every night a trainload of stone travels from the quarries of Derbyshire to the runway. I am grateful to the Government for arranging a rail freight grant to enable that; I do not mind my house shaking gently as the trains go by. The number of passengers at Manchester airport is expected to rise from 16 million a year to 30 million a year in three years' time. Manchester airport is of course also a substantial freight airport in its own right, so there may be further expansion in that area, too.
  As a result, there will be a tremendous increase in road traffic going to the airport. The airport has an integrated transport plan. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I shall not comment on the Essex countryside, but when it comes to integrated transport, we know a thing or two about its absence in Greater Manchester, just as they do in Essex. The airport plans to receive 50 per cent. of passengers on public transport, which is excellent. However, if the number of passengers doubles, the number of road users will increase immeasurably regardless of the doubling of the number of passengers who use public transport.
  There are several park-and-ride car parks for the airport in my constituency. Therefore, some of those who travel to the airport by public transport go by car to my constituency, park their cars and then take a bus or coach. So, for my constituents, it is something of a joke to be told, "Don't worry, half the new passengers will go to the airport by public transport."
  I should like to link the pressure not just of existing commuter traffic but of the growth of the airport to the wider issue of the absence of an integrated transport policy.
  The Government have made some tactical moves to improve public transport, but have not produced the strategic overview that we need. For example, they have made available rural bus grants—in my constituency, the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive is

  283
  taking advantage of those grants—but the grants have some unworkable restrictions. Half of a rural bus route must be on a derestricted road. None of the route can be on the route of an existing bus service. Our new rural bus services make long detours up and over Werneth Low and down country lanes in order to achieve the 50 per cent. qualification for the rural bus grant. The links between the communities are needed. On the whole, my constituency consists of hilltop communities with river valleys running between, but it is not sensible for the bus to dodge in and out of the river valleys to get the rural bus grant.
  We have 40-year-old trains on our commuter lines, and there is no sign yet that North Western Trains—which now calls itself First North West—is able or willing to provide the investment that is needed.
  On the specifics of these issues, which affect my constituents, and on the wider national stage there seems to be a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments and Ministers. I shall briefly draw attention to two other issues. I have mentioned the problem with transport policy. Road schemes have been cancelled and more reviews are taking place. The Labour Government have produced a weight of reviews and consultation documents on the environment and on transport which far outweighs anything that the Conservatives did. I do mean outweighs—it is a substantial volume of paper. However, there are not yet any clear policies leading to development of strategies that would help.
  I have talked about road cancellation. Fuel duty has increased and there are proposals for an energy tax. I have my rural bus routes, I have my old trains; I have not got my roads, and the airport is opening. The situation cries out for co-ordinated Government action.
  Transport is not the only environmental issue on which there is discontinuity between Government Departments. I am thinking of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and, to an extent, the Treasury.
  When I complain about that, everyone that I talk to—civil servants, pressure groups, even Ministers—tells me that co-ordination is better than it has ever been. That makes me grateful, for the first time, that I was not in the House previously, when, apparently, the integration of thinking was even worse.
  We have some classics with energy—an area on which I keep a careful eye in the House. For instance, the Department of Trade and Industry is promoting renewables and trying to ensure that there are more wind farms, but, surprisingly enough, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is turning down planning applications for wind farms in great numbers. I understand that the proportion of wind farms rejected by Government inspectors is higher than that of takeaway food shops similarly rejected. That is hard to believe.
  There are problems regarding other environmental issues. In relation to the achievement of the carbon emission reductions required by the Kyoto agreement to avoid climate change, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is being the good guy and the Department of Trade and Industry is not. Discussions on the reconstruction of the electricity pool system are likely to result in squeezing out of the market those who produce renewable energy and combined heat and power.
  284
  I ask the Minister to listen carefully to the local constituency pleas that are being made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield and myself, and to be aware that these local issues are indicative of a wider issue. We like the consultation documents, and it is great to be asked, but please may we have some decisions—some action? A multimodal study for the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester is no substitute for a decent strategic road system.
  10.35 am
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. I know that hon. Members have been quite brief, but I have much to say today, so I apologise in advance. I shall try to finish as quickly as I can.
  I wish to use this opportunity to highlight issues affecting the spending profile, performance and abilities of one of the local authorities in my constituency—Redcar and Cleveland borough council—resulting from the present operation of the revenue support grant, the standard spending assessment and the national non-domestic rate.
  Initially, I shall say a few words about the social and economic background of the community for which the council is responsible. Then I shall comment on matters affecting the SSA and the revenue support grant for the council. In doing so, I want to make some suggestions for change in the context of the present review of the revenue support grant arrangements—suggestions which I hope chime with the recent report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.
  I have been galvanised to raise that matter in this place today by the operation of the present formula, which has caused the critical barrier of £1,000 for local band D property to be broken in the borough in the current financial year. Paying a bill of £1,000 is a serious matter, but it is a far more serious matter if one must pay such a bill in an area where there is continuing high unemployment and poverty, and where, as a result of social demography and trends, the local authority is simply running up a downcoming escalator.
  Let us consider some of the facts about Redcar and Cleveland. In 1984, there were 44,000 people in work in the borough area, but in 1996—the last year for which we have proper figures—there was a reduction in the employment base of 10.5 per cent. Of the adult population, 42.8 per cent. are economically inactive, and long-term unemployment, at 26.6 per cent. of registered unemployment, is rather high.
  Despite all the work of regeneration agencies, there is still little evidence of independent entrepreneurship being able to change these figures. Customs and Excise figures from the VAT registration figures show low levels of new company formation.
  A low level of economic activity and a history of working lives in unhealthy and dangerous conditions in shipyards, steel mills and mines leave an indelible stain on the fabric of local society. People are simply more liable to ill-health in my constituency. Sixteen per cent. of local people are seen as suffering from persistent health problems, against an average for England and Wales of 13 per cent. The morbidity ratio is 127 against a national average of 100.

  285
  People die earlier, too. The average standardised mortality ratio for Redcar and Cleveland is 115 against the average of 100 for England and Wales. I stress that these are averages for the borough as a whole; in some wards, the figures are far, far higher.
  Low car ownership impairs mobility; 37.8 per cent. of local households have no car. That is a real problem, leading to social isolation on many of the borough estates and far-flung industrial villages.
  Not surprisingly, there is a high level of dependency on welfare benefits. Twenty-three per cent. of households depend on income support, and 34 per cent. of the child population is being brought up in households where a weekly giro is the only cash lifeline available.
  The index of local deprivation—an official measure, to which I shall return— sums up graphically what it means to live in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland. It is ranked as the forty-third most deprived borough in England, with 13.5 per cent. of its population in the worst 10 per cent. of all electoral wards in the country. It is simple, then, to see the scale of the problems that face my local authority—stupendous problems across the whole spectrum of service delivery.
  Poverty and unemployment have an impact on schools. It is harder to motivate children whose life expectations are formed by the unemployment that has affected their parents, and possibly their elder siblings, too. It is far harder to teach children who come to school with empty stomachs, which is one reason why there is an initiative to give our children a school breakfast.
  Sickness, ageing and debility have a heavy impact on the personal social services, and more than physical sickness is involved; there is a wealth of evidence linking poverty and unemployment with mental distress, failed relationships and broken homes. Human beings affected by those ills need a lot of help, delivered over a long period.
  Demography also has an impact on the social services in areas such as mine, where there is a significant population loss as younger people move out in search of better opportunities elsewhere. That means that there are more elderly people isolated from family support, who need additional local authority help and support if they are to maintain their independence.
  Poverty also has an impact on other aspects of local authority services. Where many people live on credit, the need for good trading standards and money advice services is paramount. People have to buy food cheaply, so the need for good environmental health protection is obvious.
  Good partnerships are being built up with all the agencies within the borough, so that those problems can be tackled jointly. We need good relationships with the local health authorities so that ill health and health inequalities can be fought. We also need good relationships with the local universities, training and enterprise councils and colleges, so that lifelong learning can become a reality, and with the local business community, so that local industry can be competitive and meet the challenge of the coming millennium.
  286
  However, Redcar and Cleveland is being starved of the resources to deal effectively with those issues and to contribute more meaningfully to those partnerships. The impact of the standard spending assessment is totally negative.
  That brings me to the second part of what I have to say: the revenue support grant needs-based formula does not reflect actual need. I merely need to point out that, under the health formula, Redcar and Cleveland's notional SSA per head, at £917, is below the £964 per head allocated to the neighbouring authority of Middlesbrough, a borough dealing with exactly the same problems.
  Our £917 is dwarfed by the sum of £1,152 currently awarded to Westminster council, and by the £2,972 per head awarded to the City of London and adjoining districts. I do not dispute that there is social need in the inner city, or that the impact of a large non-resident working population has to be taken into account—but I must point out the sheer scale of the differences between the high unemployment, ill health and social isolation of the string of small ex-mining villages in my constituency, and the job and life style opportunities afforded by living in, or on the fringes of, one of the most vigorous labour markets in western Europe. The gap is enormous.
  I will not go into detail about all the anomalies within the formula as it relates to elements of spending within the borough council, but I will highlight a couple of them. It is absurd that a council with a widespread pattern of settlements and towns, with the consequent need to keep the highway network up to scratch to maintain social cohesion, has been awarded £2 million less per annum for highway maintenance than the nearby town of Middlesbrough.
  There is a very silly anomaly in the formula for salting and gritting snowed-up roads, which could only have come from "Yes Minister". It seems that Redcar and Cleveland has a low weighting under that formula, which is rather odd, as much of the borough is hilly and borders on high moorland. Indeed, in old Norse, Cleveland means "land of cliffs". However, the weather station on which the formula is based is outside the borough in Whitby, nearly 20 miles away, which is warmer and lower. That is not much comfort to a motorist stuck in a snowdrift.
  There is more to come. When I am trying to assist constituents who are angry and perplexed about the closure of our neighbourhood library, it does not help to learn that Redcar and Cleveland has been awarded less in the environmental and cultural block than any other unitary authority in the former county of Cleveland. Indeed, it receives less than the average for all unitary authorities.
  There are other absurdities. A key element in the distribution formula is the number of flats in a local authority area. That means that a borough such as Redcar and Cleveland, in which past generations of town planners, architects and housing specialists avoided the quick fix of building high-rises, and chose traditional terraces—the houses that people wanted—is penalised in comparison with those who took the alternative course.
  I would like some of the experts from Eland house to explain why a poor family living in a poorly maintained street-level house is less deserving than a family living in the same circumstances on the third or fourth floor of a block of flats in a neighbouring authority. That is a riddle worth solving. They could explain, too, why the same

  287
  formula means that wealthy towns on the sunny south coast can benefit when their stocks of expensive privately rented penthouses and flats are assessed.
  Such bizarre examples mean that Redcar and Cleveland, like many authorities, has to spend far more than its SSA if it is to deliver the services that local people demand and deserve. Such councils run slap into the gearing problems that face any authority that spends more than the nominal level. They also face the disbelief of local people, who see the contradiction of common sense presented by a constantly rising council tax combined with cuts in services.
  The non-domestic rate has also hit the borough. Despite unemployment, heavy industry is still a pervasive part of the local economy—a pattern of industry which often has an adverse impact on the resident population. To say that is not to be anti-industry, and both the local council and I recognise the vital contribution that our steel and chemical industries make to both the local and the national economy, and we work with them to assist their competitiveness and vitality.
  None the less, the council still has to manage the environmental and visual impact, and the effects on the highways, which it does through air pollution monitoring, maintaining a proactive planning department, and constant upkeep of the highway network.
  Our local industries are big contributors to the national non-domestic rate pool. The borough collects £41.5 million to pay into that pool, but gets only £35.5 million back. That means that the council exports £6 million to other parts of the country—money which helps to keep down council taxes in other areas, which may be far wealthier than Redcar and Cleveland, and whose local population and local councils would violently resist any thought that their district, too, was a potential site for new large-scale chemical or metal processing plants.
  I am pleased that the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has recommended that the business rate return to local control and determination. I hope that the Government are considering that idea seriously, and I shall make one practical suggestion that may override the resistance from the local business community.
  Local businesses expect services from local authorities, exactly as any house owner or tenant would, so why can the local business rate not be ring-fenced? That could pay for the services from which industry expects to benefit—a good planning service, a good environmental health service, a good highways maintenance programme and a well funded economic development department. Those activities could be wholly or partly underpinned by a local business rate. I do not mean that Redcar and Cleveland, or any council, should expect the Government simply to write out a cheque.
  My local authority has been carrying out a modernisation programme. Local councils have set up a full, rigorous process of peer group evaluation. They must accept a full, in-depth and no-holds-barred examination of their systems, procedures and methods of working. They will be expected to show convincingly that they are in touch with the electorate, and that they have built up robust and meaningful partnerships with other actors on the social stage. Their internal methods of political operation must be relevant to today's world, not yesterday's smoke-filled committee rooms.
  288
  I have raised many serious issues concerning services and providers. That work must be part of a two-way bargain between central Government and the local council, between Whitehall and Redcar and Cleveland's town hall. I urge my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and Housing to examine carefully the council's financial position. I hope that I will receive support from the Front Bench today.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the Adjournment debate.
  10.51 am
  Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the important issue of tourism in Cornwall. Many representations have been made to me about the eclipse that is about to take place and its effect on tourist activity there.
  On 11 August, there will be a total eclipse in a corner of Devon and right across Cornwall. The rest of the country, by contrast, will experience only a partial eclipse. This is an important moment in the life of Cornwall and its all-important tourist industry.
  The eclipse will take place in the middle of the tourist season, and Cornwall is perhaps more dependent on tourism for its revenues than any other part of the country. Cornwall is less prosperous than the rest of England, measured by gross domestic product per capita or in employment terms—hence its success in obtaining objective 1 status.
  Unfortunately, there has been ridiculous and damaging hysteria connected with the eclipse and its effect on tourism, with lurid tales of traffic gridlock, food shortages and overcrowding. In the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 25 November 1998, that was all graphically described. Talk of tourists being fleeced, hordes of journalists and amateur astronomers arriving, and water purification and distribution problems have led to press comment that has been deeply damaging to the crucial tourist industry in the county and for the entire United Kingdom in the run-up to the millennium celebration.
  In south-east Cornwall, bookings are down by 30 per cent. so far for the entire season. The Cornwall tourist board has told me that in respect of eclipse bookings to date, the percentage of hotels with accommodation still available are Newquay 60 per cent., Falmouth 16 per cent., Padstow 31 per cent. and Looe 37 per cent.
  Speaking on behalf of the self-catering industry, which is vital throughout the United Kingdom, Alice Mumford from Canonstown, near Hayle, described the situation in these terms:
  "Self-catering has been vary badly hit by the hysteria surrounding the eclipse week. The knock-on effect of all this has meant that people are staying away for the whole summer. It has definitely affected us—we are way down on last year—I would say roughly 50 per cent."
  Last year, she obtained eight weeks of bookings from advertising in the national press. So far this year, regrettably, she has had none. Incidentally, she lives directly under the path of the eclipse.
  On 24 May, The Times carried an article about the matter. It told us, for example, how farmers who had set up campsites to cope with hundreds of thousands of

  289
  visitors are now facing huge losses. We already know about the terrible state of agriculture in the UK, which has arisen particularly in the past two years.
  The west country has traditionally been a major holiday area. The West Country tourist board tells me that one in six tourists come in August—the very month in which the eclipse will take place. The area's reputation is fully deserved. According to the latest Cornwall holiday survey, 35 per cent. of respondents stated that they were fully satisfied with the provision of tourist services in the county. The tourist industry in Cornwall is in most cases operated by small businesses. They are already suffering from the imposition by the Labour Government, egged on by their Liberal Democrat friends, of a whole raft of job-destroying and additional cost measures, including the working time directive, the part-time workers directive and the parental leave directive. Those impose huge additional burdens on an industry whose umbrella organisation, the English tourist board, has had its marketing function axed by the Government.
  The fact is that tourists will not be fleeced in Cornwall. Extensive and comprehensive arrangements have been put in place to minimise any problems that may arise. Such arrangements do not include the crackpot ideas such as visitors road taxes that have apparently been advanced by some local councillors. There is a Cornwall county eclipse planning co-ordinator, Gage Williams, who is heading the contingency arrangements.
  The Highways Agency already has a helpline in place. Two million explanatory leaflets are shortly going out to all motorway service centres throughout the country. A comprehensive traffic plan has been devised by the police, Devon and Cornwall county councils, the Highways Agency and the emergency planning services to keep the traffic moving not only in Cornwall, but on the approach to Cornwall during August in particular.
  I am told by Steve Winston, the county emergency planning officer, that there will be a test run this weekend. A number of minor diversionary routes will be created with one-way traffic flows at such congestion spots as the village of Dobwalls, to get greater movement along the key A38 arterial route.
  The Highways Agency is putting in more CCTV cameras along the A30 and A38 and feeder roads. There will be a contingency centre based in Cornwall, with information fed in from Devon and elsewhere. The information plan extends right up the A5 and beyond. Trafficmasters will help the police control and monitor traffic movements. So-called minutemen will be available at the time of the eclipse to help with possible breakdowns of cars. Electronic signboards will be fully operational. In other words, comprehensive measures are in place for any additional major congestion. If, indeed, the figure of more than a million people in the county in August is realised—almost twice the usual population—the matter looks clearly in hand in contingency planning terms.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spring: I should like to complete my comments. Cornwall remains one of the great jewels of the British Isles. It would be tragic if the negative comments about
  290
  the effects of the eclipse damaged the hugely important tourist industry in Cornwall and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Tyler: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech outside the Chamber, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Is he aware that the control of the county council is not in the hands of the Liberal Democrats? It is in the hands of an all-party alliance, including members of his own party. The instructions given to the gentleman to whom he referred were given on an all-party basis. I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but he is making an unworthy speech by making a party point.
  Mr. Spring: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to a word that I said. I have made no critical reference to the county council. I have made no critical reference to any Liberal Democrats or anyone else. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the speech. It is appalling that he should come in and introduce party politics into the matter, which is nothing of the kind. Had the hon. Gentleman been here at the beginning of my remarks, he would have heard me speaking about the concerns that have been expressed about tourism in Cornwall during August because of the eclipse. I very much regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  In conclusion, it is about time that a positive message was sent out about Cornwall and the eclipse. It would be good if all hon. Members from Cornwall could help the tourist industry there by projecting a positive image and message, as I have tried to do this morning. That would be welcome to their constituents and the entire country. The message needs to be heard loud and clear.
  11 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to express vehement opposition to the proposal to use ground troops in Kosovo. In particular, a substantive motion ought to be debated by the House of Commons before any decision is taken on the matter. It is simply not the case that there is no such precedent, because substantive motions were tabled on the Falklands and Iraq.
  My specific question is, how is it proposed to conduct such a campaign? The port of Piraeus will not be available to us, if the mayor of Athens is to be believed, and not a finger will be lifted by any dock worker in that port to transport supplies or personnel to a war in Kosovo. The railwaymen and others of Thessaloniki have made it abundantly clear that that port will not be available for our use. I ask a straight question: is it true, as military pundits have said, that, without the availability of Thessaloniki as a port, it would be impossible to sustain a military engagement in Kosovo for more than a fortnight?
  Furthermore, precisely how is it proposed to conduct such a campaign? Macedonia has made it clear that it will not act as a springboard for an offensive against neighbours with whom Macedonians will have to live in the coming centuries. The Hungarians have the problem of 350,000 ethnic Hungarians living in northern Yugoslavia, on whom retribution could be wreaked. As for Albania, what consideration has been given to the inadequate facilities of the port of Durres and to the fact that the roads peter out into dirt tracks near the Kosovo border? Furthermore, there are 6,000 ft high mountains.

  291
  Before any decision is made—and if any decision is to be made during the recess, Parliament ought to be recalled—a thorough explanation of what we are up to should be given to the House of Commons. It is entitled to that.
  On this day, when India has threatened an air strike against rebel peoples, as it puts it, and has defied Pakistan to interfere, I can remark only that, once people embark on the kind of action on which we have embarked in Yugoslavia, it can be catching. I ask for the Government's reflections on the report of Lieutenant-General Satish Nambiar, the head of mission of the United Nations forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia between 1992 and 1993. He is a former deputy chief of staff of the Indian army and is currently director of the United Services Institution of India.
  Lieutenant-General Nambiar says:
  "My year long experience as the Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia has given me an understanding of the fatal flaws of US/NATO policies in the troubled region. It was obvious to most people following the events in the Balkans since the beginning of the decade, and particularly after the fighting that resulted in the emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that Kosovo was a 'powder keg' waiting to explode. The West appears to have learnt all the wrong lessons from the previous wars and applied it to Kosovo."
  Lieutenant-General Nambiar makes four points. First, he says:
  "Portraying the Serbs as evil and everybody else as good was not only counterproductive but also dishonest. According to my experience all sides were guilty but only the Serbs would admit that they were no angels while the others would insist that they were. With 28,000 forces under me and with constant contacts with UNHCR and the International Red Cross officials, we did not witness any genocide beyond killings and massacres on all sides that are typical of such conflict conditions. I believe none of my successors and their forces saw anything on the scale claimed by the media."
  I should like to hear a comment on that.
  Lieutenant-General Nambiar's second point is that it
  "was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia had an equal right to secede. The experience of partitions in Ireland and India has not been pleasant but in the Yugoslavia case, the state had already been taken apart anyway. It made little sense to me that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia could be made tenable. The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn when it was taken apart by the West, just as it was in the case of Ireland in 1921 and Punjab and Bengal in India in 1947. Failure to acknowledge this has led to the problem of Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia."
  Lieutenant-General Nambiar's third point is that it
  "is ironic that the Dayton Agreement on Bosnia was not fundamentally different from the Lisbon Plan drawn up by Portuguese Foreign Minister Cutilheiro and the British representative Lord Carrington to which all three sides had agreed before any killings had taken place, or even the Vance-Owen Plan which Karadzic was willing to sign. One of the main problems was that there was an unwillingness on the part of the American administration to concede that Serbs had legitimate grievances and rights. I recall State Department official George Kenny turning up like all other American officials, spewing condemnations of the Serbs for aggression and genocide. I offered to give him an escort and to go see for himself that none of what he proclaimed was true. He accepted my offer and thereafter he made a radical turnaround. Other Americans continued to see and hear what they wanted to see and hear from one side, while ignoring the other side. Such behaviour does not produce peace but more conflict."
  292
  Lieutenant-General Nambiar makes a final point. He says:
  "I felt that Yugoslavia was a media-generated tragedy. The Western media sees international crises in black and white, sensationalizing incidents for public consumption. From what I can see now, all Serbs have been driven out of Croatia and the Muslim-Croat Federation, I believe almost 850,000 of them. And yet the focus is on 500,000 Albanians (at last count) who have been driven out of Kosovo. Western policies have led to an ethnically pure Greater Croatia, and an ethnically pure Muslim statelet in Bosnia. Therefore, why not an ethnically pure Serbia? Failure to address these double standards has led to the current one."
  The Indian view—that of a man who had first-hand experience—at least ought to be reflected on before we embark on the folly of starting a ground war, the result of which can be known to none of us.
  11.8 am
  Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise a number of points before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, but first I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Following our previous debate—and unlike some Ministers who say that they will write to hon. Members, although we never hear from them—he wrote to me on every subject. I am grateful for that and if he does the same again this time, I should be delighted. However, I should be grateful if he tried to get some information on the final point that I shall raise.
  I enjoy the history and tradition of this place, although that enjoyment is not shared by everyone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on organising the banquet which will celebrate the 900th anniversary of Westminster Hall. The first recorded great event held there was the Whitsuntide banquet of 1099, which was attended by William II, who was known as William Rufus. I understand that the event has been organised by the all-party arts and heritage group. It is a wonderful idea. There has not been a banquet in the hall since the coronation of George IV in 1821, although a lunch was served there for the Queen shortly after her coronation.
  It is in that connection that I take this opportunity to say that the House's decision on Monday to devalue this Chamber further was a disaster. I stood in despair as I watched hon. Members vote. I am totally opposed to what has been proposed. Some people patronisingly remind me of what was said about Select Committees. However, in the same way that I believe that the decision to televise our proceedings was disastrous and devalued this place, I think that it is utterly ridiculous to have a second Chamber. The House will come to regret it.
  On the same patriotic note, and given the way in which the United Kingdom has been broken up, increasingly I think that St. George's day—a subject that in some respects is a little controversial—should become a national holiday.
  The Minister will not be surprised by my second point. It concerns the Palace theatre in Westcliff-on-Sea, about which I am sure that the House awaits a report. Sadly, it is still closed. I and my constituents are not at all happy about that. When I telephoned the theatre's support group, I was told that the theatre's board has been seeking bids to run the theatre, either as a package or in small, franchised pieces. The latter option would involve, for example, running the bar as a separate business.

  293
  Apparently, the decision is to go for one company to run the lot. Several companies have been spoken to, and an announcement of which will run the theatre will be made. However, the support group feels that time to organise the Christmas pantomime—which I understand will be entitled "The Labour Government Since I May 1997"—is running short. However, lottery officials are to visit my constituency, and all interested parties can turn up to find out whether extra money will be available. I hope that I will soon be able to report that the Palace theatre has reopened.
  My third point concerns the organisation representing the combined Irish regiments. At my last constituency surgery, a very important person in that organisation came to see me. I shall not name him, as he does not want any publicity, but the April edition of that organisation's journal stated:
  "The M.O.D. has decided to seek the sale of the Duke of York's Headquarters which is government property and … within a year or two the Regiment's period here, begun in 1912, may come to an end."
  It adds that the council of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea—"and others"—is entirely opposed to the sale. I have received a letter stating that
  "this unique and historic Headquarters is home to a number of famous London Territorial Army Units, some of which have been there since the turn of the century, and have gone off to Two World Wars from there.
  To allow the site to be sold, just to realise"—
  money—
  "from commercial developers, would be an act of extreme folly and would deal a tremendous blow to the morale of the Territorial Army. The start-up costs of transferring Units out of the Headquarters to smaller, overcrowded premises should be seriously considered and this move out will certainly have a serious effect on the recruiting and retention of TA soldiers."
  This is a serious matter. I am horrified to learn that, so far, two rooms in north London have been offered as a replacement for the headquarters. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those soldiers. I know that the Government are trying to save money, by redeploying forces and selling off property, but this treatment is appalling. I hope that the Government will do something about the problem. If they cannot, perhaps a wealthy benefactor exists locally who will save the property.
  My fourth point has to do with the Consumers Association. At a splendid reception here, the association's key message was that the
  "right to secure adequate redress in cases of maladministration or inadequate service provision has long been regarded as a key consumer principle."
  As Members of Parliament, we are used to people coming to us with all manner of complaints. I naively hoped that the citizens charter would be a cheap way to get redress for such complaints, as it costs a huge amount of money to have recourse to law. People groan when the working classes are mentioned, but the question of redress is very important for those on low incomes. They want to know to whom they can complain when discussions with the supplier, institution or body involved fail.
  I support the Consumers Association, which considers that a comprehensive list should be available to the general public that would include the names of the
  294
  relevant ombudsmen. Such a list should be available in post offices, libraries, local authority offices and so on. To their credit, many companies already give such information to customers, but not all do. All utilities and public services should be included in such a list. The feedback would benefit consumers and suppliers, and reduce considerably the work load of Members of Parliament. Technically, after 1 May 1997, hon. Members have been very enthusiastic about being here, but now it seems that they cannot wait to get away.
  My fifth point concerns the disabled. I shall speak not about the shambles on the Government Benches last week that led to the Government's majority being reduced to 40, but about the problems caused by the requirement for medical examinations. I am sick to death of people who are clearly unwell coming to my surgery and complaining about the medicals that they have to undergo. They are humiliated by the experience, and often lose their benefits.
  I am not a doctor—there are any number of doctors among all the other experts in the House—but any fool could see that the people who come to me are unfit and clearly suffer from a range of disabilities, such as ME. They are not fiddling the benefits system.
  Mr. David Hanson: The Conservative Government set up the system.
  Mr. Amess: The Government Whip, from a sedentary position, says that the previous Conservative Government are to blame, but, for more than two years, we have had a Labour Government who said that everything would be different. If the Government do not like the present system, they can forget all that hogwash about working with the amounts of money already committed and change the system.
  My constituents believe that the Government are trying to save money by reducing benefits to the disabled. I am beginning to think that they are right. I am not at all happy that, when my anxious constituents undergo a so-called medical—from doctors whom I shall not name—which at best is perfunctory, they then stand to lose all their benefits at the subsequent tribunal. I hope that the Minister will try to do something to help, as my constituents are not trying to con money out of the system.
  My final point is really urgent, and I hope that the Minister will try to respond to it. Yesterday, a distressed constituent, Mrs. Kim Ansell, telephoned my office. Her husband, Barry Swain, a self-employed lorry driver, owns his own truck and at present is in prison in France, awaiting a hearing on 28 May. Barry and Mrs. Ansell took the truck to Lille two weeks ago, acting on behalf of a shipping company for which they usually drive. The company had asked them to pick up the trailer and load of another trucker who had been arrested. The trailer was at the Lille police station.
  When they arrived, they were led into the back of the police station. Unbelievably, Mrs. Ansell was stripped and intimately searched by a young female student in front of two male officers. Her husband Barry was not stripped or searched. Both were questioned at intervals of three hours. They were told that the police were looking for stolen or forged credit cards. I know that there are always two sides to a story, but I have not had time to get the other side. I hope that the Minister will do that.
  As a result of the investigations, Mr. Swain is being held in prison. Mrs. Ansell was released, and is now back in England. Her husband Barry has not been arrested but

  295
  is being held. She has not seen him since, and she has not been allowed to speak to him by telephone. She has been told that if she wants to go to France to visit her husband she must send her passport, birth and marriage certificates to France, which will be reviewed by the judge dealing with the case, Judge Madame Stella, who will decide whether she can see him. This is the Common Market for goodness sake.
  While Mr. Swain and Mrs. Ansell were being questioned, they were told that a number of drivers are being held on remand in France in connection with credit card fraud, and that one of them had named Mr. Swain as being involved. They were shown photographs, but neither of them had seen any of the men before. Barry was not found to have credit cards on his person; nor was he on any security film with credit cards. They were told that the main culprit had been arrested in England on six charges, but was out on bail and had gone to France and was arrested. I do not think that I should name that person.
  Mrs. Ansell was upset about the nature of the questioning. The subject of the death of her son was raised. He died in Scotland some years ago, and she wonders how the police knew about that. The main point that I should like the Minister kindly to help with is the length of time it took the British consul to visit Mr. Swain and the lack of legal representation. Mrs. Ansell contacted the consul on 17 May and was told that she would have to get an appointment for the visit. The consul still has not seen Mr. Swain, but apparently may visit him on 27 May.
  This is a serious matter, and I should be very grateful if, before the House adjourns, the Minister could get some help for my constituent.
  11.22 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: These Adjournment debates are popularly referred to as consisting of short speeches, so I shall keep my contribution brief. I have three items to raise.
  First, constituents are facing problems obtaining passports. We are coming to the recess, and some hon. Members may be lucky enough to be popping overseas for a short while. Many of our constituents are having considerable problems obtaining passports so that they can go on holiday. My constituents use the Liverpool passport office, and it is claimed that passports are sometimes sent out but have not been received, so duplicate copies must be sent and that involves much organisation. Some constituents have waited 10 weeks or more: their cheques have been cashed, but they have not received their passports. There is a last-minute panic, and finally the matter is brought to the attention of their Member of Parliament and arrangements must be made so that those constituents can obtain passports.
  People can obtain a passport quickly by going to a post office and paying £3.20 under what is termed a partnership scheme. Whether there should be such a scheme when the general waiting list for passports is not moving is debatable, but such a system should be operated properly.
  I had a case of constituents who made use of the post office facility on 28 April. As it is supposed to take 10 days to receive a passport, they should have received theirs on 8 May. They had not received them by 19 May and were due to leave for their holiday on 20 May. When the chief executive's office of the UK Passport Agency
  296
  was contacted, arrangements were made to post the passports that day so that my constituents would receive them in time to go on holiday. A check was made of whether they had received them. They had not, so a courier had to be sent from Liverpool to north-east Derbyshire. The courier left late, and arrangements were made by telephone that one of the relatives of the people concerned would go to junction 29 of the motorway to meet the courier. Meanwhile, a taxi was waiting to take my constituents to the airport. They managed it, but that shows the serious state of affairs.
  I dealt with another case yesterday. I contacted the chief executive's office, and was told that it was also having difficulty contacting the Liverpool passport office and was obliged to send material by fax. We are checking whether the people concerned receive their passports in time. This is a serious matter, and needs to be dealt with, given that the recess is approaching. I hope that the appropriate Department will take my comments on board, and that improvements will be made so that constituents are not placed in that position.
  The second problem that I want to mention concerns an issue that I have already raised in another Adjournment debate. It is about the payment of jobseeker's allowance when a firm goes into receivership. This matter was brought to my attention by the collapse on 22 April of Bryan Donkin Foundry Limited at Renishaw in my constituency. So far, 160 out of a work force of 180 have been sacked. They were entitled to moneys from their ex-employer when the receivers moved in, but must wait for the redundancy arrangements to be worked out. According to a parliamentary answer that process takes nine weeks on average.
  In the meantime, those sacked workers are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance and must be dealt with through income support, which is means-tested. They are from my constituency or neighbouring areas. Out of the 160, only 10 per cent. or so receive income support, because other income coming into the family is taken into account. In one case, the claimant does not receive any payment because of his wife's disability benefit.
  The Government are well aware of this problem. I wrote to the Department for Education and Employment immediately, and I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate. I received a letter from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, which says:
  "As things stand … any notice payment due must be taken into account in calculating JSA during the notice period, even though it has not yet been actually paid. The Department of Social Security, rather than this Department, have the lead responsibility for this area of JSA policy. They are considering the matter in conjunction with DTI, but I understand that the issues involved are proving complex."
  I am not sure what the great complexities are, but this matter requires three Departments to co-ordinate their activities.
  Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the injustice is even greater, because the longer the individual's service with the firm and the greater the redundancy payment, the longer he will be denied support from the state system?
  Mr. Barnes: As the average period to sort out the redundancy payment is nine weeks, and the payment

  297
  depends on the number of years of service, the people who have waited nine weeks or more are the most seriously affected by this problem.
  The Minister's letter goes on to say:
  "There are also practical difficulties—for example, surrounding the early identification of whether or not an employer is insolvent."
  A distinction is made between a firm that goes into receivership, which is the case with Bryan Donkin, and one that becomes insolvent. The letter also says:
  "DSS are unable to say when the work will be completed, but I am assured that efforts are being made to conclude the matter as quickly as possible."
  If the relevant period is nine weeks, my constituents are halfway through it. I hope that the matter will be resolved in time, but it seems obvious to me that it will not be, and I feel that something must be done on my constituents' behalf.
  Finally, I want to say something about Yugoslavia and the NATO bombing. I have always supported the bombing of military targets, and I accept that some civilians are bound to be caught up in that and that there will be unfortunate accidents. However, I feel that the number of civilians who are being killed and injured, and whose lives are being disrupted in what is allegedly not an all-out war, is excessive, as is the number of errors. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has argued in favour of proportionality, and I think that what she says should be seriously considered.
  It should be possible to make a reasonable distinction between military and civilian targets. Military targets are military hardware and troops; civilian targets—which, obviously, should be avoided—include schools, hospitals, health care centres, housing estates, monasteries and religious shrines. A number of those have been hit, it is claimed by accident. But in which class should we place bridges, railway stations, civilian airports, public institutions, factories, agricultural complexes and telecommunications facilities? Some of those might be said to have military links, but most are basically civilian, and often civilians will be hurt the most when they are attacked. In a number of cases, civilians are being hit while military targets are merely suffering collateral damage.
  The NATO high command strikes me as both inept—in terms of the number of accidents that have occurred, and to which it has admitted—and cavalier in its attempt to distinguish between civilian military targets. I hope that our Government will take account of the pressure on NATO to stick to what a number of us signed up to at the outset: an attack on military targets, rather than on the Yugoslavian population.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I fear that I cannot emulate the grand tour of Southend, West to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) treated us earlier, as he customarily does. I shall limit myself to a single subject.
  I am pleased to bring the House what I consider to be very good news of an excellent project in my constituency called First Check Point, which is proving to be
  298
  dramatically successful in combating the menace of cowboy builders. That is entirely due to the tremendous work of one Mrs. Hazel Jones, who set up the project and initially ran it almost single-handed.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will have dealt with constituency cases involving cowboy builders. Home owners are told that a job urgently needs to be done before further costly damage is caused; builders turn up, invited or uninvited; the resulting charges may bear no relation to the cost of the job, or the time that it takes. Elderly people in particular are faced with myriad quotations for larger jobs especially, having no idea what the cost should be or how well qualified the workman who takes on the labour will prove to be.
  Some unscrupulous builders take deposits and then abscond. Smaller jobs that would not be profitable for reputable traders are not taken on, and the home owner is left to the mercy of smaller, less scrupulous traders. When doing one job, a builder may create faults that require a second, more expensive job. Builders may start the work although their quotation has not been accepted, or they may make the job out to be much bigger than it is by not doing the minimum work required to deal with the problem. They may take on work that is beyond their capabilities, or they may do the work in a hurry, which results in a poor standard of workmanship. Some use the wrong materials in order to save costs; others may have too many projects on the go at the same time and consequently move from one job to another, spending only a short time on each and disrupting the householder for far longer than is necessary. Such cases lead to what Mrs. Jones describes as "builderphobia".
  Let me give some examples from my constituency. A female householder who heard water running in her loft telephoned a plumber—a member of the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers—whose name she had found in Yellow Pages. The plumber visited the attic, and reported that the whole system needed replacing—and that if the householder did not have the work done, she would be replacing the ceilings. The price quoted was some £800. A CORGI-registered plumber from First Check Point then visited, and found that all that was required was replacement of the ballcock at a cost of £35, which meant a saving of £765.
  An elderly female householder needed the rotten woodwork around her garage door replacing. She asked for two quotations: one was for £2,340, and the other for £1,430. Both included the cost of replacing the whole garage roof. First Check Point sent a surveyor, who found that all that needed to be replaced was the woodwork surrounding the garage door and the lead flashing above it. The roof was not damaged in any way, and no part of it was leaking. The quotations were for £595 and £650 respectively. I am sure that hon. Members could give many other examples.
  I know that the Government are aware of the problem. Last year the Department of Trade and Industry produced a welcome consultation paper entitled "Combating Cowboy Builders", and various working parties are taking action. First Check Point, however, has already achieved dramatic results.
  A year ago, a little lady in her 60s came to my surgery. She had a curious mid-Atlantic accent, and wore a large fur coat. Her name was Hazel Jones. She brought with her many ideas from the United States, where she had spent

  299
  a lot of time in industry and the voluntary sector, working on federal housing projects with, in particular, elderly people. She said that she needed mental stimulation, and something to keep her busy.
  Subsequently, last October, Hazel Jones, the mayor of Worthing and I—along with others—launched First Check Point. It was initially funded by Hazel herself and a local builder, who was keen to help because cowboy builders give the reputable trade a bad name. The project was tied in with local voluntary organisations and the police. A team of retired volunteers manned the telephones in the office to which part of Mrs. Jones's house had been converted, and a team of semi-retired professionals came on board to give quotations and assess what work needed to be done.
  First Check Point works like this. Someone needing a job, big or small, to be done telephones the organisation. An approved volunteer—all those involved have at least 40 years' building experience—visits the property, lists the items of work that need to be done and specifies the type of trader who will be required. There is then a choice of two schemes. For small jobs, there is the approved handyman scheme, involving a list of skilled tradesmen, usually semi-retired, who want the odd one or two days' work a week. They are closely vetted. They must prove that they live locally, they must have at least three references in relation to jobs done in the past, and they must have no police record. The work is awarded on the basis that they have indemnity insurance of at least £1 million. Those smaller jobs may be electrical or they may involve plumbing, roofing or carpentry.
  Larger jobs are dealt with through the approved trader scheme, which involves a list of approved local traders with proven track records and references from people who are prepared to guarantee their work. Two or three appropriate tradesmen will be asked to give quotations, all of which must be itemised and signed by both builder and householder.
  Both lists are reviewed regularly, and householders who have had a job done are required to answer a questionnaire about the quality of the workmanship. First Check Point will monitor the work to ensure that it is done properly; if it is not, First Check Point will bring back the builder to ensure that it is done to the required standard.
  The scheme was originally funded voluntarily, with help from Worthing council grants and charities such as New Horizons—which was so impressed by the quality of the scheme that it doubled its initial donation. Following the mushrooming of the scheme, First Check Point now levies a 5 per cent. commission on approved tradesmen, and a commission of £5 per day of work on approved handymen. There are no direct costs to the customer.
  I mention the scheme because it has been spectacularly successful. Earlier in the month, we reached the mark of 1,000 jobs done since 1 January: in the space of just four months, more than 1,000 people have been helped with jobs. There has been a torrent of thank you letters, and letters of congratulation saying, "I do not know how anyone could go to Yellow Pages or any other local trading body without coming to you first because the scheme is so successful."
  The scheme now covers the area from Brighton to Littlehampton and is under great pressure to expand. Age Concern is sending some of its national officers to
  300
  consider the scheme seriously, with a view to helping to establish pilot schemes in other parts of the country. The National Neighbourhood Watch Association is coming on board because First Check Point is a useful scheme to combat crime as well. It could deter unscrupulous traders who knock on the doors of little old ladies to offer their services, but who may have ulterior motives. The local neighbourhood watch has been helping to distribute window stickers that are based on neighbourhood watch window stickers, but which have First Check Point on them, thereby deterring cowboy builders from trying to take advantage of people who need work to be done.
  I said earlier that the Government's work on cowboy builders is welcome, but the consultation paper addresses only the quality of the builders' workmanship. It deals only with national projects, but the success of First Check Point has been the local supervision and the local factor: the capacity of local people to monitor the standard of the work and to award a sort of kite mark. In addition, the national lists proposed in the consultation on cowboy builders would not include the small firm—the two or three-person family firms that are the lifeblood of First Check Point.
  First Check Point works very well. It works largely because of the absolute dedication of Mrs. Hazel Jones and the people who work with her, such as Norman Tilley, who has been on board from the start. They would be the first to admit that it is not perfect, but it is simple, it addresses the problems that have been experienced and gives the public, particularly the elderly, someone to turn to for objective advice.
  The scheme is self-funding; it does not rely on any public money. Its purpose is also preventive because it aims to stop problems happening in the first place, rather than to solve them once they have occurred.
  I hope that, by my mentioning the project today, other hon. Members may gain something from the experiences of what is a simple, but effective scheme for their own constituencies. I should be happy to provide information. However, I fear that, if they are looking to set up a similar scheme in their constituency, many will be hard pressed to find their own version of Mrs. Hazel Jones.
  11.43 am
  Ms Julia Drown: I take this opportunity to add my support to hon. Members who have voiced their support for the building society sector. The continuing mutual status of building societies is an essential part of retaining competition in the financial services sector. It is vital for savers and investors that we continue to have competition in that sector.
  The other issue that I should like to raise has not been raised yet, but dominates my postbag: the technology of genetic modification and its impact on the safety of food and the environment. The Government's announcement just last week of measures to make the vetting and monitoring processes for genetically modified foods even more rigorous are welcome, but more needs to be done to reassure the public continually and to make them feel confident about the Government's approach.
  My constituents may raise the issue more than others because we have a GM crop trial site in a neighbouring constituency, which understandably raises the profile of the issue. Many of my constituents have written to me

  301
  about their concerns on both the local and national situations. They want to be assured that their health and the environment are protected.
  My constituents want to be sure that trials are taking place scientifically, with a proper base line of information established. They want monitoring of all the environmental implications—for example, how bees carrying the crop for miles will affect other crops—and of what happens to scatterings of the crop as it is carried on trucks in and out of the area.
  My constituents are naturally uncertain about the implications of such a site because the information that they receive via the press is not consistent. While the Government seek to allay concerns and, rightly, to play down some of the more scaremongering claims, they and the companies involved are not yet taking on all the justified concerns from our constituents, many of which are backed by scientific experts who contest the Government's and companies' statements of reassurance.
  I accept that many of the discussions in the sector are technical, but that should not be an excuse for blinding the public with science. It is part of scientists' job to make their results understandable to lay people, particularly when so many may be affected by them, as in the case of GM crops. We do not need to be drowned in detail to get to the important issues around GM crops. However, the complexity may mean that we need more time to debate the matter when we return after the break.
  I recognise that a major problem in the sector is that no one can make categorical claims for or against the safety of GM crops and foods because, at this stage, no one really knows. We also need to recognise that, even when more information is available, we will still be unable to expect categorical claims either proving or disproving the safety of GM foods. We will instead be faced with probabilities and risk assessments.
  For example, we will be told that X per cent. of a GM crop will be blown Y metres beyond the field boundary in normal winds and that more severe winds will carry crops further. We will be told to expect that, in so many years of a century, there will be those more severe winds; so I accept that categorical claims, one way or another, will be difficult.
  I can see that Ministers want to be able to say that GM crops are totally safe, but they cannot and they recognise that. They have referred to "justified concerns" about GM crops and to the "risk of cross-pollination". They have even acknowledged
  "a small, but finite, chance that unprocessed maize as an animal feed stuff could lead to a transfer of antibiotic resistance."
  They have recognised also that
  "a number of research studies have indicated potential interference with ecological systems from GM crops, with varying degrees of permanence".
  Those responses accept the lack of certainty and the current gaps in knowledge, yet that lack of certainty does not always come across to the public.
  My constituents tend to think that the Government have not accepted that lack of certainty. They believe that the Government have no concerns whatever about the safety and impact of GM organisms. The inconsistency in messages being received will have to be resolved if the public are to gain confidence in the Government's stance on what is an important issue.
  302
  I need to stress that it is not only an issue of responsibility for the Government. The companies involved also need to take consumers' views more seriously. In the case of the trial site in my neighbouring constituency, the press notices did not go out in the local paper until after the seeds had been planted. Companies will need to do much better than that if they are to gain the confidence of consumers.
  I suggest a number of ways in which the Government should be reviewing and refining their approach to GM crops and foods. First, they need to convince the public, as they have done with the risks of BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—that, if there is even the smallest doubt about the safety of GM technology and its possible long-term consequences, steps will be taken to protect the public and our environment, whatever the cost in terms of a reduced contribution by biotechnology companies to the United Kingdom economy.
  Secondly, there is the question of why and whether we need GM foods at all. That simple question does not seem to feature enough in debates on the GM issue. Where is the evidence that it is impractical to use traditional crops or organic fanning methods to meet food needs in future?
  Some proponents of GM technology say that GM crops will help the environment by reducing the use of pesticides. However, some GM crops would encourage the use of pesticides. Encouraging organic agriculture, rather than GM agriculture, would much more directly and reliably address the problem of the over-use of pesticides.
  Although the Government have greatly increased support for organic farming, yet more could be done. Last year, they spent £1.7 million on research into organic farming, but £52 million on agricultural biotechnology research. An adjustment in that ratio could have a huge impact on organic farming.
  I have in my constituency one of the most successful organic farms in England. Its success shows that there is a clear and increasing market for organic food. Organic food is sometimes described as a niche market; but on current attitudes, it seems more likely than GM food to become a mainstream market.
  Organic farms are also more labour intensive, employing more people, and thereby meeting another Government objective. Therefore, surely development of organic food should be a higher priority than development of GM food.
  I realise that some GM food farmers and companies assert that, in time, GM foods will be accepted, particularly once they bring food prices down. Currently, however, consumers seem equally concerned about the risks of GM foods. In short, the public are not yet convinced of the need for GM foods.
  Thirdly, we should consider the wider benefits that GM technology may bring to health care. Undoubtedly, the technology has huge potential in the health sphere. We may have to understand more about GM technology in plants before we are able to understand how it will affect animals and humans. However, that is not a justification for planting GM crops; it is a justification for continuing genetic research in laboratories.
  Fourthly, the Government could allay public concerns and ensure properly conducted development—if there is to be development—of GM crops by addressing the issue

  303
  of GM trial site management. Currently, neither the Government nor the companies involved clearly state the objectives of each trial, or what results will lead to what actions.
  I should like to be able to assure my constituents that if, for example, it is demonstrated at a trial site that the local bird population has decreased by a certain proportion, we shall not allow commercial planting of that GM crop. Such a criterion would give the public the type of assurance that they need. They could watch the trials being openly assessed against predefined criteria.
  Fifthly, in addressing many of the issues of GM crops, we have to work with our partners in Europe, and lead our European partners in ensuring that we all take a cautious approach to the matter. European Community directive 90/220/EEC is clearly a matter of concern, as it provides that once a GM crop receives marketing consent under the directive, the consent will apply across all member states, and there will be no automatic requirement to notify the authorities either of where the crop is grown or of the size of the area covered.
  I hope that our Government will be urging reform of the directive, so that—in the interests of freedom of information, transparency and accountability—the relevant authorities will have to be notified in advance of plans to grow GM crops commercially in a given area.
  The directive makes the European Economic Community sound as if it is very much in favour of GM foods—but that line is not taken by all its members. The Greek Government have informally called for a Europewide moratorium on planting GM crops, but that call has not received support. However, rumour has it that, at the European Environment Council on 24 June, the Greek Government will again state their wish for a Europewide moratorium—thereby providing another reason why more British parliamentary time should be set aside to discuss the issues.
  I am sure that many of our parliamentarians would like to try to influence the British position on the proposal. Many of my constituents favour the Government supporting such a moratorium until more information on GM crops is available.
  Sixthly, the Government have to tackle very directly the fears about antibiotic marker genes. Sir Robert May, chief scientific adviser to the Government, has stated:
  "Often marker genes in GM plants are antibiotic resistant, so that there is a risk that humans could acquire these antibiotic genes from their food, thus accelerating the already existing, and very troublesome, world problem of increasing resistance to today's antibiotics".
  The European Parliament has been very helpful on the issue, approving an amendment to the EEC directive on GM organisms, which states that GMOs
  "must not contain any antibiotic-resistant genes or traces of toxic or pathogenic substances".
  However, the amended directive will not take effect unless it is adopted by member Governments.
  Austria and Luxembourg have both imposed bans on an antibiotic-resistant gene crop. Our Government should ban all GM organisms that have been modified to have antibiotic-resistant genes or traces of toxic or pathogenic substances.
  We have made significant progress on labelling—particularly by contrast with the previous Government's complete inertia on the matter. However, there are
  304
  still concerns. Products containing GM derivatives, and products that were processed with GM ingredients but do not ultimately contain those ingredients, are not necessarily labelled as GM products. However, consumers who object to GM technology should be able to choose not to buy or support the manufacture of those products.
  The absence of labelling on GM animal feed is another concern, which is reminiscent of farmers' worries over BSE. If we are truly to uphold and safeguard consumer choice, labelling must be comprehensive.
  The Government could encourage developing countries that wish to be entirely free of GM crops to become so, thereby ensuring greater consumer choice. Such a decision could be a real bonus for those countries, and ensure that they not only have a market for their products, but benefit British consumers.
  Segregation is the final issue. Although segregation may incur extra costs, those costs are a consequence of the new technology. The cost of segregation should, therefore, be placed on the costs of GM foods themselves. If segregation makes GM foods too expensive, we shall again have to ask why the products are being produced.
  I should like the Government to investigate how we might ensure that companies promoting GM technology take full responsibility for any future health or environmental damage caused by GM foods. Although I realise that that may raise even more issues, it also demonstrates the need for more parliamentary time to be allocated to debate this important subject.
  11.56 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The situation in the Balkans is so dire, and the suffering of the Kosovars so abject, that I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for raising issues that have I raised before, in debates on 19 April and 18 May.
  In the first debate, I said:
  "This is not a phoney war. I use the word 'war' advisedly although the Foreign Secretary does not like it. It is certainly a war for the people of Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia and for the aircrew of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, who have now joined the conflict."—[Official Report, 19 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 635.]
  I said then, and say again, that a declared state of war is important to ensure that our aircrew have the protection of the Geneva convention if they are taken prisoner. I made it clear then, and make it clear again today, that I support the air campaign as a necessary prerequisite for the liberation of Kosovo from the occupying Serb forces. But the Government really must ensure that their war aims are clearly defined and spelled out properly, both to the House and to the British public.
  During the Falklands war, I was the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence, and I recall how assiduous John Nott was in making statements to the House at every stage of the conflict, even late at night, and even when the news was at its worst. Perhaps it was even more necessary that the news should be broken early if it was bad, when a ship went down or some other disaster befell our forces, so that their morale, and that of the British public, should be sustained.
  I recall, too, the totally trustworthy Mr. McDonald of the Ministry of Defence, who was almost daily on our television screens, informing the British public of the objectives of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and of

  305
  the sorties flown, the numbers of Argentine and British aircraft shot down, the outcome of naval engagements at sea, and the progress of the land campaign as it yomped its arduous way towards Port Stanley. There were no concessions to sentimentality, and no regrets about what was being done, but only a determination to win which was continually communicated to the British public. We shall need their full support in the very difficult days ahead.
  By contrast, the NATO spokesman, Mr. Shea, seems always to be in apologetic mode, coming on television screens to apologise for the sad bombing errors committed, but never emphasising sufficiently the undoubted successes of our British armed forces and NATO forces—successes which outnumber the tragic errors.
  I should add that it would be helpful if the Ministry of Defence had senior Royal Air Force officers, preferably with recent operational experience, as spokesmen while the air war predominates, to explain the capabilities and limitations of modern airborne weapons systems, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the air offensive as the essential prerequisite to the physical removal of Serb forces from Kosovo. Once troops are inserted into the province of Kosovo, the spokesmen should be from the Army, but, for the time being, the British public need a better explanation of the air war.
  Today, NATO is due to increase its military deployment in Macedonia and Albania by one third, to 48,000. How I wish that we had more Gurkhas, more paratroops, more reserves and more helicopters, but we are going to have to make do with what we have. We have to win. Military men understand that only infantry can hold ground. Kosovo is difficult territory for armour and a multitude of helicopters will be required. The military appreciate the challenges ahead of air supply and fighting off the partisan attacks for which the Yugoslav army has trained assiduously for two generations. So effective was that training that the USSR was dissuaded from invading Yugoslavia while Tito was in power. To this day, we have kept Russia out of the Balkans.
  NATO needs all the friends it can get to take the war to the enemy. That must mean the establishment of a NATO military mission to the Kosovo Liberation Army. In the April debate, I also advocated the arming and training of the KLA.
  Beyond the victory that NATO must achieve if Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia are to be safe from Serbian aggression, NATO must win the peace. A messy, inglorious compromise would be a recipe for further conflict—hence the need for clear political aims. They should not be dictated by Russia, which we have always successfully kept out of the Balkans, or by a desire to appease the pusillanimous tendencies of the weakest members of the NATO alliance. They should be decided by the Kosovar people, freely expressing their sovereign political will entirely democratically through the exercise of a universal adult franchise via the ballot box.
  Regrettably, Her Majesty's Government have set their face against self-determination for Kosovo. I recognise that the human rights of the Serb minority will have to be safeguarded in Kosovo, but the Yugoslav federation as a
  306
  legitimate polity is dead and should not be resurrected by NATO. Its disintegration is by no means complete, but the establishment of a free, democratic, independent Kosovo is the first step towards a better system of security for the Balkans. Beyond that, perhaps the secession and full independence of Montenegro might ensue.
  I urge the Government to explain at every stage the clear objectives for which this bloody and difficult war is being fought. It is the vilest conflict that we have known in our continent since the second world war. It will get harder rather than easier. I hope that we have the courage to see it through. The Kosovars deserve nothing less. They have suffered enough already.
  12.4 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had 14 speeches since 9.30 am and the debate has lived up to the tradition of recess Adjournment debates. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I begin by referring to someone who is not here. I have missed seeing the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his accustomed place. I have attended most of these Adjournment debates over the past 29 years and have replied to every one over the past two years. On almost every occasion, the hon. Gentleman has been present and has frequently taken part in his inimitable way. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will convey the greetings of the House to his hon. Friend, whom we hope to see back in full health and vigour after the recess.
  The debate began with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is a great authority on football. He talked about a subject on which I have no personal expertise—the issuing of permits for foreign footballers to play in this country. He seemed to make a powerful, logical plea and I hope that Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment will respond positively. However, I could not help feeling a little nostalgic sadness as the hon. Gentleman spoke about the vast sums of money. I am one of those who feel that sport has been rather ruined by money. I regret the passing of the days when local teams were local teams. As a boy in the early 1950s, I used to go and watch Grimsby Town. All the players came from the area and it was a true local team, as were most others. I greatly regret that money has intruded so much that in some famous teams almost none of the players is eligible to play for this country.
  We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the way in which certain too trusting, perhaps even gullible, pensioners had been misled by those selling home income plans. She spoke movingly of the distress that is caused, even going to the extent of naming an individual, making proper use of parliamentary privilege. I hope that her plea will be heeded in all the appropriate quarters. I hope, in particular, that those who have charge of our building societies will have regard to what she said.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) began with a brief but eloquent and moving tribute to the late Derek Fatchett. I associate myself with what he said—as I am sure does every hon. Member present—about a colleague who will be much missed for many years. I hope that when he goes home to Leeds this weekend he will convey those views to the family of Derek Fatchett.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the terrible problems caused to young women who are subjected to the appalling physical and mental brutality of pimps. He made

  307
  a plea for summary justice so that people can be tried for offences that it is generally known they have committed. That is too complex a subject to deal with in proper detail in a mere moment in responding to this debate, but I hope that the Law Officers heed what he said and that we may see some action.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke of a building society as Macclesfield's own. I thought that he was Macclesfield's own—he certainly has been for the past 28 years in this House. Nobody has spoken up more vigorously for their constituents over those years. This morning, he made a plea for the improvement of the A523 and the A6, referring to the problems that would be caused by the opening of a second runway at Manchester airport and the traffic that the Commonwealth games would bring. For good measure, he might also have talked about the world cup coming here in 2006. I hope that Transport Ministers will respond.
  My hon. Friend also made a plea for the East Cheshire NHS trust to be maintained, and talked about wanting to protect the Cheshire building society—Macclesfield's own—from the predatory actions of get-rich-quick merchants. I have great sympathy with that point.
  The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who has become a regular at these debates, raised a constituency matter. I cannot begin to have any expertise on the Essex structure plan, but I know from personal experience the threats of urban encroachment in lovely rural areas. I can assure him that there are lovely rural areas in South Staffordshire as I well know there are in Essex. I sincerely hope that his campaign for the green belt will be heeded. I could not help but think of the immortal remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister a few months ago when he said, "The green belt is a Labour achievement and we shall build upon it." I hope that he will, but in the right sense.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) expressed his support for building societies and echoed almost to the word what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said. He spoke with understandable consternation about the multi-modal study for the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. What awful gobbledegook we are subjected to these days! May his bringing that appalling mouthful to the attention of the House teach those a lesson who really ought to know about plain English.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who has the longest-sounding constituency, made the longest speech of the morning, although he did warn us he would. I must be kind to him because when he was briefly here in another incarnation, he was my pair at a time when I desperately needed one, so the gratitude that he then inspired in me will not easily evaporate. He seemed to be speaking from rather over-copious notes when he gave us a sort of essay on the demographic profile of the north-east—perhaps the north-east quadrant of Middlesbrough.
  We all have problems with the revenue support grant and the standard spending assessment and it was right that the hon. Gentleman should bring these matters to the House. Just as I was longing for an eclipse, lo and behold my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) talked about one. At that point, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East seemed to shuffle away quite a lot of the speech that he had prepared.
  308
  In an entirely non-partisan, non-party political way, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about the eclipse in Cornwall. He explained that bookings were down and that Cornwall could easily cope with ordinary tourism. No wonderful part of England could have had a better and less partisan advocate than my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who uncharacteristically is not in his place, talked about the Kosovo crisis. He expressed misgivings about sending in ground troops and expressed a need for the House to debate a substantive motion. As the Leader of the House has made plain on a number of occasions, there is no recent precedent for a debate on the conflict on a substantive motion because of the dangers that that can pose to those who are upholding our country's honour and integrity. I shall say no more, as the hon. Gentleman is not here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised no fewer than seven issues. I am most grateful to him for his plug for the banquet that I am organising in Westminster Hall on 1 July. I believe that there are about 10 tickets left and applications will be received later. I hope that it will be yet another wonderful event in the history of that great hall, which encapsulates the history of our nation.
  My hon. Friend then talked about a slightly less illustrious building—the Palace theatre. His speech was a bit like "The Archers". We look forward to a new episode on the Palace theatre every time we have one of these Adjournment debates. If it is dark in August, I suggest that, in preparation for the winter pantomime, my hon. Friend hold nightly public meetings there and entertain his constituents in the way that he entertains us here. That would be a lovely curtain raiser for the pantomime about which he told us—in which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will be playing Widow Twankey.
  My hon. Friend also talked about the need for proper consumer protection, about the indignity to which disabled people are sometimes put by medical examinations, and about his constituent, who is in prison in France. That was a deeply disturbing tale.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who regularly contributes to these debates, talked about the problems at the passport office in Liverpool. We all know about them. He also spoke of the difficulties faced by those who are made redundant by firms that then go into liquidation. He then referred to Kosovo and the need for very careful targeting, and expressed some misgivings about recent events.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) gave a splendid testimonial to Mrs. Hazel Jones, who set up the First Check Point organisation to deal with cowboy builders. It is obviously a marvellous initiative which I hope will be emulated in all parts of the country.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke with great knowledge about genetically modified food and asked the central question: why do we need it? I hope that, in the weeks ahead, Ministers will provide detailed answers to that question above all and to the other questions that she legitimately raised.
  Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made some extremely realistic comments about the conflict in the Balkans. He gave the Government strong support. This

  309
  gives me a chance to return to the speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who has now resumed his seat. He and I have differed on the issue for many years, although I respect his integrity. My own views are closer to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who, at the end of his speech, said that NATO must win and that we need a realistic assessment, with facts being put daily before the people in a convincing way that instils confidence in our troops. That must be taken very much to heart.
  We have had an interesting, wide-ranging debate. I am delighted to have had the chance briefly to refer to every speech and I hope that I have kept my part of the bargain by sitting down now and allowing the Minister to respond.
  12.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): It has indeed been a varied, interesting, stimulating and sometimes vigorous debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the opportunity to argue for their constituencies, for local interest groups and at times for individuals. In addition, some big themes have been raised. A particular theme that permeated several speeches was the conflicting interests involved in encouraging development, transport and industry and sustaining and enhancing the environment.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) talked about the development of wind farms. I am very keen on the idea and I assure him that the Government will reach their 10 per cent. target on renewables by 2010. However, wind farms have a downside, particularly in an attractive landscape. Those who advocate wind farms need to remember that a wind farm that could produce as much electricity as a conventional coal power station, depending on wind speed and other factors, would have to be the size of Greater Manchester.
  Some hard issues were raised by the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who talked about the problems of inner cities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke of the balance between developing and protecting the environment in the context of genetically modified food. That was a key theme in the debate.
  The second key theme this morning, which is extremely important, is the conflict in Kosovo. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will know that there will be yet another statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is important that, as the House adjourns for the recess, hon. Members should be kept up to date with developments. He asked what would happen during the vacation. If significant events take place, he can be sure that there will be calls for Parliament to be recalled, and I can assure him that they will be considered seriously. It has been important to keep the House up to date with developments, and there has been a statement or a debate roughly every fortnight.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out that there was a need not just to keep the House involved, but to talk to the wider public about our aims and whether they are being achieved; and about the real difficulties.
  310
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow spoke of the dangers of ground troops, and he will know that that matter is being looked at closely. He will know also that the issue of precedents for debates in the House has been considered on a number of occasions and, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, precedence is with us, not my hon. Friend, on this matter.
  I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), and I was pleased that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked strongly in favour of the benefits of mutuals. We must let mutual building societies speak for themselves and demonstrate—as I think they can—in a market economy that their interest rates are lower than those organisations have converted to banks.
  We must get the message across to members of the mutuals, because they must have the right to decide on the future. It may well be that the rules are not right at the moment, and I have raised that issue in the past. However, I know that Treasury Ministers are aware of the issue, and I am sure that they will be prepared to meet the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others to talk about mutuals.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred also to failed income support plans, and she was right to say that there are problems in this area. Financial Services Authority regulators have paid out £69 million in compensation to 4,500 individual claimants, but there is still more to be done. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be prepared to meet the kind of delegation that was asked for this morning.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke out strongly about transport issues to the south of Manchester and in the Cheshire area. I ought to admit that I am perhaps one of the culprits who has despoiled and helped to damage his village. I come from north Nottinghamshire, and I regularly use Manchester airport. The route from north Nottinghamshire to Cheshire is an extremely attractive one, which I have admired. I am sure that people do not admire my own car going there.
  I am pleased to note that a multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester is now taking place. It is important that such studies report early, as the length of time that planning decisions take is an issue. People can often live with bad news, but they cannot live with uncertainty. It is important to pursue the campaign to try to integrate transport and to put money into rural bus services.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove talked about petrol prices going up, and referred to a lack of communication in the Government. Petrol prices went up as a result of Treasury action, but, as a result of interdepartmental discussions, the rural bus grant—which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged had merits, and some demerits—was introduced at the same time.
  I heard what the hon. Member for Macclesfield said about the NHS trust in his area, and it is important that people deliver services in a way that best benefits consumers in the area. My message to those reorganising the health service would be to wait a while and see what happens to primary care groups before moving to trust status.

  311
  I understand all too well the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about housing development. I applaud his action in making sure that the voice of local residents and local councils is heard. We must ensure that brown-field sites are developed before green-field sites. We must ensure that the 60 per cent. target is met, and that sequential development takes place, so that derelict sites are developed before the more profit-rich, green-field sites that developers in his area are clearly looking for. We ought to keep an eye out for the urban task force report, which is due shortly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) talked about the needs in his area and the desires of his local council. I was in local government, and I used to complain vigorously about the standard spending assessment formula and the way in which it disadvantaged my county. However, every council takes that view. The best way forward is to look at making the best use of resources and making do with what one has, rather than devoting effort to what one does not have.
  I am confident that the council in Redcar and Cleveland is modernising, and I understand my hon. Friend's point about the need to review local government finance. This issue is on the desk of the Deputy Prime Minister, and a review is taking place. Again, these are hard issues, but Redcar and Cleveland received the best settlement—a 5.2 per cent. increase in SSA—for many years.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) talked about Cornwall. 1 was in St. Ives a few days ago, and I appreciate the importance of the tourism industry to Cornwall. It is a high-quality industry which provides value for money, and I am going back on 11 August to see the eclipse. While I was there, people talked to me about raising the quality of the tourism industry, and they are doing that. They see the minimum wage not as a
  312
  threat, but as an opportunity. The county council, the police and the staff at Truro general hospital are working hard to ensure that everything will be right on 11 August.
  I will write, as I always do, to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who raised a number of issues. On disability, it is important that we make progress in providing work for people with a disability who can work, while providing security for those who cannot. I understand the difficulties that have arisen at medical boards, and I know that complaints are made. The wait until the tribunal deserves further attention only.
  The problems at the UK Passport Agency—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—also deserve attention. The situation is not good, although a new system has been put in place. There are difficulties, but 99 per cent. of applications are being dealt with within the time frame.
  On the jobseeker's allowance, I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers from various Departments are tackling the problems.
  I wish I had a Hazel Jones in my constituency. There has been talk of transfer fees in the Chamber today, and we could have a discussion on transferring Hazel Jones to Nottinghamshire so that she could set up a First Check Point group in my constituency.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East had a chance to mention Derek Fatchett.
  Also, there is a great deal to be done to tackle crime, prostitution and drugs in Leeds, and we must work hard to ensure that that happens.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) opened the match by talking about problems about employment permits. I am told that decisions will be made by 30 June—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Feltham Young Offenders Institution
12.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I have been fortunate in winning ballots for Adjournment debates, but this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to introduce a debate on what is, frankly, a substantial public scandal. Feltham young offenders institution is in crisis and has occasioned one of the most critical reports on a public institution to have been written in recent years.
My interest in the matter goes back about 18 months. I received a letter from a constituent who was on the educational side of the establishment, which is not in my constituency but in that of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) who, I note, is present today. The letter drew my attention to the deficiencies in education provision, and I asked parliamentary questions to which I received full and helpful answers from the Home Office.
The impression of an institution in crisis was reinforced by two subsequent visits and by discussions with visitors and members of staff, and it was confirmed by the chief inspector's report. The report's introductory paragraph is more eloquent than I could ever be. It says:
"This report on an unannounced inspection … is, without doubt, the most disturbing that I have ever had to make in my three years as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. I have to disclose to the public not only that conditions and treatment, of the 922 children and young prisoners … are, in many instances, totally unacceptable. They are, in many instances, worse than when I reported on them two years ago and reveal a history of neglect of those committed to their charge and a failure to meet the demands of society to tackle the problem of offending behaviour."
The report goes on to say:
"A picture emerges of an institution and staff overwhelmed. Whatever the cause, it must be tackled root and branch now."
I asked for this debate in the context of the report and the strength of that conclusion. The report says everything that needs to be said on the subject.
The start of the problem is chronic overcrowding, which originated in the early 1990s with a massive build-up of Feltham to serve the whole of London. The number of inmates increased by about 150 per cent. between 1992 and 1996. The premises and number of staff are not adequate to cope with so many prisoners.
When I visited the centre about three weeks ago, I was told that the official staff ratio is 5:1, but that, because of recruitment difficulties and unfilled vacancies, it is frequently far worse. Staff are often sick and there are simply not enough staff on the premises to provide supervision for recreation and association, so, for much of the time, many prisoners are on what is described as a basic regime: they are locked in their cells for 22 hours a day. That applies to unconvicted remand prisoners as well as convicted prisoners; to juveniles of 15 as well as young men convicted of serious offences.
The Minister has been to the prison and will know that often two young men spend 22 hours a day in a small cell, eating, using the toilet and sleeping within a few feet of one another. Doubling up has become routine practice. There is a protocol to manage the situation, but the inspector describes one case of a 16-year-old on remand for a relatively minor offence, sharing a cell with a hardened young criminal with a violent record.
314
Such mixing of criminals and remand prisoners appears to be common and can only perpetuate many of the difficulties that young people have in the institution.
Another problem is the simple physical squalor. The Minister will recognise that there is a contrast: when one goes into premises with attractive gardens and relatively modern buildings one is not prepared for the sheer filth that is recorded in graphic detail in the report. Young men who frequently have no change of underclothes for a week use blankets and mattresses that are filthy, while clean blankets and mattresses stay in the cupboards.
For some reason, no one in the institution seems to know how to repair showers. Two or three weeks ago, I visited the wing on which the chief inspector had reported, and the showers were still not working, so people were still not washing. There is an overriding feeling of physical squalor. With 900-plus adolescents and young men in an institution, there are bound to be hygiene problems, but those are compounded by the way in which the system is managed and by the sheer lack of resources and staff.
More serious than the overcrowding and the dirt is the neglect of the special needs of many of the people coming into the centre. Many are no doubt difficult criminals who need to be locked away to protect society, but many are seriously vulnerable. The report shows that about 25 per cent. of all those entering the prison are users of the highly addictive crack cocaine. Many are in serious difficulties with drugs, but there is no organised detoxification or rehabilitation programme.
Many of the inmates have serious mental health problems. A separate Home Office study showed that roughly a third of prisoners in young offenders institutions need some form of psychiatric attention, but the number of psychiatrists in the prison was cut in the early 1990s and has not been restored.
One of the most damaging sections of the report relates to conditions in the medical unit. There are supposed to be 13 members of staff, but there are nine vacancies and four members of staff are on long-term sickness, so there are simply not enough nurses to look after the patients. I believe that a typical ratio is 30 patients to two members of staff. There is no supervision, so the wards are locked, and the problem is getting worse.
Education—probably the most important requirement of many of the young people—is seriously deficient. I do not want to be wholly negative, and the improvement in the number of hours of education provided is a positive angle that I would like to put on the record, but the report makes it clear that the education is often totally inappropriate. There is virtually no provision for the more academically gifted inmates or for those with moderate learning difficulties.
A comparison between Feltham and a comparable centre such as Aylesbury, which has more money but about half the number of inmates, shows the poverty of Feltham's education provision. That cannot be wholly illustrated by statistics. When I visited Feltham, something happened that many of the inmates recognised as typical. A rehabilitation programme to help people not to reoffend had been long prepared for and there was a great deal of expectation about it, with staff working enthusiastically; but a message came through from the Home Office that there were new priorities and the programme was cancelled at the last minute. One cannot measure the demotivating effect of such decisions.

315
Many of the inmates indulge in what is rather archly called self-harm. A few years ago, the institution had a reputation for suicides. Fortunately, there have been no suicides for a couple of years, but there is almost one case a day of self-harm of varying degrees of seriousness.
The inspector's report gives the figures on violence. I think that there were 78 assaults on prison officers and about 200 on fellow prisoners in the last year for which figures are available. That is a very high incidence of violence. That is one reason why the prisoners are locked away. There are not enough staff to supervise them and prevent violence. One of the most damning statistics that I discovered in my background work was that almost 90 per cent. of young offenders in the institution reoffend. There is virtually no success in preventing repeat offending. The phrase "the university of crime" is often misused, but it seems an appropriate description to use in this case.
The report asks who is to blame: who is responsible and accountable? It makes some damning comments about management with a big "M"—I am not sure who the operational manager is. The report states:
"A senior manager shared his view of the establishment with us. He considered that there were examples of good staff and volunteers doing good things with young people in many departments but that the core of the institution was rotten."
Who is responsible for that? The report is understandably reluctant to blame the staff, who it says are overwhelmed and are doing an impossible job. I met many officers who are genuinely idealistic and hard working. However, they cannot cope. Management at the centre is a problem. For example, a Minister should not have to intervene to solve hygiene problems: that is a matter for management on the ground.
If, as the report says, the problem is not with management and staff, is it with the Home Office? Who in the Home Office is managing this institution? Who makes the decisions about funding and priorities? Who ensured that the 1996 recommendations were not implemented? There is a serious problem of accountability, which has implications for Ministers. The present Minister inherited this problem so it is not reasonable to saddle him with the responsibility, but the fact is that conditions at the establishment have deteriorated over the past two years. Somebody made decisions at a ministerial level to freeze the budget of the young offenders institution since 1993–94 in nominal terms—its budget is falling in real terms at a time of crisis. Who is making those decisions?
There is a failure not just on the part of the centre and at Home Office and ministerial level, but in the system as a whole. I was shocked to discover in the report that only 29 of 200 inmates interviewed had been told about bail provisions while in the magistrates court. Many remand prisoners should not be incarcerated: they should be out on bail. However, they do not know about bail provisions. Many of them are young blacks—about half of the prisoners in the institution are from ethnic minorities—who are going straight from the streets to prison and into a life of crime. That is often a result of the workings of the magistrates court system and the total failure of the bail system. The report pointed to a key failure in local authority homes and produced an enormous amount of evidence to that effect. It found that some 40 per cent. of inmates passed through local authority homes, which
316
failed them utterly. There is evidence of a lack of care, and of abuse. It is a catalogue of disasters in Government decision making at all levels.
I do not know whether other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. What should be done now? First, there is a clear need for new premises to separate the juveniles from the adults and the remand prisoners from the convicted prisoners. I know that the Government have plans for a new centre, which I hope the Minister will describe today.
A second, more serious, problem is staffing and resources for staffing. There are not enough people on the ground—whether they are warders, medical staff or teachers. Where is the wherewithal to rectify that problem? It is easy to ask for more money, but there is a problem of priorities within the Home Office. Why does a centre such as Medway receive roughly 10 times as much funding per capita as the young offenders institution in London? Somebody has their priorities totally wrong. How will that staffing and resources problem be rectified?
Thirdly, there is an issue of joined-up government here: the relationship between the Home Office and both the health service and the education system. For example, we must ensure that money directed to local authorities for education is passported to the prison so that young prisoners get some basic education.
Fourthly, what plans do the Government have to try to keep people out of prison in the first place? We know that pilot programmes are being conducted in Scotland and in the Thames valley to ensure that many young offenders—whether remand cases or not—do not enter the prison system. What is being done to achieve that objective?
Finally—and perhaps most important—the most shocking thing about the report is that its findings were made two years ago. The situation has got worse and nobody appears to be responsible. Will the Minister confirm who is responsible? Is the Home Secretary or a named individual in the Prison Service willing to take personal responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations made in this report—described in most trenchant terms for a document of this kind—are implemented?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate and raising this important matter. The chief inspector of prisons, the board of visitors and others have raised serious concerns about the operation of Feltham young offenders institution, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising some of those concerns and for giving me the opportunity to respond to them.
I shall answer briefly the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the concluding part of his speech. The first responsibility for Feltham or any other institution for that matter, lies with the Prison Service and the new Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey. Responsibility is then devolved through the area management structure to the governors. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear almost as soon as he came to office after the election that Ministers are no longer prepared to make an artificial division between policy and operations, and pretend that it is someone

317
else's fault. Unlike the previous Government, we accept that, in the final analysis, we are responsible for what goes on in the Prison Service. We take that responsibility very seriously.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention that I have visited the establishment. It is also significant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited that institution on 13 February 1998, as did the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on 6 April 1998. There has been a high level of ministerial interest in the establishment.
The chief inspector's report of his short, unannounced inspection of Feltham young offenders institution last December is highly critical—I have no wish to pretend otherwise. It is particularly critical of the fact that few of the recommendations in the chief inspector's report of the full inspection of Feltham, which took place in 1996, have been dealt with. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, the Home Secretary and I found aspects of that report shocking, and I well understand the anger and concern expressed by the hon. Member for Twickenham about what has been done and what needs to be done. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not cover in the time available all of the issues that he has raised. I give an undertaking to write to him about any of the areas that I am unable to touch upon.
The Prison Service and the Government are determined to turn the establishment around and to make further substantial progress on the serious concerns that have been raised. The newly appointed governor, Niall Clifford, who took up his post in April, and the new area manager responsible for Feltham have been charged with that task. However, in recognising the problems, we should not overlook the successes at Feltham as reported by the chief inspector. They include the Nightingale pre-release course and the Quail murder charge project, both of which received recognition recently in the form of Butler trust awards.
The chief inspector said that "virtually nothing" had been done to action the recommendations in the 1996 report. I do not believe that that statement is wholly true; nor do I accept that there has been a marked decline in conditions as suggested. However, it is true that progress has been too slow in improving conditions in some areas. Fundamental problems undoubtedly existed at Feltham, and the Prison Service published an action plan addressing all the chief inspector's recommendations—almost all of which were accepted in principle.
Some recommendations, however, would be very resource intensive, and implementing all 181 recommendations immediately would have been prohibitively expensive and, perhaps, physically impossible. Where action on recommendations was not taken, the reasons are almost without exception related to population pressures, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; funding and recruitment difficulties, or industrial relations issues. That said, some areas in Feltham have improved since the chief inspector's 1996 visit, and the additional resources that have been made available through the comprehensive spending review should, if they are used properly, ensure that further progress can now be made.
318
In response to the most recent inspection report, the Director General of the Prison Service established a task force, led by a senior governor when the report was made available to the Prison Service. The task force has charted a plan for improvement that we intend will be implemented over the next six months. To that end, an additional £320,000 was immediately made available for 1998–99 and a further £500,000 is available for 1999–2000.
Further additional funding has been made available through the comprehensive spending review, and that includes £700,000 for extra education, the drugs strategy and a bail information scheme, all of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The drugs strategy and bail information scheme are particularly important. The Government have made available £2 million for a new regime for prisoners under the age of 18. The task force has also commissioned a scoping study to consider long-term problems and their underlying causes.
I shall turn now to the specific and important concerns raised by the chief inspector and echoed by the hon. Gentleman today. Concern was expressed by the chief inspector about the lack of practical support from senior Prison Service management. The director general has recently agreed in principle with the area manager an outline strategic development plan for Feltham which will not only directly address many of the chief inspector's concerns, but chart the establishment's direction for the next three years and provide for the separation of the site into dedicated under-18 and young offender establishments.
More specifically, the plan rightly addresses the treatment of remand prisoners and changes the way in which the Kestrel unit is operated to ensure, as far as possible, that remand prisoners return from court to the same unit and staff, thereby satisfying one of the major criticisms made by the chief inspector. The change in the operation of the Kestrel unit is planned to start on 7 June.
The strategic plan as a whole illustrates clearly the commitment that Prison Service managers are making to the future development of Feltham. The new area manager regularly visits the establishment to monitor progress on the action plan and, importantly, to lend support to the improvements that the new governor is already making.
The hon. Gentleman referred to hygiene. Conditions at Feltham are described by the chief inspector as disgracefully impoverished and filthy. The hon. Gentleman made a similar point in his speech. The general cleanliness of the establishment is being improved. Immediate improvements to cleaning schedules and mattress and blanket provision are in hand. Since December, 600 mattresses have been replaced and more are being made available. New cleaning schedules and arrangements for inspections have also been introduced to ensure that cleaning takes place, and senior managers have a direct role in those inspections. In addition, new laundry facilities are being made available at another prison. Funding was made available almost immediately to undertake a backlog of small repairs. It appears that the shower has been overlooked, but I hope that progress will now be made on that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of regime at Feltham and time spent out of cell, which were covered in the chief inspector's report. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, Feltham, along with the rest of the prison

319
estate, has experienced pressure from the increase in the prison population, particularly the extra remand prisoners. That has inevitably put a strain on the provision of productive regimes for the young offenders in its care.
That said, the staffing and operation of some units requires improvements in certain areas, and the governor and Prison Service senior managers are working hard to achieve those. As a result, plans are well advanced to reduce the number of remand prisoners at Feltham by using accommodation soon to be available in other establishments closer to prisoners' home areas. That should also significantly reduce the number of prisoners sharing cells.
Efforts to improve time out of cell have also been affected by staffing problems, including an above-average level of sickness and difficulties in recruiting good-quality staff. Remedial action has been taken to improve recruitment at Feltham, and, as a result, 10 new officers started training in April.
Mr. Richard Allan: Some of us have been concerned because there seems to have been a slowdown in the provision of local authority secure accommodation for remand prisoners. The Minister just said that he expects more places to be available. Does that mean that more local authority secure accommodation will be coming on-stream?
Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to go into the facts and figures on that issue. I will perhaps respond to his question by letter. That lack of accommodation is clearly a problem, as he as pointed out, and we are trying to tackle it.
I have already mentioned that £2 million has been made available to provide a new regime for prisoners under the age of 18. I shall return to that matter on another occasion, when I will perhaps be able to deal with it in more detail.
Feltham is the only young offender remand centre serving London. The number of prisoners at Feltham has already been reduced by 57 to ease pressure on the
320
establishment and facilitate the opening of a new health care centre. The number of prisoners will be further reduced by at least 90 to allow for the refurbishment of other units and to end overcrowding. There will be an overall reduction in the proportion of remand prisoners as a result of a reduction in court catchment areas.
The Prison Service has for some years been looking for a site to ease the pressure on Feltham and has recently purchased a site next to Belmarsh prison. A planning application to build a young offender establishment serving east London and Essex is being taken forward. Unfortunately, however, it is unlikely that the new establishment will open before late 2002, at the earliest.
The hon. Member for Twickenham expressed concerns about health care. Those have been addressed in the existing Prison Service plan to move the in-patient facility to the newly refurbished health care centre which was implemented at the end of March. A shortage of health care staff and lack of staff continuity is being addressed in a number of ways including recruitment campaigns and secondment of nurses from a local NHS trust. It is not true to say that nothing has been done to improve health care at Feltham. Progress is being made, and we hope that there will be more progress in future.
On 29 March, we announced that, for the first time nationally—this is the joined-up government to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the Prison Service and the NHS will take a joint and systematic look at prisoners' health needs, the quality of the services available and the delivery mechanisms that are needed to meet those needs.
In conclusion, the director general, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, the Home Secretary and I all accept that much needs to be done at Feltham. I hope that the measures that I have outlined today—particularly the setting up of the task force, the commitment of additional funding and the improved health care arrangements—will go some way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to ensuring that the required improvements will be made. We take our responsibility seriously. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Television (Protection of Children)
1 pm
Mr. John Heppell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has drawn the short straw, as Ministers from many Departments could have replied to this debate.
I should at the outset thank Nottingham city council, which has been pursuing the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who I understand has written to the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Secretary on the matter. I almost get the feeling that he is working his way through the Cabinet to ensure that everybody is aware of his concerns. Although this matter pales into insignificance given recent events in Nottingham concerning child protection, it must nevertheless be addressed.
In the spring of 1998, a television company, October Films, began filming children in Nottingham for a documentary that was to be called "Staying Lost". Its motives seemed commendable; indeed, I suspect that it began with all the right motives. It wanted to
"expose the true state of Britain's street children and the agencies that fail them".
I should make it clear that I would wish October Films and others to do that; I would applaud such work. I should also make it clear that I do not seek to defend Nottingham city council or the social services department. I seek to protect children; that is the only motive for my action in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has now joined me. With my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), all Nottingham Members of Parliament are agreed on the issue.
Although October Films began with the very good motive of championing the cause of these children, unfortunately its work did not have that effect. The best scenario would be that it had a negative effect on the children; the worst that the children were exploited in the production of the film.
We are talking about five very vulnerable delinquent children who, under anyone's definition, would be described as at risk. We are talking about two 15-year-old girls, both of whom were engaged in prostitution. One was accommodated by the local authority and the mother of the other had approached the social services department and asked for help. We are talking about three boys of 14, 13 and 12 years old. One child has a care order, one an interim care order, one is on the child protection register and two are on bail. I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister, that we are talking about children who are extremely vulnerable and with whom social workers find it difficult to work at any time. Once the film crew arrived, they found such work impossible.
Several allegations began to come out about what the film crew were doing. There were allegations that some of the scenes were staged, that the children were not homeless in the sense that we would recognise, and that vulnerable children were being encouraged to act anti-socially and irresponsibly. Some allegations were specific: microphones were hidden on the girls before they solicited for prostitution.
322
Other hon. Members and I got to know about the matter when, back on 18 August, the local newspaper reported that the city council was threatening legal action against a television film crew. The leader of the city council was specific. He was quoted as saying to the film company, "Get Out Of Town", and asked it to leave the care and responsibility of the children to the people who are supposed to look after them.
The following day, several articles appeared in national newspapers under headlines such as
"TV crew 'faked child scenes'",
"Film of street children 'set up'",
"Care home children 'taken out to beg for Channel 4 film'",
and so on. If the city council was to fulfil its statutory duty, it could do nothing but act, which I welcome.
I have not mentioned many of the allegations because they have been denied and the city council has not pursued them—some are much more serious. However, some allegations were not denied. As a result, the city council took October Films to court. I shall quote now from the judgment of Sir Stephen Brown, president of the Family Division, and return to it later, too. I refer the House to page 9 of his judgment, on which it says, following his acceptance of some denials:
"I accept their denial. Nevertheless there is an acceptance of the fact that certain of the children were wired up as alleged. Further on one occasion Mr. Roberts"—
one member of the television company—
"did buy vodka for one of the young girls after filming and it is accepted that the film crew accompanied the children on the train ride to Skegness which was of course so far as the boys were concerned an illicit venture both being on bail and subject to curfew and not intending to pay their fares."
Even if one accepts every denial, the things to which they admitted are cause for great concern.
As a result of the city council going to court, a decent judgment was made. An injunction was never granted because the company agreed that it would do certain things: it would cease to contact four of the five children whom they were hoping to film for the documentary. The fifth child was back with her parents, and her mother had given consent to the filming.
Given that, people may ask why I am concerned about the matter. I will tell the House my worry. In some respects, I do not mind whether things were set up. The issue is whether, just because somebody possesses a video recorder, he or she should be able to film vulnerable children without parental consent. The film company specifically stated that, as far as it was concerned, it needed neither parental nor local authority consent, even though many of the children were in care. It says that all it needed was the consent of the children.
All the children were aged under 16. One may accept the consent of a 15-year-old, but the three boys were aged 14, 13 and 12. What if they had been aged 11, 10 and nine? When does the need for parental consent come into play? That is one of the most important points. There must be freedom of the press, but it should not be at the expense of the welfare of vulnerable children.
Page 21 of the judgment states:
"They approached these children without parental consent or knowledge and indeed without the knowledge of anybody whose duty was to seek to afford a degree of supervisory assistance to the children. Undoubtedly misunderstandings occurred as a result.

323
Their conduct went far beyond merely observing the children. I am satisfied that in this case the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court has been properly invoked in respect of the effects of the filming and of the close contact involved in the filming operation on the upbringing of these children. The 'hanging around' the film crew and the excitement which the operation involved undoubtedly affected all these children. I have heard the oral evidence of Mr. Roberts and of Miss Gordon and the oral evidence of the Director of Social Services. The Official Solicitor has commented upon their different perspectives and he has expressed the opinion that he has no doubt about the good faith of all those concerned in this matter."
Good faith is not enough. I accept that the company began with good intentions—to expose matters if they were wrong. I am sure that that can be done without putting children at risk. I hope that we will be able to ensure that such people must have parental consent.
Secondly, the people from the film company stayed with the children for months on end, to gain their trust. They say themselves that the idea was to build a close relationship with the children. People who intend to be with children for months, building a close relationship with them, should be subject to the vetting to which every local authority worker is subject. We should ensure that such checks are conducted in future.
The third issue concerns the Independent Television Commission. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to what seemed like half the Cabinet on this issue. He also wrote to the ITC. I found it worrying that the judge said that he would not comment on the conduct of the film crews, as it was not his job to do so. He said that that was a job for the ITC.
Unfortunately, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to the ITC—he telephoned as well—it wrote back:
"As I explained, the ITC has no powers to obtain tapes or otherwise intervene in programme content before broadcast."
I believe that the ITC rules need to be changed, so that if it sees that someone is breaking its code, it may step in at the beginning.
The issue is not about the content of the final production. I talked to someone this morning who said, "We shall not know whether you are right until we see the final product." The documentary might be brilliant. It might be a "Cathy Come Home" type documentary, which will fire up people to make significant changes. That is not the issue. The issue is whether, in the making of that documentary, children have been harmed. We cannot allow the ends to justify the means. We cannot allow children to be hurt, to be left without protection, in order to create a good documentary. I hope that the ITC will tighten its code of practice to try to ensure that this does not happen again, as I fear that it may.
In some respects, we are lucky that some of the children involved were in care. Would a parent with a delinquent child have been able to take on the film company, to take on Channel 4, and to go to court? I suspect not.
We have had the judgment, but I can envisage a similar situation developing. Nothing has changed. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues, especially in the Home Department, will seek to prevent that by making changes.
I have little time left, but I make a plea about something else. Such subjects can provoke extreme emotion. In the past week in Nottingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North knows, I have had to consider what is probably one of the most emotionally loaded issues. There is discussion about paedophiles being admitted to a
324
unit in my constituency. I have found that it tends to bring out the worst in people. I simply say that I want the subject of today's debate to be dealt with in a non-emotional way, just as I want that issue to be dealt with in a non-emotional way.
In relation to such issues, our prime—many would say our only—concern should be the protection of children. People can rest assured that, in dealing with such situations in future, the protection of children will be my overriding concern.
I hope that, at some time, my hon. Friend the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office will address their minds to future legislation to ensure that the general public are protected, not only from paedophiles, but from paedophiles who are murderers or torturers—the worst type of people, who are being released on to our streets. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation that ensures not only that those people are secure, but that the public know that they are secure. That aspect of the law needs to be changed, and probably the law needs to be changed as it relates to the filming of children.
I do not want to overburden broadcasting with regulations and I do not want to stifle the freedom of the press, but I do not believe that the press can go unfettered—that they can justify anything that they do by saying that they have a right to give children a voice, as one of the reporters said to us. If children are given a voice, but the process of doing so wrecks their lives—there is some evidence that, indirectly, harm was done to these children—we cannot accept that type of freedom.
1.15 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who wrote to me at length on the issue. So disturbed was I when I received that letter that he may recall that I sought him out as soon as possible to speak to him about it. When we responded to him, we made the point that broadcasting items are matters for the broadcasters and regulatory authorities, and that there is a limited extent to which the Government can intervene. However, I believe that it is important, given the concern expressed about this matter by all Nottingham Members and the fact that it has been raised in the House, that we give the issue a proper airing. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said that I had drawn the short straw. It is true that some of the matters that he has raised are ones for my colleagues in another Department, and I shall ensure that those are brought to their attention.
First, I shall set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has spoken in detail about what happened. He has made a point of not becoming too emotional about this issue. It is always easy, especially where children are concerned, to become too emotional. I thank him for the measured way in which he has raised the subject. As he said, it concerns a documentary series called "Staying Lost", which October Films has been making for the past two years. The documentary focuses on children in care who end up living on the streets.
Nottingham City council brought the matter to court, accusing the programme makers of faking scenes, and maintained that parental consent should be given before

325
children were allowed to appear in such programmes. Earlier this month, the High Court cleared October Films of faking scenes. As a result of the court case, some of the children were withdrawn. However—it is important to place this on the record—the court expressed concern about the possibility of exploitation of vulnerable children by the media.
I applaud the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East and for Nottingham, North to protect children. That should be a priority for all hon. Members. The children involved were especially vulnerable. It was alleged that they had been encouraged to act irresponsibly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said, it was alleged that microphones were planted on the two young girls, aged only 15, who were engaging in prostitution. As he rightly said, that causes considerable concern, and it should be of great concern to the House. He also said that the freedom of the press should not be at the expense of vulnerable children. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ITC. At the conclusion of my remarks, I shall answer his three main points. As he said, the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North received from the ITC explained that the ITC does not preview programmes. It is up to the licensees to decide, within the framework of the code and their licence, whether a specific item is suitable for broadcast. However, the ITC has a wide range of powers at its disposal to ensure compliance. They range from a formal warning to financial penalties and, in extreme cases, could lead to the shortening or revoking of a company's licence. Last year, the ITC fined Central Television £2 million for a serious breach of the programme code.
There is a paragraph in the programme code which, I am told, applies to children who are actors. It may not have been relevant in this case, but it may be apposite to place that paragraph on the record, because perhaps we
326
should extend to children who are not actors, but who appear in documentaries, a similar concern to that which we extend to children who are actors. Paragraph 6.4 says:
"Performances by children under the upper limit of compulsory school age are controlled by Home Office regulations administered by the Local Education Authorities. All such performances, apart from those appearances expressly exempted under the Children and Young Persons Acts, require a licence from the Local Education Authority in whose area the child lives. Parental consent alone is not enough … Particular care should be taken to avoid causing any distress or alarm to children involved in programmes."
So that is already in the code. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that the ITC may need to re-examine it.
When the matter first received coverage in the national press, Channel 4, the broadcaster that commissioned the film, made a statement that was reported in the following terms:
"'The documentaries will reveal the true state of vulnerable children across the country who have, at some time, fallen out of parental control and slipped through the care net. The public has a right to see this series; Channel 4 believes the films deal with a subject of important public interest.'
"A spokesman said the channel had subjected the allegations made against the programme company to 'careful scrutiny', and was satisfied that it acted with integrity. 'Channel 4 does not believe they have infringed the ITC's code, nor that they have harmed the interests of the children they are filming'".
As my hon. Friend said, when we get a chance to see the documentary, perhaps we can judge that for ourselves.
I shall sum up by responding to the three main points that my hon. Friend made. The point about parental consent, and also the important point about vetting people who are to work with young children, especially vulnerable children, are both matters for my colleagues in the Home Office, and I shall ensure that the concerns expressed will be brought to their attention.
I can also assure my hon. Friend that I shall convey his concerns to the ITC, and that my Department will think about whether there is any need for additional guidance. I shall come back to my hon. Friend on that subject.
1.22 pm
Sitting suspended.

Palestine
1.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by warmly welcoming the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), to his new position. I am sure that he will have a fascinating time as he familiarises himself with the important issues with which he will have to deal, not least Britain's vital interests in the middle east, which are of cardinal importance to this country. All those who are interested in the affairs of the middle east, from whatever position they may come, hope that the Minister will energetically pursue those matters, using the considerable expertise that he will have at his disposal to work with our many friends in the region.
I am grateful for the opportunity of a short debate to focus with renewed urgency on the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories—the core of the middle east conflict for the past 50 years, and a dangerous time bomb.
Last year, Israel celebrated its 50th birthday, led by a Government who had defiantly set their face against the peace process and who had succeeded only in creating a new diplomatic freeze in the region. Prime Minister Netanyahu based his leadership on the unforgivable and dangerous premise that Israel could achieve lasting peace with its neighbours without making any significant concessions itself. It is to be hoped that the outcome of the Israeli general elections last week, with the resounding defeat of the rejectionist right, is at least in part an acknowledgement that that formula has failed.
I am sure that I will be joined by many in congratulating Ehud Barak on his historic win, and in reminding him of the great expectations that his victory has aroused around the world for real and sustainable progress in the middle east peace process. This is, therefore, an appropriate and sensible time to take stock of how best to capitalise on the changed political leadership in Israel, and how to support all those who are genuinely interested in pushing the peace process forward.
It is clear that, for a long time, the Israelis have been fighting a losing battle in Lebanon. Not only has the local southern Lebanese population been forced to endure years of misery and terror, but the Israeli forces of occupation have experienced a high toll of military casualties. Mr. Barak's announcement on the eve of his election victory that he was committing himself to doing
"everything to take the army out of Lebanon within a year"
is, therefore, welcome news.
However, it is of the utmost importance that withdrawal from Lebanon is but a part of a broader agreement and settlement between Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Before his tragic death in 1995, the late Yitzhak Rabin was involved in negotiations with the Syrian Government, which were reported to be close to reaching agreement on Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian territory. The Syrians will accept nothing less than total withdrawal from the Golan heights. That must be moved forward and the earlier talks built on.
The House will recall the recent excellent European Union declaration on the middle east peace process which
328
came from the Berlin summit in March this year and merits particular attention. The declaration states:
"The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security … The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course".
At this critical time, the European Union has boldly and correctly placed emphasis on Palestinian rights to self-determination as not just inalienable, but as one of the most critical elements of a sustainable peace in the region.
I am sure that hon. Members will join me in giving full support to the statement by the EU, and in assuring hon. Members who support the state of Israel that it must not be seen as an anti-Israel document. Indeed, it is fundamentally the reverse. Over the past three years, the Likud Government in Israel sought to deal with the knotty and painful requirements of the peace process by reducing Palestinian expectations of what they could hope to achieve through negotiation, and then by delivering even less. The statement by the EU is important because it reminds us that the Palestinian right to self-determination is not reducible—rather, a settlement must be achieved that seeks to realise and incorporate those rights.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a negotiated peace, as expressed in the European statement, is absolutely vital, and will he condemn the showering of northern Israel with rockets by Hezbollah, which occurred on the eve of the election of the Labour-led Government in Israel?
Mr. Soames: I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way in which to bring this painful, terrifying and extremely difficult problem to a conclusion is by negotiation. I have no doubt that, over the years, both sides have behaved thoroughly reprehensibly, but the behaviour of the Israeli Government in negotiation is not an elevating example.
The beginning of May this year marked the end of the five-year interim period of the Oslo peace agreement signed by Prime Minister Rabin and President Arafat in Cairo in 1994. Much has happened in that time, but everyone agrees that the Oslo peace process has so far failed to live up to expectations. Interestingly, however, there is now more serious talk than ever before of the inevitability of a Palestinian state.
Many hon. Members have had the opportunity in the past five years to travel to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and to see the changing situation on the ground in the west bank and Jerusalem. Settlement activity, particularly under the Likud Government, has increased at a dreadful and spectacular pace. The west bank, which in the minds of the international community is to be the basic shape of any future Palestinian state, has been totally and grotesquely disfigured by the ever-increasing settler population, and significantly also by the swathes of land that have been taken to create new settlement roads that run from east to west to provide quick and easy access for the settlers into Israel.

329
Palestinian land and, therefore, Palestinian life in the west bank have become internally dislocated. The relentless growth of settlements and the confiscation of land for the exclusive use of the settler population have done profound and great damage to the quest for a viable Palestinian national economy, and to the legitimate Palestinian objectives of justice, security, peace and prosperity.
This scenario is not consistent with what we envisage when we speak of Palestinian rights to statehood, or the hopes that we had of the Oslo peace agreement. I remind hon. Members that it was the settlement of Har Homa that, two years ago, brought the peace process to a halt. At the very least, and as an act of good faith, the incoming Labour Government in Israel will, I hope, halt the building on that sensitive and highly symbolic settlement as a matter of priority, and will not allow it to continue to provide a festering focus of conflict between the Palestinian and the Israeli peoples. Incidentally, the settlements represent not only a moral and political crime, but a high aesthetic crime and should, therefore, be trebly condemned.
In article 1 of the 1949 fourth Geneva convention, the high contracting parties undertook to
"respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances."
In response to escalating Israeli violations of several key components of the convention—notably, those protecting the Palestinian population against illegal settlement policies, detention practices, the use of state-sanctioned torture and Israel's unilateral annexation of occupied Jerusalem—a conference of the high contracting parties has been convened. It will take place on 15 July in Geneva. It is to be hoped that Britain, together with its EU partners, will build on the positive spirit of the Berlin declaration by incorporating the Palestinian right of self-determination into the proceedings.
There is absolutely no doubt that Israeli settlement activity provokes bitter and wholly understandable resentment among the Palestinian population of the west bank and the Gaza strip, and it is a source of daily confrontation. I should like to think that, here in Europe, we differ substantially from the United States of America on that issue. Although the Americans—mystifyingly, but under the heel of the Zionist lobby—tend to view settlements as an annoying obstacle, we in Europe are absolutely clear that they are entirely illegal and that there can be no real peace while they continue to be built.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
I remind hon. Members that, unforgivably, 19 new settlements have been started in occupied Palestinian territory since last year's Wye memorandum was drawn up. We must hope, therefore, that we will see an end to the persistent, wilful and illegal defiance by Israel of international humanitarian law. When we talk of a democratic Palestinian state, we should think of a contiguous land mass with free international borders within which Palestinian citizens can move without restriction.
It is, therefore, clear that the current map of the west bank—where Palestinian land has been chopped up into many small areas by the configuration of settlements and
330
settlement roads, and has been dislocated internally and totally disconnected from the centre in Jerusalem—cannot deliver viable statehood. A great wrong has been done to the Palestinian people by those actions.
In an interview last week, Faisal Huseyni, the respected Palestinian official responsible for Jerusalem affairs said:
"Palestine for us is Jerusalem and Jerusalem consists of the old city and not the holy places only. This is our history, our existence and our identity. Those who give up their identity give up their future. The Palestinian people will be dispersed if there is nothing to unite them. Jerusalem, our capital, unites all of us."
There can be no doubt about the strength of feeling about Jerusalem in the minds of the Palestinians and the Israelis. In deference to that strength of feeling and the difficulties ahead, we should reiterate our belief in the status of Jerusalem as it is protected by international law, which will act as the only meaningful bulwark against those parties that are trying to establish total power and control in Jerusalem. I remind the House that the Oslo agreements committed the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem as part of the final status negotiations, and we expect and hope that the incoming Israeli Government will make good that commitment.
I must remark again on the tremendous outpourings of joy, in Israel and beyond, at the election last week of Ehud Barak. The Palestinian National Authority and President Arafat expressed optimism that meaningful peace negotiations, including those dealing with final status issues, can resume and will be able to reach a just solution. We in Britain and in Europe have an obligation to support actively and constructively the on-going process of Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, and to make good use of our extensive influence and expertise in these matters.
I urge the Minister not to allow himself to be blindly dragooned into following solely the United States on this issue, but to build on the excellent independent European Union declaration. Peace in the middle east is in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and all those living in the region.
1.43 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I thank the hon. Member for Mid–Sussex (Mr. Soames) for his kind words at the start of the debate. He lobbied me assiduously when I held my previous responsibilities and I am sure that I am grateful that, within a week of my taking on new responsibilities, he is raising with me questions relating to them.
I very much welcome the debate and the opportunity to clarify Government policy on the question of an independent Palestinian state. The debate is timely, because there is a new Prime Minister-elect in Israel. Ehud Barak has made clear his commitment to the peace process that began in Madrid in 1991, and of which the Oslo accords and interim agreement form a vital part. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary sent messages immediately after Mr. Barak's election, congratulating him on his stunning success and wishing him well in building a coalition.
A number of issues arise which have to be dealt with. First, what is the current state of play in the peace process? The question of statehood is inextricably bound up with progress on the peace process, and it is

331
appropriate to start there. The Government look forward to a relaunch of the peace process and we hope that, once a Government have been formed in Israel, both parties will proceed with implementation of the Wye memorandum. In particular, we hope that Israel will proceed with the second further redeployment of troops in the west bank. That will, we hope, open the way to the resumption of final status negotiations, but, in the meantime, we must allow Mr. Barak the necessary space and time to form his Government.
The United Kingdom played a leading role in the negotiation of the Berlin European Council declaration of 25 March on the middle east peace process. In it, we called on both parties to reaffirm their commitments to the basic principles, including "land for peace", established within the framework of Madrid, Oslo and the subsequent agreements, in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. We called for an early resumption of final status negotiations in the coming months on an accelerated basis and for those to be brought to a prompt conclusion, not prolonged indefinitely. We stated our belief that it should be possible to conclude the negotiations within a target period of one year and we expressed our readiness to work to facilitate an early conclusion to the negotiations. That is the position of the European Union and of the Government on the negotiations.
The active involvement of the United States is also crucial to the success of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We therefore welcome American readiness, which was confirmed by a White House statement of 26 April, to help to launch final status negotiations once an Israeli Government have been formed, and to review and monitor their progress. The United States has also made it clear that it is prepared, with the consent of the parties, to bring them together within six months to review the status of their efforts and to facilitate reaching an agreement.
All Members will know that the issues remaining to be negotiated—the final status issues—are the most intractable. They are, notably, borders; the status of Jerusalem; arrangements for the refugees from conflicts dating back to 1948; what to do about settlements in the west bank; security arrangements; and, in practice, rights over the fresh water in the region. Under the interim agreement, negotiations on those issues were to have concluded by 4 May of this year. In fact, they have never really started, but there is now a real prospect of progress and that is why it is vital that all parties refrain from any unilateral acts that attempt to prejudge or predetermine the outcome of negotiations on final status issues.
The Government have condemned all such unilateral acts, by either side. For example, they have condemned the continuing building of settlements in the west bank and urged the Israeli Government to cease supporting such activity. That is also why the Government have urged the Palestinians not to make a unilateral declaration of independence. Such a unilateral act would be likely to threaten the prospects for a negotiated peace.
I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will accept it from me that the Government's position on Palestinian statehood is as stated in the Berlin declaration. We agreed that the
"European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to
332
the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and Israel's acceptance as an equal partner in the region. The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course in accordance with these basic principles".
That statement contains five key elements relevant to our debate. First, we declare our support for the peace process and call for an early resumption of final status negotiations on an accelerated basis. We declare our view that it should be possible to conclude those negotiations within a year, and we urge Israel and the Palestinians to refrain from activities that prejudge the outcome of the final status negotiations and from any activity contrary to international law.
Secondly, we emphasise that the Palestinians have an unqualified right to self-determination, including the option of a state, and that that right of self-determination is not subject to any veto. However, it may not be in their overall interest unilaterally to declare statehood at this stage.
Thirdly, we renew our appeal to the parties to come to a negotiated solution. We do that because we are convinced that agreement is the best route forward for both sides. Only through negotiation and agreement with the Arab countries can Israel guarantee security and acceptance as an equal partner in the Middle East. Only through negotiation and agreement with Israel could a Palestinian state be viable and secure from the start. That reflects the realities on the ground—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman).
Fourthly, we have made it clear that we are ready to consider the recognition of a Palestinian state in due course in accordance with the principles that we have stated. We consider that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and that, looking at the situation on the ground, we consider statehood to be the best guarantee of peace in the region. However, only a negotiated statehood will guarantee peace: that is what we urge on the parties.
Finally—and it is an important element—we call for an early resumption of negotiation on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the peace process. Because we are seeking peace in the region, that will be achieved only when Israel has negotiated peace with all her neighbours. Israel has a negotiated peace with Egypt and with Jordan. We now look for a negotiated peace between Israel and Syria and Lebanon, as well as between Israel and the Palestinians. We very much welcome Ehud Barak's stated wish to have withdrawn troops from south Lebanon and to be in detailed negotiations with the Syrians within a year.
The hon. Member for Mid–Sussex used the phrase "viable statehood". It is necessary to consider the criteria that we would normally apply in deciding questions of recognition.
We do not in general consider a formal process of recognition to be a useful and constructive tool of foreign policy. Clearly, however, if a Palestinian state seeks membership of the United Nations, we shall have to consider whether to admit that state.
In customary international law, four basic criteria are considered when issues of recognition arise. These are whether the entity in question has a defined territory,

333
a permanent population, a Government able to exercise effective control over the state's territory, and independence in its external relations.
It seems clear that, at present, the Palestinian authority satisfies these criteria only in part. There is clearly a permanent population, but control of its territory and independence in its external relations are evidently far from absolute. Statehood itself is not specified as a final status issue, but if the Palestinians were to declare a state now, the situation could be unstable and the newly declared state's qualification for recognition under the four criteria might actually be weakened. A unilateral declaration of independence would certainly destroy the currently good prospects for the peace process. That is why we urge the Palestinians to refrain from any such declaration, and to commit themselves fully to the negotiations.
In the Berlin declaration, we make it clear that any state should be democratic, viable and peaceful. That element of the declaration should not be ignored. On any sensible analysis, the early viability of any state is likely to be vastly increased if it has come into being through negotiation and agreement. Although the Palestinians have made substantial progress towards democracy under difficult circumstances, they still have a long way to go.
To conclude, the Government want there to be a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. We hope that, following the Israeli elections—and once the new government has been formed in Israel—we may have the best opportunity for such negotiations. The current peace process offers by far the best opportunity
334
for such a peace. The Palestinians have the right of self-determination, including the option of a state, but we urge all parties to refrain from unilateral acts that would prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations, and we urge all parties to commit themselves to those negotiations.
Looking at the situation at present, we believe that the best solution for all parties is likely to be a democratic, viable, peaceful and sovereign Palestinian state, arrived at through negotiations.
The key word is "negotiation". The prospects for a negotiated peace are better now than for several years. We have stated our willingness to help in any way we can. We welcome the confirmation by the United States of its readiness to relaunch final status negotiations. We urge all parties to seize this opportunity and to commit themselves wholly to those negotiations.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1997–98
Resolved,
That there be laid before the House the accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1997–98, showing:

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1998.

(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Dowd.]

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

    Good Friday Agreement
    Mr. David Crausby: What progress is being made on issues of equality and human rights under the Good Friday agreement. [84436]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Human Rights Commission was established on 1 March this year. Interviews have also taken place for appointments to the Equality Commission. Since the Belfast agreement, legislation outlawing discrimination has been strengthened and extended to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services.
    Mr. Crausby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that human rights and equality issues are a vital part of the Good Friday agreement, and that the provisions for human rights in Northern Ireland are contained in one of the most advanced regimes in the whole of the western world?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The commission will play a key role in ensuring that the development and protection of human rights remain at the heart of the new system of government in Northern Ireland. It represents a major change in the pattern of human rights protection in the United Kingdom. Professor Brice Dickson, the chair of the commission, heads a highly capable and experienced team, which will work closely with the Assembly and the Government to protect the rights of people from all traditions in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: When the Minister talks about human rights, will he please keep in mind the human rights of the paratroopers whose conduct on Bloody Sunday is the subject of inquiry? Does he agree that, if they are to be required to give evidence, it would be right—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Judicial proceedings are taking place on that issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and knowing the House as well as he does he should be extremely careful in the questions that he puts to the Minister on these matters.
    Mr. Hogg: I was being extremely careful.
    Madam Speaker: I hope so.
    Mr. Hogg: If the paratroopers are required to give evidence, is it not right, as a matter of Government policy, that they should be granted immunity from prosecution?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall be equally careful, Madam Speaker and, as this is a matter for the courts, I shall not answer that question.
    Madam Speaker: I entirely agree with the Minister, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put that question.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will probably recall the statement that the
    336
    right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made about solicitors in Northern Ireland shortly before the death of Mr. Patrick Finucane.
    To come back to the point, will the Minister tell us when he hopes the Equality Commission will come into operation?
    Mr. Murphy: I hope that it will come into operation as soon as possible. My hon. Friend knows that the chief commissioner and the other members of the commission are in the process of being appointed. It has been a long and sometimes difficult exercise because, as my hon. Friend knows, the new commission will take over the duties of four other commissions. We now have agreement on the nature and functions of the new commissioners, but it will be some weeks yet before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is able to announce their names.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: If the new Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland is to be successful, it must enjoy the widespread support and confidence of the whole community. Is it not a reality that the Unionist community perceives a gross imbalance in the composition of the commission, in that there is no substantial or significant Unionist representation on it? What steps will the Secretary of State take to fulfil her statutory obligation to ensure that the composition of the Human Rights Commission reflects the balance of the community, because it does not do so at present?
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering a number of options. It is her duty, as far as is practicable, to ensure that the commission reflects the community in Northern Ireland. It is not merely a question of Unionist or nationalist, Protestant or Catholic, but involves gender, age and professional background. It is important to note that, of the 150 applicants for these jobs, only a tiny handful said that they had Unionist sympathies.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The establishment of the commission is welcome, but the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) is right about the need for the Unionist community to be represented. Could there not also be a representative of bodies that bravely face violence and intimidation? Those bodies do not seem to be represented either.
    Would not human rights in Northern Ireland be greatly benefited by an end to the breaking of limbs, and by the decommissioning of arms?
    Mr. Murphy: No one would disagree with my hon. Friend's last two points. As for the commission, it is important to understand that its establishment results from the Good Friday agreement, and is reflected in statute. However, after devolution, provisions will enable other institutions in Northern Ireland to take into account reviews of people such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: May I raise the issue of the human rights of the families of the disappeared? Does the Minister agree that, now that the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill has

    337
    gone to another place, if the IRA does not produce the information that we all seek it will, yet again, have acted in a despicable manner?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes. We expect progress within a very short time, possibly within days. We are talking to the Irish Government about this important matter.

    Structural Funds
    Shona McIsaac: What consultation she is having in Northern Ireland on the future of EU structural funding. [84438]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Mr. Paul Murphy): Consultation with social partners and local interests began last August, when we wrote to about 250 local interests to seek their views on the post-1999 structural funds. That was followed by a conference last week. Further consultation will take place over the coming months.
    Shona McIsaac: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that that demonstrates the support in the European Community for peace in Northern Ireland. Does he also agree that if we were ever to adopt any of the narrow-minded, inward-looking, navel-gazing, anti-European policies of the Conservative party, we would seriously jeopardise the peace process?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that our membership of the European Union has been a major factor in helping to bring about peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. May I also say something about the Berlin settlement? It is unique: it has no equivalent elsewhere in the European Union. The special peace programme amounts to about £260 million, and I believe that it gives us an opportunity to bring about a peaceful, positive and stable society in Northern Ireland.

    Devolution
    Mr. Don Touhig: What progress is being made towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [84439]
    Mr. Bill Michie: What progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [84440]
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When she expects the Executive for Northern Ireland to assume its governmental responsibilities. [84441]
    Miss Anne Begg: What progress is being made towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [84442]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): A great deal of progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. Practical preparations for devolution are complete, and a deadline of 30 June has been set. The Government and the parties are continuing to talk to resolve the outstanding issues.
    Mr. Touhig: The Government have delivered on their pledges for devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern
    338
    Ireland. As one who represents a Welsh constituency, I consider today's opening of the Welsh Assembly to be an historic event for all the peoples of Britain. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it will be a great disappointment for the people of Northern Ireland if, having elected an Assembly nearly a year ago, they cannot join the people of Wales and Scotland in taking control of their own affairs on devolution day, 1 July?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, that would be a great disappointment—not just for the Northern Ireland parties represented here, but, above all, for the people of Northern Ireland. A year ago, in the only poll that counts—a referendum—they demonstrated that they, too, wanted progress. Now they are scared: they are frightened that progress will not be made. I agree wholeheartedly that it would be an appalling tragedy if we failed to make that progress.
    Mr. Michie: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the recommendations on policing in Northern Ireland will not suggest that there is an equivalence between the law-abiding citizens who have been fighting for law and order and democracy in Northern Ireland, and those who have deliberately sought to destroy those things?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no equivalence between the two groups as he has outlined them; I can give him that assurance categorically. May I at the same time say to the police and to the other emergency services that they have worked so hard over the years to hold the fabric of Northern Ireland together that I should like—in terms of this question—to put that on record. It is important to do that now when we are working up to the parades, as we have on previous years. The police will be caught in the middle between both communities and will be there trying to hold the fabric of that society together and to uphold the rule of law. It is important that, with the Patten commission inquiry pending, that recognition is clearly given.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind the Secretary of State that paragraph 23 of the Belfast agreement is clear:
    "As a condition of appointment, Ministers … will affirm the terms of a Pledge of Office".
    Paragraph (b) of the pledge is a
    "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
    No amount of vacuous sophistry or appeasement can in any sense permit political parties that are apologists for those who illegally hold weapons to participate in an elected Executive for the Province.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a policy of appeasement. That pledge of office and the commitment to non-violence and a democratic way forward was made by the parties in the talks. We are slowly moving that process forward. Yes, there is violence on the fringes still. Since the beginning of May, the figures are something like 20 paramilitary beatings and 15 assaults. Some of those are by groups that want to destroy the process; others are by individuals. I study the information carefully—I can assure him of that—as I did with the security advisers whom I met at the beginning of the week.

    339

    I have hearsay. I have discussion with journalists, but I do not have evidence. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I had evidence, in terms of the judgment that I review constantly in the round as to whether people should still be in the talks, I would act. At the moment, I do not have that information. I make it clear to him that, if I did, I would act accordingly.
    Miss Begg: Having seen the pictures of the new Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh and today's official opening of the Welsh Assembly, does my right hon. Friend share the frustrations of the House of Commons that there has been so little progress in setting up the Executive in Northern Ireland? Will she join me in encouraging the politicians there just to get on with it?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. We all share that frustration. It would be inhuman not to, but we have to understand, and it is difficult some days, that people are trying to change and change is not easy to cope with. I think that everyone wants progress to be made, none more so than the people of Northern Ireland. I do believe that, however slow it is, there is a commitment by the parties to try to make progress and that is what we are seeing at the moment. I am sure that the parties involved in the talks will hear the feelings of the whole House that we want progress to be made because, in the end, that is what the people of Northern Ireland want. I hope that, very soon, with the deadline of 30 June, that frustration declines considerably.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that it appears that, if devolution takes place, Mr. Martin McGuinness will be the Secretary of State for Education, or in charge of education, in Northern Ireland, how will any teacher in any school in Northern Ireland convince the pupils under their care that past involvement in violence, thuggery, beating, mutilations, intimidation, arson, bombings and murder will be a bar to future preferment and advancement?
    Marjorie Mowlam: What we are doing is implementing the Good Friday agreement, which was supported by the parties in the talks. Some parties that are not represented here today voted against it. They will be represented in the devolved Parliament, too, if they so choose, but what we are doing is implementing the Good Friday agreement.
    As I have said so often in the House, we can live in the past, we definitely have to understand the history, but we should not live in the past. If we do, the violence will continue. With the Good Friday agreement, we have the best chance for many years to make progress. Yes, it is difficult. I do not enjoy talking to people with the kind of background that some of them have, but I prefer to talk than have people killed. That is what the Good Friday agreement, at base, is about.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrat Members appreciate the difficulties facing the Secretary of State in trying to reach a compromise by 30 June. If that compromise is not achieved, and there is not a solution by that date, will she trigger d'Hondt?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I should turn that around by saying that, at some point—for devolution to occur—
    340
    d'Hondt will have to be triggered. We shall be spending the next couple of weeks in trying to find a way of doing that.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As we work our way towards reaching agreement, on 30 June, does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at constantly hearing in the House remarks seeming to imply that all the violence is coming from one side? Will she join me in condemning current sectarian attacks against Catholics? What assessment has she made of those who are responsible for that particular violence?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I support my hon. Friend's comment that violence—currently, more loyalist than Catholic—is being perpetrated by both extremes. However, that violence should be roundly condemned by all sides. As I said in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I constantly keep the situation under review and make assessments. My current assessment is that there is not sufficient evidence to make a judgment in the round that action should be taken. However, I should leave the House in no doubt that, if that evidence comes forward, we shall act accordingly.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State said that she wants to live not in the past, but in the present and the future. Will she therefore hail as a success implementation of the Good Friday agreement if terrorists and representatives of terrorist organisations are sitting in the Government of Northern Ireland while those same terrorist organisations—be it the IRA or others—hold on to their weapons?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, as Ministers have said many times from the Dispatch Box, there will have to be both decommissioning and formation of the Executive. Both will have to happen: the Good Friday agreement will have to be implemented. Neither is a precondition, but both are obligations. We are currently working on a way in which to ensure that both happen.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State recall that the Prime Minister described the recent Hillsborough declaration as a "huge and significant milestone"? If that is so, why has the declaration's central plank—on IRA decommissioning of illegally held weapons—been jettisoned, and why are we now being told that Sinn Fein members should, before decommissioning, take their places in the Executive?
    Marjorie Mowlam: That is a complete misrepresentation of current discussions. The Hillsborough declaration was the best that the two Governments could do to find a way forward in addressing the issues that I outlined in my previous reply. We are trying to address those issues now, as we have been for the past four weeks. The options currently being considered by the parties do not address the big issues of decommissioning and formation of the Executive, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but are a step towards addressing them, in the hope of making some progress in moving the process forward. Progress will not be made in a flash of immediacy, but will be made step

    341
    by step. We are now considering only one of those steps, and it does not include the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. MacKay: The questions that I have asked are essential and fundamental. There is no question that, in a democracy, such as ours, people should hold Executive office but not decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. It would hugely help the talks and the process if the Secretary of State would now promise the House that there are no circumstances in which Sinn Fein members would become Ministers in the Executive without having properly started to decommission their illegally held weapons.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the two issues are crucial—central—to the Good Friday agreement. No one is avoiding them. All one is trying to do—it is the nature of negotiations—is to try, slowly, to build the trust and confidence to move the process forward. The issues will be got to—they cannot be avoided; they are part of the agreement. The process that we are trying to achieve is one in which the parties reach a point at which they are able directly to address those issues. If we bang them on the table on day one, we are not likely to make progress. We are still at day one in trying to deal with the issue. That is the nature of the negotiations. We are trying to move issues forward step by step. It is for the parties, with our help and support, to do what they can to reach an accommodation on the issues.

    Early Years Education
    Charlotte Atkins: What progress has been made in the last year in the provision of early years education in Northern Ireland. [84444]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): Over the past year, significant progress has been made towards increasing the availability of pre-school education in Northern Ireland. In the 1998–99 school year, 2,200 additional places have been provided at a cost of £2.65 million. Resources have been made available in 1999–2000 to secure a further 2,300 free pre-school places, raising provision to almost 70 per cent. of the pre-school cohort.
    Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial aspects of effective pre-school education must be quality of provision and access for the most disadvantaged? What are the Government doing to ensure that those features are key in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Access for the disadvantaged was worked into our pre-school education policy in the 1997 consultation document. She is right about quality and I should like to reassure her on four points. First, there will be a common curriculum in all settings. Secondly, nurseries will be inspected by education and training staff. Thirdly, the staff will be required to have training or qualifications in education or child care. Fourthly, from 1999–2000 there must be a qualified early years specialist involved in a way that will raise standards for children in those schools.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: We in Northern Ireland congratulate the Government on the additional resources
    342
    that are being made available and the additional places that have been created for nursery school children. To what extent have the concerns of parents about the application of the criteria for entrance to nursery schools been met? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that new funding for future provision goes to the areas where there is currently clearly under–provision?
    Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been some misconceptions about the issues. To deal with that, I established an advisory group comprising officials from my Department and the education and library boards. I have told them to keep in constant contact with Assembly representatives and Members of Parliament. We have targeted social disadvantage. From September, two out of every three places will be available to children of parents who are not disadvantaged, but there will be an allocation for the disadvantaged. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those measures on social disadvantage for some parts of his constituency.

    Drumcree
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What assessment she has made of the prospects for achieving a local accommodation over the disputed parade at Drumcree this year. [84446]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Frank Blair, the director of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in Scotland, is continuing to work as a facilitator with the Government's full backing. I also support the efforts of others, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to promote dialogue and resolve the issue. Agreement is clearly possible if good will exists. Local accommodation is in the interests of the whole community.
    Mr. Savidge: I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland ministerial team, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all those who are making serious efforts to resolve the difficult problem. What is my hon. Friend's assessment of the possible impact on the Northern Ireland economy, including the tourist trade, of a failure to find agreement at Drumcree?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Another confrontation at Drumcree this year would damage the economy and would clearly hit the tourist trade yet again. Investors and visitors are deterred from coming to Northern Ireland by scenes of violence on the streets. I hope that both sides will fully engage with our initiatives and will seek to reach an accommodation for this year and future years.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister acknowledge that the situation at Drumcree has been greatly exacerbated by the decision of the Parades Commission last year not to let the parade go ahead? Does he also acknowledge that there are some problems for which there is no accommodation and there is likely to be no accommodation at Drumcree? Will the Government

    343
    therefore protect the rights of Orangemen who return to their Orange hall on the public highway and ensure that they have equal rights in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was implacably opposed to the establishment of the Parades Commission and we had many healthy exchanges during the passing of that legislation. However, he also has a duty to encourage those who may be in conflict with the body that was established by Parliament to uphold the rule of law at all times. Of course, there are two sides to the issue and that is why the Government, from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister down, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) seek to do everything possible to achieve accommodation and find an answer to this difficult issue.

    Restorative Justice
    Angela Smith: What the objectives are of the new Government initiatives on restorative justice in Northern Ireland. [84447]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government support restorative justice because, when operated in co-operation with the formal justice system, it offers a positive, inclusive approach to dealing with the effects of crime by concentrating on restoring relationships between the victim, the offender and the community which are damaged by criminal or anti-social behaviour.
    Angela Smith: I welcome that answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that it is crucial, particularly in Northern Ireland, that restorative justice has the support of the community. Therefore, when he is considering local schemes, will he stress the importance of flexibility and local imagination to ensure that they work?
    Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. Those who have been putting the schemes together looked at similar schemes, such as those in New Zealand, and concepts such as family group conferencing and other new and imaginative ideas to try to find new ways forward. Of course such schemes must always work alongside the judicial process. We must ensure that individual human rights are always fully protected within the process of natural justice. The Government are being imaginative and we will listen to new and innovative ideas from the community.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the Minister's assurance and welcome the steps towards qualified restorative justice. Does he agree that when magistrates courts release people who are charged with heroin dealing, that is not restorative justice, but allows people out immediately to reoffend? Should there not be some cut-off point at which we realise that restorative justice cannot work?
    Mr. Ingram: There will be occasions when restorative justice does not work. It depends on everyone co-operating with the process. The drug problem in Northern Ireland is not yet as prevalent as elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.
    344
    However, the threat is there, and, for that reason, I am actively pursuing a major anti-drugs strategy that is consistent with the Government's approach.

    Decommissioning
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: If she will make a statement on progress on
    (a) the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and (b) the creation of a Northern Ireland Executive. [84449]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): Progress is being made. It is slow and difficult. Sometimes it is four steps forward and three back, but people are still talking and not walking and that is what counts. Everyone is trying towards implementing the agreement in full.
    Dr. Godman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement requires the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons by May 2000 and that if the agreement is to work, progress must be made on all its aspects? Does she further agree that the people of Northern Ireland must be casting an envious eye on Cardiff and Edinburgh, where the Assembly and the Parliament are gathering momentum?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes and yes.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday, 26 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I will also be attending the celebrations to mark the opening of the Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Prime Minister share the commitment of his socialist Members of the European Parliament to giving the European Union power over our savings taxes and capital taxes?
    The Prime Minister: We set out our position yesterday on the savings tax. We believe in a sensible and constructive attitude in Europe that manages to secure victories for Britain in Europe, unlike the isolated and the divided regime of the Tories which brought us nothing but defeat in Europe.
    Miss Anne Begg: Last week, this House voted for extra benefits to be paid to severely disabled young people, and it also saw the completion of the Standing Committee on the Disabled Rights Commission Bill, taking this country a step closer—or a roll closer, in my case—towards ensuring that there is an end to discrimination against disabled people. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that

    345
    all Government buildings and Departments will become models of good practice in dealing with disabled people, and that not only will the necessary ramps, lifts and toilets be in place, but that they will work when a disabled person wants to use them?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. It is important that the Government and the public sector give a proper lead in installing facilities and making them work. I am sorry if there have been such problems recently. We are proud to create the Disability Rights Commission, which is a big step forward. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we will be providing more money for disabled people to help them with their problems and to help them to get back to work. We are making the necessary reforms to make sure that money goes to those who need help the most. Our reforms are right in principle and will make sure that, for the first time, many disabled people up and down the country will get the help that they need.
    Mr. William Hague: Instead of negotiating an European Union directive on savings taxation, which includes the withholding tax and threatens thousands of jobs in this country, should not we be making clear that all such directives are unacceptable to this country? Should not the whole idea have been vetoed at the beginning?
    The Prime Minister: The stories in some of the newspapers this morning that we have agreed to the withholding tax are, as we told them, complete and total nonsense. There is no change in our position. There will be no withholding tax imposed on Britain by Brussels. There will be no agreement to anything that damages the eurobond market. There will be no agreement; there has been no agreement; there is no agreement. However, we will win the argument—that is the difference.
    Mr. Hague: If that is the case, why did the German Finance Minister say after yesterday's meeting that the withholding tax had taken a big step forward? How did he get that impression? How did it come about that the account of the meeting issued to Agence Europe says:
    "In the absence of the British point of view on the issue of"—
    tax on savings—
    "the debate was short"?
    How did it come about that the British Chancellor was present at a meeting at which the British point of view was absent? The account stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    "undertook to clarify his country's position in June."
    How convenient—to do so after the European elections. Is not it always the case that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend to be robust and reassuring in the House of Commons, and are then pathetically weak in the Council of Ministers on these issues?
    The Prime Minister: We have been asked to make proposals to deal in a better way with the tax evasion that, perfectly rightly, worries many countries in Europe. I have made it clear here—and I will do so again—that we will use the veto if necessary, but that it is better to win the argument, because there are many other issues on which we will require support from other countries.
    346
    On tax harmonisation and the veto, only 18 pieces of tax harmonisation have been agreed by any British Government, and all of them were agreed by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Hague: Every time I talk about the future, the Prime Minister talks about the past. Is it not time that the Government showed the way on taxes in Europe? Instead of all the rubbish in the European socialist manifesto that he has signed about harmful tax competition, should not we be celebrating tax competition, extending our tax advantages and widening the gap in taxes rather than trying to eliminate it?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have got the lowest corporation tax ever, under a Labour Government. It is not only the 18 tax harmonisation measures that the Conservatives agreed: they agreed 42 extensions of qualified majority voting.
    Because of our attitude, which seeks to be positive and engaged and to win in Europe, we have secured the rebate that the Conservatives said we would never secure; got better deals on structural funds than ever before, which they said that we could not do; secured the highlands and islands deal, which they said we would never get; and got the BSE ban lifted, which they had imposed. The choice is very, very simple. We can have isolation, division and failure with the Tories or constructive engagement, partnership and success under Labour.
    Mr. Hague: What a stream of fiction. If there is nothing to worry about on tax, why are the 200 items of national tax measures now being harmonised by the EU treated as a Government secret, only discovered at all by internet users who speak Dutch? They do not normally look for the details of tax harmonisation proposals. After all the evasions, secrecies and half-truths over the measures, will the Prime Minister agree to publish the list of them?
    The Prime Minister: May I deal with the supposed 200 hidden taxes? The Tories got that story on the front page of The Mail on Sunday, which would print any old rubbish that they send it. The secret proposal is in fact the Code of Conduct Committee, which is chaired by a Treasury Minister. So secret is it that we had a full debate on it in the House in December.
    Mr. Hague: As usual, we get assertions from the Prime Minister that are total rubbish. There has been no debate about the 200 measures now before that committee. This is a Government who are supposed to believe in freedom of information. The Home Secretary said:
    "everyone will have the right … to information held by bodies across the public sector."—[Official Report, 24 May 1999;Vol.332,c.21.]
    Will the Prime Minister now publish the full list of the 200 measures under discussion?
    The Prime Minister: There are no 200 hidden measures, just as we have not given up the veto, agreed to a withholding tax or agreed, for example, to paper-boys, double-decker buses or curved bananas being banned, or any of the rest of the Euro-twaddle that the right hon. Gentleman comes out with. At some point, he and the other people who parrot the same nonsense in the

    347
    newspapers, should realise that Britain is in the European Union and it is right that we should be, so for heaven's sake let us make the best of it.
    Mr. Hague: So the answer is no, the right hon. Gentleman will not publish the list. The trouble for the Government is that nobody can believe anything that they say on Europe. It is freedom of information on Monday and the concealment of information on Wednesday. It is tax competition here and tax harmonisation over there. The Prime Minister loves the pound at election time and wants to abolish it the rest of the time. Do not the people want the Government of this country to say what they mean, to do what they say and to keep us in Europe, not run by Europe?
    The Prime Minister: On the Freedom of Information Bill, the previous Government had 18 years to introduce such a measure. We have now done it.
    I have already dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's nonsense about tax. I return to this basic point: the withholding tax is a classic example of the right and the wrong ways to do business for Britain in Europe. There is a problem with tax evasion in European countries. We will not agree to anything that harms the City or the eurobond market or agree to Brussels imposing a withholding tax on Britain. However, as the Chancellor has secured, if we can show other countries a better way of dealing with their legitimate problems while protecting our interests, that is a better way to do business in Europe.
    We had 18 years of Conservative Government and their diplomacy in Europe. What did it do? It led us to marginalisation, a lack of influence and the worst situation for Britain in Europe since the second world war. Slowly but surely, a different Government with a better attitude are rebuilding British power and influence. That is the best way to proceed: success under us; failure under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Prime Minister to turn his mind to the situation in Yugoslavia? Does he accept that, after two months of bombing, seeing hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Kosovo, hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties in Yugoslavia and an environmental disaster caused by the use of depleted uranium and the bombing of chemical works, it is time to achieve a peace settlement by involving, rather than bypassing, the United Nations? Is it not time to involve Kofi Annan in a peacekeeping mission rather than watching NATO trying to undermine the situation and continue an illegal war? The United Nations should have been involved from the beginning.
    The Prime Minister: First, on a point of fact, in the last day, the United Nations body responsible for the environment has said that the Serbian claims are nonsense and untrue—there has not been the environmental damage claimed. My hon. Friend referred to civilians who have died in Serbia, but I hoped that he would mention also the thousands of people who have been butchered in Kosovo.
    We would dearly love it if the United Nations were able to come in, resolve the issue and allow the refugees to return. There have been 72 United Nations resolutions in the past few years asking Milosevic to do the right thing, but he is not a man who cares for the
    348
    United Nations. He is not acting according to international law: he is pursuing a policy of racial genocide. Anybody who believes in the basic principles of justice and humanity should support our case.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is not the significance of NATO's decision yesterday almost to double the ground forces around Kosovo simply that NATO has at last given itself the means of widening the option for the use of ground forces—if time requires or the military situation allows—from peacekeeping to peacemaking?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt at all that it is a significant and a right move, taken on the basis of NATO's comments yesterday. I think that it is important that we have demonstrated our clear intent and determination to make sure that there is a sufficient force so that the refugees can be allowed home properly.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important answer. Is it not also the case that NATO's much-loved phrase "keeping all options open" has, with an insufficient ground force until now, meant only one of two things: bombing or compromise? This important decision means that we have invested what was until now merely a declaration with the means of making it an imminent reality.
    The Prime Minister: As I said, NATO's announcement was made in the terms that it expressed. There is a growing recognition that the air campaign is doing immense damage to Milosevic. In the past two days, scores of tanks and artillery in Kosovo have been hit. However, it is important to ensure that we have sufficient ground forces—we will need them on any basis—to do the job of getting the refugees back home.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: The Prime Minister will be aware that there is wide cross-party support in the House for the ex-distant water trawlermen, who petitioned him this morning at 10 Downing street. Those men lost their jobs as a direct result of a Government decision; they were promised compensation in the House and have received nothing; £100 million was given to trawler owners, not one penny of which went to the crews. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the passage of time in no way diminishes the legitimacy of their claim, and will he assure me that his Government will give it urgent and proper consideration?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give urgent and proper consideration to any claim, but obviously I do so without prejudice to the outcome. We are aware of the strength of feeling and we are aware that the passage of time has not diminished it.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why has the Prime Minister allowed the disgraced European Commissioners to remain in office for the past two months, drawing their salaries and making 120 important decisions? Is it not the case that their resignation was a complete and utter sham?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not the case, and there will soon be a new Commission. I make an appeal to the

    349
    Conservative party which will fall largely on deaf ears: it would be sensible, now that we have a new Commission President, and new Commissioners will soon be in position, if we tried just for once to work with them sensibly and constructively, rather than attacking them all the time.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to my right hon. Friend's exchanges with the leader of one of the two Conservative parties fighting the European elections, does he agree that the choice in Europe is between a Government who fight for Britain's interests, build coalitions with allies to get their way and have decisions made in their favour, and a party that stands on the sidelines shouting abuse and then experiences resounding electoral defeat, as it did two years ago?
    The Prime Minister: That choice is very clear. I know that, in the European elections, people will not want to let the Conservatives in by the back door; no one wants that. The Conservative party's division on Europe obviously remains and is even being exhibited in these elections. A divided party cannot get the best deal for this country. We learned that when the Conservatives were in government, and we learn it now that they are in opposition.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why, after two years of a Labour Government and in spite of much rhetoric from Ministers, they are worse off? They are worse off financially because of additional hidden taxes, an enormous hike in petrol prices and higher council tax bills, such as Labour and Liberal-controlled Hertfordshire county council's 9.5 per cent. increase this year. Their commuter journeys to London are disrupted by deteriorating train services—[Interruption.] It is true. Their NHS hospital waiting times have soared since May 1997, and Princess Alexandra hospital is closing 25 beds. In my constituency, more children than ever before are not being offered their first choice of school when they transfer from primary to secondary school.
    Is it not the case that the Labour party misled the electorate at the general election and is incapable of fulfilling its promises?
    The Prime Minister: First, living standards in this country are rising. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention that, under this Government, interest and mortgage rates are the lowest for more than 30 years. We are the Government who put the extra investment into schools and hospitals which her Front Benchers described as irresponsible. We are the Government who are introducing the working families tax credit, which will greatly help low-income families. We introduced the statutory minimum wage. We are reducing class sizes. We are getting waiting lists down. Those are all promises fulfilled.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the network of small town and rural post offices does not fall victim to the correct abandonment of the Horizon project earlier this week? That was an ill-conceived and public relations-led Tory information technology project which failed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my post offices will stay open?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to a nationwide network of post
    350
    offices. The reforms that we announced at the end of last year aim to help the Post Office to continue to provide such a network. Those reforms will ensure the strict protection of the public service commitment, including universal public service obligations.
    We announced earlier this week that the network of almost 19,000 post offices will be equipped with a modern, on-line IT system by 2001. That will enable rural post offices to modernise their existing services and secure their viable long-term future.
    Mr. John Hayes: This is a straightforward, specific question; I hope that it will be answered in a similar vein. Why, for secondary, nursery and upper-age primary school pupils, are class sizes getting larger under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: They are not getting larger. For the first time—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not like the answer. For primary school pupils, class sizes are falling; we have got 130,000 five, six and seven-year-olds out of class sizes of more than 30, where they used to be under the Government whom he supported; and in secondary schools, we are getting the adult-pupil and teacher-pupil ratios down. The extra investment that we are making is already paying dividends.
    Mr. Martin Linton: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to reform of the welfare state—which was created by a Labour Government and will be reformed by a Labour Government—and the chaotic welfare system that they inherited from the previous Government? Will he confirm that they will tackle both those reforms to end abuse of the system while remaining sensitive to the needs of people who, through no fault of their own, are entirely dependent on benefits, which are still very low?
    The Prime Minister: In the first two years of this Government, social security spending has been controlled for the first time in ages. Through the new deal, we have been able to offer young people and the long-term unemployed a chance to go back to work and get skills and training. For the first time, we have offered single parents the chance of proper child care so that they can go to work if they wish. We are reforming the welfare state, but in a way that is humane and just, and gets help to people who really need it.
    What a contrast with the Conservative Government, who, for 18 years, talked about welfare reform, but under whom the costs doubled, the number of those on benefit rose and rose and no young person in the inner city got the chance of employment, which we are now providing. The Labour party is the party of radical welfare reform, which is conducted in the right and proper way.
    Mr. James Gray: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple numerical question, which is incapable of being subject to spin or general guff? What was the average secondary school class size when he came to power, and what is it today?
    The Prime Minister: As I have just pointed out—[Interruption.] The ratio of teachers to pupils in secondary schools is falling; it is not rising. Not merely is the ratio

    351
    falling in secondary schools, but primary school class sizes have come down, not gone up. I know that Opposition Members do not like the answer, but that is the answer.
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Tomorrow, the Deputy Prime Minister will be visiting my constituency in east London—and he will be exceptionally welcome—to officiate at the groundbreaking ceremony marking the start of the building of Excel, which, when completed, will be the largest exhibition and conference centre in the United Kingdom. Despite such exciting initiatives, 13 of the 20 most deprived wards in the UK are in Greater London, where we have more unemployment than Scotland and Northern Ireland combined. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to support the regeneration of the Thames gateway? Does he agree that the areas of London for which objective 2 status is sought have an exceptionally strong case?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point. I know that, along with his colleagues, he will be meeting Ministers to argue their points on objective 2 status. I gather that Excel, once completed, is expected to create about 14,000 jobs. It is the latest of a series of public-private projects for regeneration of the docklands and elsewhere, and is exactly the right type of co-operation between the private and public sector for the future.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Prime Minister tell the House this afternoon whether the devious drift to regional government in the United Kingdom, the likely tax harmonisation with the European Union, with all the additional costs for most businesses and individuals in this country, and the sale of our gold reserves—or much of our gold reserves—for a devalued euro are his way of submerging the United Kingdom into a Europe of the regions, thus making the holding of a referendum totally irrelevant?
    The Prime Minister: No is the answer to all those points. If I may deal with one—
    Mr. Winterton: Deal with all of them.
    The Prime Minister: If I may begin by dealing with one of them, on the gold reserves, throughout the world countries have been selling gold in order to diversify their reserves. It has happened—[Interruption.] I was not aware that Argentina or Switzerland were about to join the euro. Lots of different countries have been doing it. It was always rubbish that this was anything to do with the euro; it is nothing to do with it.
    As for regional government, we have said that we shall work with the regions. If they want greater power, we are prepared to give it.
    As for the development agencies that are being set up in the regions, I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's region, but I shall speak for mine, the north-east, where everyone welcomes the idea. It is a good idea to co-ordinate investment to get new investment into the region. I appreciate that the Conservatives are opposed to everything to do with greater power to and
    352
    decentralisation of the regions, just as they are opposed to Europe, but they should not wish all their problems on the rest of us.
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Experience as a magistrate and from the work that I have done in my constituency has made me well aware of the extent of the problem of drug abuse. Sadly, many children in secondary schools today are experimenting with drugs such as heroin. For some people, financing their habit is not a problem. For others, it is, and they resort to criminal activity, ranging from petty theft to more serious offences, such as burglary, fraud and deception.
    I am aware of many of the voluntary projects, such as The Zone drop-in project in Halesowen, which are offering advice to young people and their families, and authorities such as Sandwell health authority, which are setting targets to reduce the amount of drug abuse. Therefore, I welcome the Government's proposals on drug abuse.
    Can my right hon. Friend assure me, however, that, in addition to those targets, he will ensure that there is an increase in the availability of treatment and rehabilitation centres? Punishment alone is not a sufficient deterrent.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We are increasing the resources that are going to treatment and rehabilitation. We have introduced penalties as well, such as the drug treatment and testing order, to put criminals with drug problems into treatment. For the first time, assets seized from drug traffickers convicted in this country will be channelled back into action against drugs.
    The Government have launched a major programme and attached to it are specific targets to cut drug abuse. For the first time, we are co-ordinating actively across Government Departments the fight against drugs and drug abuse.
    Mr. John Butterfill: The Prime Minister knows that I am not one of those who oppose our membership of the European Union, and no one who has listened to him today can have any doubt of his commitment to the well-being of the European Union, but in relation to withholding tax, surely he knows that it would not be uniquely damaging to the United Kingdom, but would be extremely damaging to the European Union as a whole. Therefore, does he not have a duty to do everything in his power to prevent it from occurring?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not opposed to the European Union, and I agree with him in everything else that he said. That is precisely why the sensible response is for us to say to the rest of Europe, "Yes, you have a problem with tax evasion in certain countries"—and it does. Germany has a serious problem with companies simply crossing borders as a means of tax evasion. We are saying, "Look, we can deal with that problem in a different way." The hon. Gentleman is right that the withholding tax, if it were imposed throughout Europe by the centre, would damage not just the UK, but other countries. It is for that reason that we are engaging constructively, and doing our very best to ensure that the damage is not done, but that, instead, we offer those countries a better, more sensible way of dealing with their problems.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware

    353
    that cancer is the No. 1 killer disease in England and Wales. Will he therefore join me in congratulating the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and local Shropshire charities on the wonderful care that they give cancer patients and their families? Can he update the House on the outcome of the meeting that he held last week with top cancer specialists, which gave a great boost to all those who are involved in the crusade against cancer?
    The Prime Minister: One in four people will die of cancer. That is why the Government are committed to making our cancer services the best in the world. We have invested an extra £60 million directly in services for the three most common cancers, and are committing another £150 million to get state-of-the-art equipment in our hospitals, increasing the number of cancer specialists and providing up to 15,000 extra nurses, as well as increasing spending on cancer drugs. That is all part of the largest single increase in investment in the health service—the £21 billion—that any Government have ever made. Conservative Members may not like that, but it is the right thing to do, the country likes it, and it stands in contrast to the undermining of the health service by the Conservative party.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Scottish Enterprise Act 1999
  Rating (Valuation) Act 1999
  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999

Kosovo
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Two months into NATO's campaign, I think that it is appropriate that I should report to the House, before it rises for the recess, on the Kosovo crisis.
Before I do so, I place on record the huge debt that we all owe the men and women of all three services and their civilian support, for their bravery, commitment and sheer hard work in support of NATO's efforts to help the refugees from Kosovo and to end the horror being inflicted by the Belgrade regime in Kosovo.
The men and women of our armed forces have seen with their own eyes the results of the horrific ethnic cleansing carried out by Milosevic's troops, the special police and the paramilitaries—the torture, the systematic rape, the murder and the eviction of more than 1 million people. They know that they are engaged in the pursuit of a just cause—the return of the evicted people of Kosovo to their homes in safety and security.
At the Washington summit at the end of April, NATO's political leaders took two important decisions on the future direction of the alliance's military strategy in Kosovo. First, they agreed to step up and intensify the air campaign. The results of that decision are daily becoming more evident, as NATO planes steadily weaken and progressively destroy the capability of Milosevic's forces and increase the pressure on him to accept a peace settlement based on NATO's conditions.
NATO's air campaign is working. During last week's debate, I gave some statistics about the amount of damage that we have already done to Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. Each day, we add more to the tally. Yesterday alone, NATO aircraft destroyed at least 15 artillery pieces, five tanks, a surface-to-air missile launcher and several artillery and mortar positions. On 22 May, the tally included at least 12 tanks and 11 armoured vehicles.
The overall losses inflicted on the Yugoslav forces are now estimated to include more than 110 combat aircraft. NATO estimates that that includes about 70 per cent. of the Mig-29s and about one quarter of the Mig-21s. These are the most combat-effective of the Yugoslav aircraft, and they represent a significant loss.
We have struck about 600 individual pieces of military equipment, more than half of them tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers. That constitutes about one third of the Serb heavy forces in Kosovo. We have destroyed 75 per cent. of Serbia's fixed surface-to-air missile sites and more than 12 per cent. of the mobile systems. We have struck more than a dozen command posts.
Those are the effects of the air campaign on the forces on the ground, which present the most challenging targets. The strategic targets include most of the primary road and rail bridges over which supplies must pass. We have attacked more than a third of all the fixed telecommunications sites, and we have repeatedly attacked airfields and hangars, and numerous ammunition and fuel storage sites and barracks.
All that represents a very effective air campaign, which is achieving the military objectives that we set at the outset of the campaign. The demonstrations, desertions and dissent that we have witnessed in recent days are
356
evidence that ordinary Serbs are now questioning the policies of Milosevic and the damaging and unwinnable conflict with NATO into which he has led them.

The second Washington summit decision was to update NATO's plans for the deployment of ground forces. Air and ground options are sometimes described as though they are separate and different. That has never been the case. NATO has always planned for a ground force to ensure the safe return home of the refugees, once the air campaign has achieved its objective. We have already assembled a Kosovo Force of about 14,000 in Macedonia, including substantial contributions from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
However, the massive destruction wrought by Milosevic's forces in Kosovo means that the originally planned total of 28,000 will no longer be adequate. On top of the task of creating a secure environment for the returning refugees, it is now necessary to plan on a much increased scale to assist with the re-establishment of the civil infrastructure, the provision of humanitarian aid and the clearance of land mines laid by Milosevic's forces. We are working with our partners to ensure that civil structures are in place to take on those tasks, but, inevitably, much of the early burden will fall to military forces.
The North Atlantic Council yesterday took note of a revised plan drawn up by NATO's military authorities, which, subject to more detailed planning, identifies a requirement for a force of about 45,000 to deal with the full range of tasks now envisaged. That figure excludes any additional forces that may be needed to provide essential national logistic support, which may raise the overall number to nearer 55,000 to 60,000. Further work to develop this military planning is going ahead within NATO.
The Kosovo Force plans will still need to be adapted as the situation on the ground changes and to take account of wider developments in the context of a political settlement. Discussions are taking place about the contributions that allies can make to such a force.
The British Government have made it clear that, as in Bosnia, we are keen to work with other nations that are prepared to provide military forces for KFOR. Given the need for NATO to be ready to react quickly to deploy into Kosovo in support of a peace settlement, the UK is today taking a number of steps on a national basis to ensure that we can move as soon as it is possible to get the refugees back home.
We have decided that the United Kingdom will make a substantial contribution to the planned force. That is consistent with the role that we have taken so far in the campaign and with our determination to see it brought to a quick and successful conclusion. We are determined that as many refugees as possible can return home before the winter closes in.
Because of the capability and deployability of our forces, the United Kingdom is well placed to contribute to that operation. Moreover, as the Framework Nation for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—the ARRC—our initial contribution will inevitably be high. However, we envisage that the UK contribution to the force will reduce markedly after an initial deployment period of six months.
I am now reducing the notice to move of the three infantry battalion groups which, as previously announced, are undergoing training for possible operations in Kosovo.

357
The units concerned are the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Rangers; the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; and the 1st Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles.
In addition, we are reducing the notice of 3 Commando brigade and the amphibious ready group, of a number of combat support groups, of two brigade headquarters, of elements of a divisional headquarters and of a number of RAF support helicopters and support units. I am placing in the Library of the House a full list of the units involved.
Precisely how many of those earmarked forces will be needed by NATO will depend on a number of factors—most important, what forces other allies are able to provide in the time required. Given the importance that NATO attaches to the early identification, training, commitment and deployment of additional forces, we judge it prudent to take those steps now to keep options open and to be ready to respond once firm requests are received from NATO. The geographical distance of the United Kingdom from the theatre of operations means that deployment times are inevitably longer for us than for most other allies.
In all, we are reducing the notice to move of more than 12,000 personnel, in addition to the 5,400 already deployed in Macedonia as part of the Kosovo implementation force and the 1,600 others committed to Kosovo operations. We are also taking steps to provide the equipment and material needed to support a force of that size and are making preparations to deploy the heavy equipment of the three infantry battalion groups and some combat support to the region next month.
Those are serious steps, and they will place great demands on all three services and on individual service men and their families, but they measure up to the seriousness of the situation confronting us in Kosovo. Let us remember that 1.5 million people—more than three quarters of the population of Kosovo—have been driven from their homes in terror. Our objective is to allow them to return home and rebuild their shattered lives in secure and civilised conditions and, in doing so, to show that the cruelty and brutality that we have seen in Kosovo over the past year will simply not be tolerated.
That is a major and a momentous undertaking which, in the coming months and years, will require a major investment of diplomatic, financial, humanitarian and military effort. The measures that I have announced today are a further demonstration of the Government's determination to play a full part in that historic effort.
Mr. John Maples: I fully associate the Opposition with the support expressed by the Secretary of State for the work that our armed services are doing in the Balkans.
Last week in the Kosovo debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I drew attention to what we saw as confusion at the heart of Government policy. Despite all the Foreign Secretary's travels and all the spinning during the past week, that confusion remains. Today's statement, although it announces the commitment of considerably more British troops to possible deployment in Macedonia, does nothing to clarify that confusion.
In the light of what he has said, can the Secretary of State confirm that the three battalion groups whose notice to move he has reduced are the same 2,000 soldiers who,
358
he announced some weeks ago, were being assigned to KFOR in Macedonia? When does he expect them to be deployed? Is it true that the only way in which the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment has been able to make up its numbers is by borrowing more than 150 people from the 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment?
Last week, the Foreign Secretary went to Washington to remove the apparent split between the United Kingdom and the United States over ground troops. We were treated to a media double act by the Foreign Secretary and Mrs. Albright. We were told that they were at one, but, no sooner had the Foreign Secretary left, suggesting a new US willingness to use ground troops, than Mrs. Albright was denying any possibility of NATO entering Kosovo in anything other than a permissive environment.
All that has been agreed is a more realistically sized peacekeeping force at 48,000, although the Secretary of State has told us that that figure might rise to 60,000. The Government have been presenting that in the media as the basis of a possible invasion force, but, at yesterday's NATO force planning meeting, Ken Bacon, the Pentagon spokesman said:
"the force will be structured to provide plenty of non-military public security function to ensure the safe return of the refugees."
Today, he said:
"this is not a shadow invasion force."
Is it the basis of a possible invasion force or not?
The composition of the extra 20,000 troops apparently will take another full week to decide. Whatever happened to rapid reaction? It is now nine weeks since the bombing started. Only 14,000 of the 28,000 troops are actually in place in Macedonia. When does the Secretary of State expect the full 48,000—or now perhaps 60,000—to be available in theatre? Are the NATO forces in Albania included in the 48,000 total? How many of the 48,000 troops does he expect to be equipped and configured for war fighting, as opposed to peacekeeping?
The Government clearly still believe that we can achieve our aims only by the more aggressive use of ground troops, but none of our allies appears to share that view. The Foreign Secretary continues to talk of a "semi-permissive environment", to blur that division. However, I am advised that, in reality, there is no such thing. We either drive down the road into Kosovo as a peacekeeping force, or we enter configured for war fighting and prepared to meet resistance.
Javier Solana says that the alliance plans to bring the war to a close and return the refugees before the winter. We believe that that timetable is crucial. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister agreed that the window of opportunity was very small, and that decisions would have to be made very soon. It seems to us that those decisions have not been made. The Government's preferred option of an early use of ground troops has probably been lost already through indecision over an issue that should have been resolved before we started.
Do we not appear now to be wholly reliant on the success of the bombing campaign? Of course, we must all hope that it will work, but I do not think that a single independent military expert believes that it will. Meanwhile, the flood of refugees continues, with all their evidence of Milosevic's revolting crimes. We want all those refugees to return to their homes. We want the Government to succeed in achieving that but, as I said last

359
week, we cannot go on as we have for the past eight weeks. The Government must develop a credible strategy. I see no evidence that that is happening. I only hope that there is still time for them to do so.
Mr. Robertson: I take that as support.
Mr. Maples: It was.
Mr. Robertson: I suppose that that qualified support is better than no support, which is what has been offered by some other hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench.
I shall answer the questions that have been raised soberly, because there should be maximum unity in the House at this time. Frankly, there are many questions to which enormously detailed answers would be of more advantage to the opponents of the alliance than to the House. However, my military commanders and I have given the maximum information that we believe is reasonable and possible. We have been attacked in many quarters for giving too much information—an accusation that I take on the chin.
The hon. Gentleman first asked whether the three battalion groups that I have talked about today were the same 2,000 troops that we sent to Kosovo as part of the second battle group. No, they are not, and that should have been reasonably obvious. We announced that those three battalion groups had been put into training, with the potential of being available if NATO were to decide that a bigger force was needed.
The hon. Gentleman asked when those troops will be deployed. That is a matter for NATO, not for individual countries. I wish that the Opposition, when they respond, both in the House and outside it, to statements such as today's, would remember that the operation is being conducted by NATO. There are 19 countries in NATO. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to attack this Government in this House, but this is an alliance effort, and all the stronger for being so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was aware that, if required, I Para would be able to deploy only if it borrowed from 3 Para. Of course I am aware of that. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, in practically every operational context, now and during the previous Government's period in office, battalions deployed for operations in theatre are all backfilled.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman made too much fun of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State, who last weekend showed the alliance solidarity that binds us together. On the very day that my right hon. Friend left Washington, the President of the United States wrote an article in The New York Times that made it clear that other military options existed and that no military option had been taken off the table. The hon. Gentleman may care to pick apart various phrases, but that is the reality of the alliance that we have today.
The shadow Defence Secretary claims that we suggested in the media that this is an invasion force, whereas we have said exactly the opposite. This is not an invasion force: it is a strengthened peace implementation force. That is a fact, and that is the reality of what we are doing. He asked when the troops would arrive in theatre.
360
I have no intention of answering that question today, and anyway it depends on what the NATO military authorities ask us to provide from the earmarked troops.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the total numbers include troops in Albania. Although the commander of the Albania force, General Reith, who is acting with enormous distinction and international praise, happens to be British, he is a NATO commander. He has some British support elements, but the vast majority of the troops in Albania, who are, after all, in the theatre, come from France, Italy and the United States.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about windows of opportunity. I should like to say to him and to anyone else who is listening, including people in Serbia, that there are plenty of windows of opportunity for us to act. We shall keep acting day on day until NATO's reasonable conditions have been satisfied.
The shadow Defence Secretary accused us of indecision, but I have come to the House of Commons today to show that NATO and this country's response can be decisive. This is a momentous day. We are strengthening the peace implementation force available to NATO to deploy when it is the right time for the refugees to go home. I should have thought that that measure deserved a more gracious welcome from Her Majesty's Opposition than it was given.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many people will be heartened to hear my right hon. Friend's statement about the necessary support to help refugees to go back to their homes in Kosovo. Will he outline the measures that will be taken to clean up and rebuild the civilian infrastructure, which will be necessary for the refugees to live a normal life once they get back home?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. The damage that has been done by Milosevic's marauding troops is considerable. As the G8 declaration clearly lays out, the social reconstruction of Kosovo will be a big task for all of us. That is one of the reasons why NATO felt that it was right and proper to increase the size of the forces required. Although civilian authorities will have to be put in place, the early burden will inevitably fall on the military. We shall have to be ambitious in what we do inside Kosovo if those traumatised people are to have a semblance of normality.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Following the Prime Minister's answer to the question put earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), does the Secretary of State agree that it is not simply by numbers but by the composition of its forces that NATO will make clear to the Milosevic regime its determination that the refugees should be able to return and live in peace? Does he agree that the forces must be capable of sustained, high-intensity warfare and not only reconstruction, if NATO has to impose its will in a hostile environment to enable the return of the refugees before the onset of winter?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that NATO's overall forces must be structured so as to be able to impose, and not just implement, peace, and must contain a preponderance of teeth arms? He told the House that he envisaged that the United Kingdom's contribution to the force would reduce markedly after an initial

361
deployment period of six months. On what factors does he base that assessment, and from what date will that period run?
Mr. Robertson: The composition of whatever force is put in place will, of course, determine what that force can do. That is why we are being judicious in the troops that we send. Some of the troops who have been in the region since the beginning of the year are involved in high-intensity warfare, but such is the flexibility of our forces that, when the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been evicted from their homes and from their homeland came across the border into Macedonia, those forces rose to the occasion and built the refugee camps. It is possible for troops trained for high-intensity warfare to move to a humanitarian role, and such skills will be necessary when we go into Kosovo to return people to their homes.
The picture that I have painted, and what I have said about the troops who have been earmarked, will have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman an idea of the problems that we expect our troops to face in Kosovo. Just one factor is the number of land mines that will have been sown by Milosevic, irresponsibly and illegally, during his occupation. They will pose a substantial risk to all incoming forces. The NATO structures will reflect the fact that, even in the most permissive circumstances, the environment will still be dangerous, and the fact that a wide range of capabilities will be required.
The deployment of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps in NATO doctrine is predicated on a deployment of six months, so that the corps can be available for other duties. The decision on when the clock starts to tick will be a matter for NATO, but the choice of a date for the corps to perform the task for which it was sent—returning the refugees—will be perfectly understandable.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Many people will welcome today's announcement, especially given the common view that it was a silly error to suggest at the start of the bombings that land forces would not be sent in. That was indeed a major error, and it probably encouraged Milosevic.
Nevertheless, there are real fears that the refugees will not return to Kosovo this year, and that many will spend their time in Macedonia, Albania and elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that those who are exposed to the terrible winter conditions of the area will be adequately housed and fed, and will not be left in tented encampments?
Mr. Robertson: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's welcome, I disagree with him about whether it was right or wrong to rule out a wholesale land invasion in the face of organised resistance in Kosovo at the outset. NATO—all 19 of the allies—made a careful and considered decision at the time about what was the best military option to deal with the circumstances that existed at the time. It is easy for some, with hindsight, to criticise the decisions that were made then, but I think that history will show that the right decisions were made.
We will return as many refugees as is humanly possible to Kosovo and their own homes, in safe and secure circumstances. The earlier that that can be done, the better
362
it will be; and the sooner Milosevic recognises that he cannot defeat NATO and should settle on the basis of NATO's conditions, the sooner things will be settled for those human beings.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the statement, but does it not imply to some extent that we have—for the time being, at any rate—ruled out importing into the area troops capable of mounting an invasion? This is basically a force to implement peace when it has been established; it is nothing more or less than that.
Can the Secretary of State tell us who, apart from this country, is contributing to the force? Are the Americans or the Visegrad countries involved? To what extent is there an agreement in deed as well as in thought?
Mr. Robertson: This is a peace implementation force, but we—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and NATO—have made it clear that all other options are on the table, and will be carefully considered. As for who will supplement and strengthen the implementation force, I believe that all the allies in NATO will be engaged. They are substantially involved in the present KFOR. There are clear indications that, at the force generation conference that will probably take place next week, most of the other countries in NATO will be substantially contributing, along with us.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Although homelessness is a feature of all wars, does the Secretary of State agree that a unique feature of the war in Kosovo is that the vast majority of Kosovan people are now homeless—they either have been excluded from their country, or are homeless in the mountains? Therefore, he has the support of many of us in saying that we will need ground troops if the people are to return home in great numbers.
Will my right hon. Friend disregard the mocking of the British-American alliance by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which must replay very well in the Belgrade media? Will he instead listen to the voice of decent British public opinion, which cannot stomach genocide in Europe and will support all that the Government do to combat it?
Mr. Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the decent majority in this country—indeed, the overwhelming majority of public opinion—support what the Government are doing. They support our humanitarian objectives—we need constantly to emphasise that. However, those are more than humanitarian. If Milosevic were to get away with the genocide and with ethnic cleansing on such a grand scale, does anyone imagine that he would stop at Kosovo? Vojvodina would be the next place, and it would be hoovered out of ethnic Hungarians. What would happen to Montenegro? What would he do about Macedonia, next door?
There are good strategic reasons why we have to draw a line before Milosevic's ambitions. Those go side by side with the common humanity that we engage when we say that ethnic cleansing is absolutely unacceptable.

363
Ground troops have always been part of NATO's strategy. Air attacks and the ground troops that would escort the refugees back to their homes have been part and parcel of the twin-track policy that we have had from the beginning.
Sir Peter Emery: After that last remark from the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Opposition are 100 per cent. behind our troops in the field and all the tasks that they have to achieve? Whatever questions may be asked of him, the support for what we have to do is complete and absolute, and he must know that.
Perhaps as an illustration of keeping up the morale of the troops in the Balkans, will the right hon. Gentleman show his support by doing everything possible to ensure that the anonymity of the military men who are called to give evidence to the new Bloody Sunday inquiry that has been instituted shall be maintained, and shall not be revealed to the IRA?
Mr. Robertson: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the unwavering support that he has given to what the Government are doing in their present endeavour—part and parcel of a NATO alliance that is standing firm in the face of an enormous evil, the like of which we have not seen.
Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the Secretary of State should not respond further. I was reading material relating to that matter at the time. It is sub judice.
Mr. Robertson: I was actually paying a compliment to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I had not got to the element that involves sub judice. I am grateful for your prior warning, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman can pay all the compliments that he likes to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), provided that he does not get on to the sub judice part of the question. I may have something to say about that later.
Mr. Robertson: I knew that I would be taking great risks if I got anywhere near the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I did not realise that I was treading in dangerous territory by daring to praise an Opposition Member, but he has always been robust in his support. I know that, contrary sometimes to the impressions that are given in the heat of the moment, the whole House supports those of our fighting forces who are out there risking life and limb for what they and we know to be a major national interest.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I have never had any problems in supporting attacks on military targets in Yugoslavia, and the Secretary of State has just spelt out the success of that type of bombing. What I am concerned about is the impact of bombing on civilians, as it seems to have gone way beyond what one might attribute to collateral or accidental damage. What criteria are used in determining civilian targets? Obviously schools, hospitals and housing are being hit only by accident; but there seems to have been an awful lot of bombing of bridges, factories, bus stations and railway stations, going beyond the principle of proportionality.
364
Many of us would feel much easier if bombing were restricted entirely to military targets, with only occasional non-military damage.
Mr. Robertson: Life would be much easier for all of us if, in a country such as Yugoslavia, we could easily draw a line between that which is military and that which is military-commercial. Milosevic set out to create a military machine in which there was an intimacy between his military and every other aspect of society. Nevertheless, the rule of proportionality is a very severe guide to us, as is appropriateness. Therefore, all the targets being hit are related—appropriately and proportionately—to degrading and weakening the military machine that has caused the genocidal violence in Kosovo.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I also welcome the Secretary of State's presence in the House and his statement today. I can also assure him that, having seen the refugees in Albania and Macedonia, I wholeheartedly support the Government in their determination to get them back to Kosovo. I was tempted to ask why, if the air campaign is working so well, the volume of refugees being deported by Milosevic is increasing, rather than decreasing, but, my question is this: Before the bombing campaign began, did the Secretary of State receive advice from the Ministry of Defence that the bombing campaign on its own would not achieve the aims that he set out?
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear his support. I do not believe that anyone who—like him and me—has met the refugees could reach any conclusion other than that we had to act, and to do so very robustly indeed. He also asked a question that the Government are occasionally asked, on the military advice that we have received. The buck stops here: I am at the Dispatch Box, in the House of Commons, as the Secretary of State for Defence. There is in the United Kingdom civilian control of the military. I cannot hide behind the decisions taken by the military or the advice that I am given, because I am answerable to the House for the decisions that I take.
The decision to go ahead with the strategy that was adopted was taken not by the United Kingdom Government or by the United Kingdom military, but by 19 Heads of Government and 19 military commanders, with 19 democratic Parliaments behind them. I think that the hon. Gentleman can take it that the military advice that we received was the advice that we executed.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I join with every hon. Member in condemning ethnic cleansing, be it in Kosovo or the Krajina. However, does the Secretary of State accept that there are other victims of violence in this war? Is he aware that 30 per cent. of the 1,200 civilians killed in Yugoslavia by NATO bombs were children, and that 40 per cent. of the 5,000 injured were children? What would he say to the children of Nis who, before the war, attended the Playhouse—the English-teaching primary school? While I was on a brief visit to the school between bombing raids, those five and six-year-olds took down the Union flag—I have it here—from their school, and drew on it pictures of their experience of being bombed by NATO. Does he agree that they are just as much victims

365
as the children in the camps? Is it not time to start concentrating on a political settlement, rather than talking up a ground war?
Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend holds her views with great sincerity and great passion, but she really has to see in her own mind who started this whole thing. Who was it who started to bombard villages in Kosovo? Who was it who drove ordinary people—civilians—from their homes and their villages into the hills and across the borders? Who has been involved in the murders and the rapes that have been a part of that systematic picture? We know who it was not only from the words of the victims themselves, but because we know what Milosevic's troops have done in other theatres of war.
I do not like any civilian casualties. I am sure that the statistics were given to my hon. Friend in good faith, but I do not believe that 30 per cent. of the civilian casualties in Yugoslavia have been children. I regret every civilian casualty. Every one was a mistake. None of them was targeted. Thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians—children, old people, men and women—have been brutalised directly and deliberately by Milosevic's troops and paramilitary thugs in Kosovo. When that stops and the refugees get back, we shall not have to carry out the bombing that has been necessary. We did not want to do it, but we had to.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Government can have my full support for the aims of the military action, but I am worried that they are willing the end but not the means. It has always seemed clear to an enormous number of us that bombing alone is very unlikely to achieve the Government's objectives. Might the increased forces that the Government are putting in place be used in a non-permissive environment, as defined by the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Robertson: The troops announced by NATO are not an invasion force. That is clear from the numbers. They are a peace implementation force to escort the refugees back to their homes. We willed the end—an end to the violence and a peaceful and secure return home for those who have been driven from their homes. All the military commanders believed that that was the right way to proceed. That was endorsed by the politicians, who make the ultimate decisions. We are confident that, after eight weeks, the air attacks have caused huge damage to the Serb military. Dissent is increasing in Serbia. Many brave people of real substance are speaking out and deserve the support of all decent people in Yugoslavia. People are beginning to realise what has been done in their name in Kosovo. That is a major pressure towards the settlement for which we all hope.
Mr. David Winnick: Should not the critics in the House and outside accept that the conflict can quickly come to an end once Belgrade signals its intention to accept an international military force that would allow all the refugees to return in safety and protect all the other civilians in Kosovo, including the Serb minority? Perhaps the critics could try to persuade Belgrade of that. Two months after the start of NATO's military intervention, the majority support in the country
366
for what we are doing has been maintained because the people know, as we do, that to stand aside while such terrible crimes and atrocities were being committed in Kosovo would have brought lasting shame to this country and to our European allies.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with authority and consistency. We are taking action only because of the genocidal violence practised by Milosevic and the Belgrade regime. When that ends and the conditions are accepted, the bombing can and will stop. The conditions are not onerous. They are simply that there should be an end to the violence, the withdrawal of the Serb troops and the acceptance of a political process and an international security force to allow the refugees to come home. Those were all component parts of United Nations Security Council resolution 1199, passed last September. That list of demands is endorsed by the vast majority of the international community. The demands make sense, they are humane and they would impose no more on Milosevic than his human obligation.
Sir Archie Hamilton: Why do the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary continue to talk about allowing Kosovans to go back to their homes when they know quite well that many of them have no homes to go to for the simple reason that they have been burnt or razed to the ground by the Serbs? Why should the Kosovans be so much keener on returning to Kosovo than the Bosnians were to return to Bosnia, where some 1 million people were displaced and only 78,000 have gone back? Would the Secretary of State not do better to assume that hundreds of thousands of refugees will be left in refugee camps this winter, and start providing the shelter that they will need to withstand the rigours of the Balkan winter, instead of adding to their agony by allowing hundreds of thousands to freeze to death?
Mr. Robertson: We have to make arrangements for refugees who may well have to spend the winter in the cold of the Balkans. That is sensible contingency planning and it has already started. However, the clear intention is to get refugees back to their homes and villages—despite the damage that has been done and the fact that some of their houses and villages no longer exist—because that is what they want. They say that they will rebuild their homes and keep their communities together and that they have no intention of leaving the land of their forefathers. We have no right to make assumptions about what should happen to them. Not all the analogies with Bosnia are correct; some are, especially in respect of the violence that Milosevic was willing to perpetrate there, which gives us an indication of what he did to human beings in Kosovo. However, 90 per cent. of the population of Kosovo were Albanian by extraction. They know how to go back and where to go back to, and their houses have not been occupied. It will be a difficult and painstaking process, but it will happen.
Ms Dari Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today and warmly welcome the peace implementation plan. Will he take as an example the tremendous work of our Territorials and Reservists in Bosnia and consider the extensive value and use they could be to a reconstruction

367
plan in Kosovo? Will he give them adequate warning so that they can put their lives in order before their call-up papers arrive?
Mr. Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the consistency of her message. We certainly have not forgotten our Reserve forces who continue to play a distinguished role in Bosnia. Many of them will be valuable and important in the potential implementation force that is being set up and strengthened for Kosovo. They will undoubtedly have a role there too.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it intentional or unintentional that the Secretary of State always leaves the strategy of NATO—if it has one—very unclear? After 60 days and nights of bombing, the tragic truth is that not a single Kosovan Albanian has been saved. If the military capacity of Serbia has been so much reduced, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, it is difficult to believe that, in a permissive situation, it would be necessary to increase the number of troops from 28,000 to 60,000.
On the other hand, if, as I strongly suspect, we shall ultimately go into an opposed invasion, 60,000 troops will be wholly inadequate. On 23 March, the Prime Minister admitted in the House that if we had to take on the Serbian Army we would require at least 200,000 troops. So we are getting the worst of both worlds. As I said to the Prime Minister on 23 March, it is time for the Government to come clean with the British people and tell us what they really intend to do.
Mr. Robertson: When I hear such questions, I wonder whether some people are looking forward to failure. The strategy has been clear from the start. The intention is to stop the violence in Kosovo and to get the refugees back in safety and security to the land of their ancestors. That is the strategy to which the 19 NATO countries have subscribed. It has been clear, open and transparent—perhaps too transparent—from the word go. That is exactly our intention.
I have made it clear, in this House and outside, that this is not an invasion force but a peace implementation force, strengthened for the reasons that I have given. In the new circumstances following the eight weeks of the air campaign and the carnage wrought by Milosevic in Kosovo, it is the belief of the military authorities that we need more people to be ready to escort the refugees back.
The hon. Gentleman says that not a single Kosovar has been saved. Perhaps he should take the opportunity to go to some of the places in this country where there are Kosovar refugees—if he cannot make the journey to Macedonia or to Albania—and ask them how many lives have been saved and how many people were not put to the bayonet because of NATO forces. Perhaps he should hear the acclaim with which NATO has been greeted as the only saviours of the Kosovar people. We will get those evicted people back to their homes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although it has taken place in a sparse House, in 37 years I have not heard a more momentous or far-reaching statement from a Minister. It must be about a land war of uncertain outcome in the Balkans on which we are embarking.
368
What is the port situation? Are we going to be guaranteed the use of the port of the Piraeus, because the mayor of Athens has said that not a finger would be lifted by the dockers? Are we going to have the facility at Salonika? If not, how is such a force to be supported?
On the question of cluster bombs, the Secretary of State justifiably can claim considerable credit for his work on land mines. Cluster bombs are not so very different from land mines. What is the justification for their use? The Secretary of State talked about the refugees returning to Kosovo. Could I ask a factual question? In the knocking-out of tanks, what has been the assessment of the use of depleted uranium?
The Secretary of State has referred to Hungarian ethnic minorities in Vojvodina. Is there a suggestion that they are subject to the possibility of ethnic cleansing? If so, what can we do about it, other than occupy Serbia? Is there on the agenda an option for the occupation of Serbia?
Finally—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that others are seeking to ask questions. I realise the seriousness with which we all take this matter, but he must bring his questioning to a conclusion.
Mr. Dalyell: All right, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Robertson: I do not think that I shall persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has made up his mind that we should not be involved in this military action at all. If he is willing to stand back while people are massacred, that is a matter for him and his conscience.
The port situation and where any potentially enhanced force will be based are matters for the NATO authorities and the countries involved. I would like to pay tribute to the Government of Greece, who have allowed the use of the port of Thessaloniki for the troops that are at present in Macedonia. I pay tribute also to the Governments of Macedonia—a tiny and fragile country, which has hosted so many of our troops because it believes in the interests that we are promoting—and Albania, which has absorbed 400,000 refugees: that is equivalent of the whole population of the island of Ireland being absorbed into mainland Britain. Those are extraordinary achievements by those countries, which deserve our thanks and congratulations.
Our forces will be supported wherever they are. They have been up to now, and they will be in the future. My hon. Friend asked about cluster bombs. They have existed for some time, and they are the means that we have against the forces that are at present deployed inside Kosovo, who are deliberately targeting civilians and causing mayhem. Not only are people raped and tortured, and men beaten, as we saw so vividly on television at the weekend, but who knows what other horrors are going on.
Depleted uranium is not used in any of the munitions currently being used in Kosovo or in the Yugoslav theatre.
My hon. Friend asked about the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina. If he were listened to for military advice, all the ethnic Albanians would be swept out of Kosovo, and Milosevic would not stop there: the minority in Vojvodina

369
would certainly be expelled and the last flickering elements of democracy in Montenegro snuffed out, after which Milosevic would be on the trail for other victims.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State said that he had received military advice to the effect that it is now necessary to have more military forces to escort the refugees back into Kosovo. Does he accept that that implies that we are likely to meet greater resistance than was previously anticipated? Does it not follow that what he is doing in reality is to guard, and possibly provide, against the opposition of the Serbs? In short, we are talking about an invasion against resistance.
If that is right, or even likely to be right, should not the Secretary of State ask, on a substantive motion, for the authority of the House to underpin such an operation?
Mr. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the previous Government, and was specifically in charge of the Balkans. I was a shadow foreign affairs spokesman for about 11 years, and I do not remember substantive motions being tabled about the military action that NATO, rightly and properly, took in Bosnia, through IFOR, to ensure that the Serb violence was ended there.
We will leave that to one side, because according to the Leader of the Opposition we are not allowed to talk about history: apparently, the previous Government did not exist. The fact is, as I have said, that this is not an invasion force but a strengthened implementation force, designed by the NATO military authorities and endorsed by the North Atlantic Council for the good, sensible and practical reasons that they believed made it absolutely necessary to have a force in place that is relevant to the circumstances that our troops will face when they take the refugees back into Kosovo.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the judicious leadership that the Government have shown in NATO? Will he ensure that ground troops are deployed as quickly as is practical and prudent, to secure the safe return of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees?
Mr. Robertson: I am very pleased to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations, not only because there is no politician who does not like to be flattered but because he has been to the refugee camps in the region, met the people there and listened to the tales of horror, but also the tales of hope about what NATO has done and can do in the future. Their only hope is that NATO will—as it will—prevail.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier answer, in which he referred to the need to backfill units deployed into action, and his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on the use of Territorials and Reservists in Bosnia, can he confirm that, throughout the country, units that are being reduced to a small fraction of their present size are receiving requests to send volunteers to the Balkans, including for example the Green Jackets Support
370
Weapons Unit in Oxfordshire and 289 Commando Battery in the east end of London? Is he planning a compulsory call-out of Territorials?
Mr. Robertson: The purpose of restructuring and modernising the Territorial Army was to make it more usable, more deployable, and therefore much more useful in the sort of situation in which we find ourselves in Kosovo today. I hear no suggestions that we should reverse the reforms that we have put in place. On the contrary, I have heard from various parts of the country the clear message that what we set out to do, and what we are delivering in terms of strengthening the Territorial Army, is precisely what the Territorial Army will be good at in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that message back to the country.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Defence Secretary back to the reply that he gave a few moments ago in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in which my right hon. Friend asserted that depleted uranium shells are not being used by British forces? Will he confirm that NATO forces are using them and that they have a long-term carcinogenic effect both on the victims at whom they are directed and on society as a whole? Will the Defence Secretary confirm also that it is part of NATO's strategy to bomb oil refineries, chemical factories and industrial plants, in the full knowledge that the resulting danger of pollution is enormous and horrendous and that that pollution will not stop at national boundaries but affect and destroy natural life and the health of people throughout the region? Will the Defence Secretary confirm that cluster bombs—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow inquired—are, in effect, mines dropped from the sky and that they will be a curse on the people of that region for many decades to come?
Mr. Robertson: It will be nice—and, gosh, will I welcome it!—when my hon. Friend comes to the Chamber and denounces the violence perpetrated against women and children inside Kosovo.
Cluster bombs are not covered by the Ottawa treaty. They are not anti-personnel land mines and they are not covered even by the annexes to that treaty, which was negotiated with enormous care in order to take account of those munitions that might qualify under the original campaign.
I have made it clear that we are not using shells with depleted uranium in Kosovo or in the theatre of action at present. My hon. Friend made several assertions, none of which he can back up with peer-reviewed scientific research. We are undertaking considerable research into the allegations made about the effect of considerable amounts of depleted uranium that are alleged to have been used in the Gulf war. We believe the health risks are very small, but we will consider carefully any reliable medical or scientific data that may emerge concerning the incidence of ill-health that might have been caused by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq.
I remind the House that depleted uranium has many civilian uses and that several thousand tonnes of depleted uranium are in civil hands in this country. It is used for

371
radiation shielding in hospital radiotherapy departments and in the manufacture of counterbalance weights for yacht keels and aircraft, among other things.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Defence Secretary's answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will come as a depressing surprise to the 5,000 men deployed with the ARRC and KFOR, who will be disappointed to learn that the clock is not ticking on their expected six-month deployment on an emergency operation. The Defence Secretary has acknowledged the horrendous problem of overstretch in the armed forces. Can he confirm that, despite the fact that training and the recruitment campaign have been a success, the Army is still suffering a net outflow of personnel? Can he confirm also that the day before the 6th Battalion and the Light Infantry were told of their amalgamation into the West of England Regiment, they were asked for 200 volunteers to reinforce the Army? The Defence Secretary has told us that 18,600 men and women are now dedicated to the operation in Kosovo. How long can the armed forces sustain that level of commitment, given that they have no idea when deployment to Kosovo will occur, as that decision remains in the hands of Mr. Milosevic?
Mr. Robertson: The members of the armed forces whom I have met are a lot more optimistic and determined than the hon. Gentleman. As I have travelled around the country and visited the theatre of operations, those personnel have delivered one message about the Conservative Member of Parliament who had the effrontery—the effrontery to them—to call, in the middle of a conflict, for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff. They find that extraordinary and offensive. 1 hope that the hon. Gentleman feels properly shamed about even making that suggestion about such a distinguished soldier.
A number of the troops who were in Macedonia have returned, so that roulement is already taking place because we believe that it is right and proper. Those who will augment the troops in due course will have the same commitment and dedication to the cause.
There are on-going problems of retention in the armed forces—after all, we inherited serious problems from the previous Government—but recruitment to the armed forces has substantially increased. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces must take credit for much of that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British
372
Army, of which he was once a member, believes that it can sustain the operations that it is undertaking despite the strain, because it knows that what it is doing is right.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister understand the concern that some of us feel whenever he tells us that the number of British troops deployed will depend mainly on the forces made available by our allies? Is not the situation far too open-ended for this country to enter into, given the number of troops that we have available? We have a number of reinforcement troops for service in Northern Ireland and we have commitments in the Falklands and in the middle east—any one of those places could blow up at any time. Will the Minister keep that firmly in mind when he considers the commitments that the nation is making to the Balkans?
Will the Minister explain exactly what is the difference between a peace implementation force and an invasion force, because fighting is almost certain to begin as soon as those men cross the frontier?
Mr. Robertson: No, it is not, and a peace implementation force is exactly what it says it is: it is configured, and its numbers are designed, with that purpose in mind. The hon. Gentleman comes from Northern Ireland and knows how much the Province depends on the British Army's presence. That is a commitment that it has fulfilled well over the years, and it is an undiminished commitment that will not in any way be affected by what we have to do in the Balkans. Of course, as the Defence Secretary, I have to weigh up all the commitments that this country has and all the pressures on our armed forces before I make decisions about the deployment of our troops. That is why, when we make these announcements, we do so after very careful consideration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We now come to the business statement.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Points of order come after statements. I call the Leader of the House to make the business statement.

Business of the House
4.38 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The main business for Wednesday 9 June will now be as follows: a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be taken on Monday 14 June, and business for Tuesday 8, Thursday 10 and Friday 11 June will be as previously announced.
Sir George Young: The Opposition have no difficulty with the change of business. Indeed, we welcome the debate on the House of Lords, for which we have been calling for some time. When the right hon. Lady announced provisionally that we would consider the Health Bill on the first Wednesday after the recess, I asked if we could have an assurance that the Government amendments would be tabled today, in time for that. Does the change of business mean that we can anticipate a large number of Government amendments to the Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: No. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that although he has been asking for a debate on the White Paper on Lords reform, that had to be moved as a result of the Opposition's handling of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. He may have forgotten also that, as reported in column 1213 of Hansard on 20 May, he asked me for adequate time for the Government and the Opposition to table amendments to the Health Bill. It is in recognition of the fact that all amendments would have had to be tabled before the recess—by today—if they were to be taken on 9 June that the Government have moved the consideration of the Health Bill. As it transpires, consideration in Committee was due to end only yesterday. The Bill is not likely to be reprinted until today. So, the Government took the view that the arrangement would be unsatisfactory. It is a question not of the number of amendments but of the House having rather more time to consider those that are required.
Mr. Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend is well known as a fan of Derby County, whose ground—I think—lies in her constituency. She will know that that team has moved up and down divisions over the years. Will she find time for a debate on the rules governing promotion and demotion in the Rugby Football Union—
Madam Speaker: Order. The statement was very narrow. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have realised that it has changed the business for only one day. On such a narrow statement, his question must be very specific.
Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend's statement did cover the business for the following week, Madam Speaker. May I ask for a frisson, a fraction, a soupcon of time to consider the problem of rugby union clubs moving between divisions, since many of us feel that there is a closed shop of clubs in the north of England which is
374
determined to allow no team, particularly Rotherham, to move into the first division? Rotherham has climbed through seven divisions in 15 years, yet it has been blocked for the third time—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member might apply to me for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Because a day's business was changed recently, for reasons that are well known to the House, the Government have rightly provided time for a debate on the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, which I welcome. Does the Leader of the House accept that the report published on Monday by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, on the procedural consequences of devolution is also very important, and that time should also be found for a very early debate on it?
Mrs. Beckett: I am always conscious of the importance of reports of the Procedure Committee, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman requested.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question will appeal to you, Madam Speaker, because it is so specific. On 21 January 1991, the House debated a substantive motion on war in relation to Iraq. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said—doubtless in good faith—that such a debate in a war situation is without precedent. In the light of that precedent, particularly given the Defence Secretary's announcement and, indeed, the Indian view on the situation in Yugoslavia which I had the opportunity to outline this morning, which is rather different from the received wisdom, will she reflect on whether there should be a debate on a substantive motion on the war situation in Yugoslavia?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he has overlooked the very careful wording that I have always sought to use. He has pressed for—quite legitimately, although as he will be aware, I have not been prepared to vary the precedent—a sort of prior authorisation for the use of armed forces. I am aware of the Iraq precedent; in fact, I have mentioned it on at least one of the many occasions on which this point has, in a variety of ways, been raised, and pointed out the special circumstances of it. It was tabled by the then Government, at the request of the then Opposition, because of much press comment that sought to imply that the Opposition were opposed to action in the Gulf. The Opposition wished to demonstrate their support for our armed forces.
Mr. John Townend: Now that the right hon. Lady has changed the business, will she please Ruth Pickles, one of my constituents from Upper Cranswick, by providing time for a debate on the strategic exports White Paper?
Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly very mindful of interest in the strategic exports White Paper. However I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the very near future.
Mr. Eric Forth: Could not the Leader of the House please squeeze in a brief debate

375
in the week following the recess on a subject that should be dear to the Prime Minister, but apparently is not? Will she ensure that the Prime Minister is present for a debate on the difference between pupil:teacher ratios and average secondary and primary class sizes, because it is perfectly obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he does not have a clue about any of these things and—no doubt inadvertently and through ignorance—grossly misled the House? May we have a brief debate in the presence of the Prime Minister, so that he can learn about these things before he talks rubbish in the House of Commons?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to provide what will be a completely unnecessary debate on that subject. From memory—because I do not have the figures with me—the Prime Minister was asked about average class sizes, and the answer that he gave was completely correct. I know that it does not suit Opposition Members.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As the health debate is not to be held on Wednesday, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to make a statement to the House, so that he may explain why waiting lists for Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS trust have increased, for referrals from GPs to consultants, from more than 1,500 in March 1977 to more than 3,200 in March 1999? People are obliged to wait a considerable time even to see a GP in southern Derbyshire. I am sure that such a statement will interest the right hon. Lady, too.
Mrs. Beckett: No. I fear I cannot undertake to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the affairs of one part of the country, important though it may be.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could make time on Wednesday 9 June to discuss the plight of junior hospital doctors and explain to my constituents why that one category is deemed to be exempt from the safety provisions of the working time directive, which are meant to apply to every other profession.
Mrs. Beckett: Considering that the Conservative party opposes the working time directive root and branch, it is
376
extraordinary that the hon. Lady has asked that question. I simply point out to her that the Government are determined to reduce the working hours of junior hospital doctors, have done so and will continue to do so.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady is moving the business for Wednesday 9 June. Will she consider holding a debate on the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers? Has she read the Hansard record of Scottish questions yesterday? If she has, she will have noticed that, in relation to all nine questions reached, Scottish Ministers replying said that, as from 1 July, the matter would be a matter for the devolved Parliament in Scotland, not for them. That being so, what have Scottish Ministers got to do? Should not the House have the opportunity to consider whether the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers should be substantially reduced?
Mrs. Beckett: No; I am not prepared to find time for a debate on that subject. I thought that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday dealt admirably with that point and those Members who made that point.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Leader of the House has announced that the remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be dealt with on Monday 14 June. Will the Health Bill be allowed more than one day, or will there be one day for Report and Third Reading? Can the right hon. Lady tell me—I have an interest in the subject, as Opposition spokesman on the Access to Justice Bill—what effect that will have on the likely date for Report and Third Reading of the Access to Justice Bill? A rumour was generated in the House yesterday that the Access to Justice Bill Report stage taken would be in the week beginning 14 June. I wonder whether she has any information about that which she would care to share with the House and the wider public.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear I am not in a position to help the hon. and learned Gentleman with that information. The expectation is that a day will be provided for the remaining stages of the Health Bill, as was the original arrangement; it is simply that it is a different day. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot enlighten the hon. and learned Gentleman about the Access to Justice Bill. If I am able to do so, I will do so.

Point of Order
4.49 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order with reference to the question that I asked at Northern Ireland questions. I shall not strain your patience by reminding the House of precisely what I said, but the question was directed to Government policy—whether immunity from prosecution should be given. It had absolutely nothing to do with the role of the paratroopers, with the evidence to be called, or with the question to be determined by those presiding over the inquiry. My understanding, culled from page 383 of the latest edition of "Erskine May", was that the 1972 resolution of the House permitted Members to raise questions relating to the conduct of Ministers, even if there was a tangential reference to some judicial inquiry in progress.
You may not wish to give a ruling today, Madam Speaker, but perhaps at some stage you will be in a position to give a little more guidance so that, I, at least, do not inadvertently transgress and try your patience.
Madam Speaker: I shall respond immediately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and remind him, as I am sure he is aware, that the purpose of the sub judice rule is to avoid any element of interference by the House in the work of the courts and the rights of those who are answering charges made against them.
Reference in debate to the status of witnesses appearing before an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 may, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, have implications for the conduct of that inquiry and its outcome. I am sure that he will agree that that would be wrong.
I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in, and has read, a debate in another place, but let me tell him, and the rest of the House, that the sub
378
judice rule in the other place is not, I understand, exactly the same as that which governs proceedings in this House. In any case, I believe that their lordships were at that time considering legislation, when in both Houses the sub judice rule does not apply.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of my intention, but the matter arose during Question Time, and it became impossible for me to give you notice. You know, as I do, what a minefield the sub judice rule is in the House, and its implications for the way in which the occupant of the Chair has to rule. I understand that only too well.
However, what I was trying to do, which was ruled out of order because of the sub judice rule, was to ask the Minister a question about his actions in defending those who might be called to give evidence. I was not attempting to interfere with the court or the judge; I was attempting to assist the court to ensure that there was a greater chance that evidence could be given freely by those called to give it, in that their anonymity would be protected.
I was emphasising the judgment that a Minister could make before the actual operation of the court and the sub judice rule. I would have hoped that that would have met the application of the rules in "Erskine May".
Madam Speaker: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument; I was very concerned while he was putting his question. May I repeat that even if the right hon. Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, as he genuinely tried to explain to the House that they were, what he wanted to say could still have had implications for that inquiry and its outcome, and that would be wrong. I have gone carefully into the sub judice rule, and I seek to protect the House, as I also seek to protect witnesses and courts elsewhere.

Sustainable Energy Agency
4.53 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas:, I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a sustainable energy agency to promote renewable energy generation and encourage energy efficiency; and for related purposes.
The case for a sustainable energy agency involves three elements—more jobs, lower energy costs and significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Sustainable energy is more labour-intensive than the more conventional fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries. Investment in energy efficiency, such as combined heat and power—CHP—and some renewable energy investment, including net metering, will help to lower business and domestic energy costs, which is especially important for those who suffer from fuel poverty.
As more than two thirds of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions come from non-transport energy production, sustainable energy has a key role to play in reducing the threat of climate change. Sustainable energy is the proof that economics and the environment mix, and that markets can achieve environmental solutions while delivering crucial economic and social benefits too. An agency would champion the drive to increase our renewable energy capacity, promote energy efficiency and facilitate CHP development in order to meet Government targets and build on the excellent renewables review, the positive work of the Energy Savings Trust and the coming climate change levy.
The agency would be a non-departmental public body, accountable to Government and the House, co-ordinating funding, research and business advice, acting as a resource point for other Government Departments and statutory bodies, able to argue for sustainable energy options and providing a focal point for the development of our domestic sustainable energy industry.
Sustainable energy agencies are not new. The Green Alliance, whose report provided some of the background to the Bill, highlighted the sustainable energy development authority, or SEDA, in New South Wales, and Novem, the Netherlands agency for energy and the environment.
SEDA has promoted the commercialisation and increased use of sustainable energy technologies. Novem' s role has been to bring together all the stakeholders involved in energy efficiency to stimulate energy efficiency techniques and technologies. It has been a key factor in the Netherlands' success in doubling its long-term energy efficiency rate. SEDA's green power accreditation scheme and energy smart business programme have locked in 180 new partners and the investment of more than 31 million Australian dollars in energy efficiency, and have stimulated rapid growth in the Australian solar and wind energy industries.
We, however, are a long way from making a reality of our sustainable energy potential. The United Kingdom generates just 2 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources. To reach our target of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010, about 500 MW of new capacity would need to be brought on-line every year for the next decade. On the trends of the past five years, that would be challenging, to put it mildly.
380
Although the NFFO—non-fossil fuel obligation—process has been extremely successful in driving down the costs of renewable energy, the actual level of installed capacity has been disappointing.
One of the major obstacles to promoting renewables, energy efficiency and CHP is the confusing institutional set-up for sustainable energy. The Green Alliance charted 15 different Government-funded institutions or initiatives, many of them doing an excellent job within their specific remit, ranging from Government Departments, quangos and research agencies through to private sector companies.
A key reason for such fragmentation is that the institutions have developed on an ad hoc basis in response to new policy goals over time. There is no single cohesive body offering a clear message which brings together government, academics and industry to co-ordinate the delivery of energy efficiency, renewables and CHP policy. Some, but not all, of the technologies have their own separate trade associations. A sustainable energy agency would help to deliver joined-up thinking and partnership, working across Whitehall and with other players to develop a strong sustainable energy industry.
There is huge potential in Britain. The energy technology support unit—ETSU—estimated that the cost-effective energy efficiency potential equalled 11 per cent. of projected energy demand in 2010. In offshore wind alone, Britain has enough potential to support our electricity needs three times over.
For industry to have the confidence to invest in renewable capacity in the UK, it must have confidence in the stability of local conditions, the regulatory position must improve, and industry must have confidence in the organisations with which it deals. A sustainable energy agency would help to lock in that stability and expertise to grow our domestic sustainable energy industry.
As part of its work programme, the agency would be well placed to co-ordinate a strong export programme to increase Britain's share of world markets, which for wind and solar now approach £1 billion a year each. Both markets are set to double over the next three years—a rate of growth comparable to sales of mobile phones and internet services. Mark Moody Stuart, chairman of the British arm of Shell, stated in his annual report to shareholders last year:
"Renewable energy sources—wind, biomass and solar—could be supplying a tenth of the world's energy by 2020 and half by 2050."
I am told that Shell's research predicted a quadrupling of the demand for electricity by 2050. That, by any definition, is a sizeable potential market. The European Union White Paper on energy stated that doubling the share of renewables in Europe alone would create between 500,000 and 900,000 new jobs. The small wind energy industry has already created more than 30,000 jobs in Europe.
We in Britain lead the world in a number of renewable technologies—for example, in wave power and in certain forms of biomass. A sustainable energy agency would be ideally positioned to facilitate, in partnership with Departments and perhaps using climate challenge fund resources, powerful programmes to exploit our renewables potential in world markets.
There are, too, many sustainable energy options that are local, small-scale and supported, or perhaps even part-owned, by local communities. A sustainable energy

381
agency would not only be able to promote the interests of the larger renewables and CHP players, but could help to facilitate easier access to the grid for smaller renewables providers.
In May 1997, Greenpeace, together with the Peabody Trust, installed 30 solar panels on three low-income homes in Silvertown in London. Each home was projected to save a third off its electricity bill—about £60 a year. London Electricity offered the tenants less than 3p per kilowatt hour for the electricity they exported to the grid while charging them 8p per kilowatt hour when they needed electricity from the grid. That, together with the insistence that new meters be installed to measure the exported electricity, would have brought about the daft scenario of the tenants owing money to the LEB for the privilege of exporting electricity to its grid.
Net or reversible metering solutions could be promoted by a sustainable energy agency to help to resolve that type of market disincentive. Such an agency could also develop programmes to help to educate young people about sustainable energy and to help City investors to understand the industry. It could act as a source of advice for those, such as Grimsdyke first and middle school in my constituency, who are applying to be part of the Department of Trade and Industry's Scolar programme and looking for the necessary matched funding.
A sustainable energy agency is strongly supported by industry. British BioGen, the biomass trade association, offered unequivocal support, and the British Photovoltaic Association said, "Please highlight our support for the creation of a sustainable energy agency." The British Wind Energy Association also offered support in principle. The director of the Combined Heat and Power Association said:
"Creating an agency dedicated to the task of securing the deployment of sustainable energy should be a key part of the UK's modernisation agenda."
Sustainable energy offers the combination of significant environmental benefits and huge economic and social benefits—more jobs, lower costs and reduced carbon dioxide emissions—but some people still seem to think of renewables as the realm of only the lentil-eating, kaftan-wearing, open-toed sandal brigade. I am sure that the odd lentil still gets eaten, but the open-toed sandal and kaftan wearers—if they were ever there—are long gone and have been replaced by sharp-suited, dynamic and visionary entrepreneurs. The sustainable energy industry's time has come. An agency would help to turn tremendous potential into reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. Paul Clark, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Andrew Reed, Angela Smith, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Stephen Twigg and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AGENCY
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to establish a sustainable energy agency to promote renewable energy generation and encourage energy efficiency; and for related purposes: 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 112].

Line of Route
5.4 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Proposal to Re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC 394).
I am pleased to move the motion to approve the report, which represents slightly more than a year's work by the Administration Committee. I should like to thank my colleagues on the Committee—I am tempted to call them my hon. Friends, as we very much work as a team—for the assiduous way in which they have tackled the subject, and for the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed throughout.
I also pay tribute to Lord Boston of Faversham and his colleagues on the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in another place, with whom we held a most useful and constructive concurrent meeting. Finally, I should like to express my Committee's thanks to the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod and to their respective staffs, to the other House officials—in particular, the Director of Finance and Administration, who unfailingly and efficiently assisted the Committee—and to the consultants who provided specialist advice.
I shall be brief, as I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to make a contribution, but I very much welcome this debate, as it gives the Committee the opportunity to explain its proposals for reopening the Line of Route, and to clear up certain misconceptions, especially about charging and access. Even after the publication of our report, some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that we are proposing that our constituents should have to pay to come and see the House at work. Let me emphasise that we are not, nor have we any plans to do so in the future, contrary to what seems to be implied in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and others. I shall address that point more fully later in my speech.
I think that all hon. Members will appreciate the reasons why, for the past 20 years, the only way a visitor could tour the Palace of Westminster was as a guest of a Member of either House or of a member of staff. The Committee considered that the time was now right for the two Houses to reopen the Line of Route to the general public. However, we agreed to the proposal in principle only after we had been convinced that it would not interfere with the ability of Parliament or its authorities to carry out their duties.
The consultants had to take into account some basic but crucial principles. The Palace of Westminster is, first and foremost, the seat of Parliament and a place of work for around 12,000 passholders, if we include contractors, civil servants and the media. Any increase in visitor activity must respect the Palace's primary function and be capable of responding to changes in route at very short notice. That would mean, of course, that, in the event of a recall during the summer, tours might have to be suspended.
The Palace of Westminster is a grade I listed building and a world heritage site. It is of special architectural interest and any proposals, whether permanent or temporary, that would alter the fabric of the buildings or in any way have an impact on the integrity of the site

383
would be subject to prior consultation with, for example, English Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission and Westminster city council.
The intensity of use of the buildings, especially when Parliament is sitting, means that all major planned works programmes must be concentrated in the long summer recess: a programme typically involving expenditure of some £12 million to £15 million and involving 600 to 2,000 contractors at any one time over an eight to 10-week period and forming part of a 10-year rolling programme.
In addition, whatever arrangements were proposed to bring about greater openness in connection with public access to the Palace of Westminster, it was essential to safeguard the rights of hon. Members and Members of another place to sponsor visits by constituents and others, and for the parliamentary education unit to continue to provide the schools autumn visits programme. Such arrangements currently give rise to some 120,000 visits a year.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), quite properly raised concerns about the autumn visits programme. I hope that our report has reassured him that the autumn visits programme will be unaffected by our proposals.
My Committee was convinced that the criteria to which I referred could be met, and we agreed to the principle of a reopening. Our next step was to consider how people should undertake the tour. We eventually decided that the most appropriate way would be to have groups equipped with individual audio guides, with a commentary available in six languages, organised in conjunction with a system of timed ticketing.
Visitors would assemble in Victoria Tower gardens in groups of 20. To avoid peaks and troughs, groups would be admitted by a timed admission or timed ticket arrangement. The day would be divided into a series of admission slots, perhaps of 15-minute intervals. If the number admitted in each slot were limited, visitors could be spread evenly throughout the day. That system of pulsing visitors along the route would flatten demand to a manageable level, and would be of benefit to the Palace and to visitors.
The tour would take the traditional route through both Houses, and would enable visitors to see some of the most impressive and best known parts of the Palace. It is a shame that visitors would not be able to see the Chapel of St. Mary Undercroft—the Crypt—but it is quite small and completely unsuitable for disabled visitors, as is the Great Clock Tower.
I remind the House that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires all places of interest or historic buildings to make effective provision for disabled visitors, which includes provision for the aurally and visually impaired as well as the mobility-impaired. Given the historic nature of the Palace of Westminster, many areas are inaccessible and cannot be modified. Listing regulations take precedence over the 1995 Act, but every reasonable effort must be made to conform to the Act. Consequently, any systems set up for the summer opening programme would have to make reasonable provision for disabled visitors. All interpretation must have equivalents available for disabled visitors, and access to the building must be as unobstructed as possible.
384
The House may also wish to note that appropriate arrangements would be made to enable people in wheelchairs to have access to the Palace, and that alternatives to the audio guides would be available for visually or hearing-impaired visitors.
Sir Peter Emery: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. She refers only to the summer recess. What did the Committee decide about the opening of the House at other times? Now that we work in the morning two days a week, the ability to visit the House is considerably limited. Has thought been given to the use of weekends and recesses other than the summer recess, because I believe that the House should be open for visitors at those times if we are to take the line that her Committee suggests?
Mrs. Roe: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 9 of the Select Committee report, which states:
"The Committee considers that the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening to Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends."
This matter must be assessed carefully, and the impact of the opening during the summer Adjournment would not be the same as at other times. We must ensure that the business of the House is not disrupted in any way. We have already thought about that, and no doubt the Committee will examine that when we have had an opportunity to assess the impact of the opening during the summer Adjournment.
Sir Peter Emery: May I extend my question? The movement towards the summer opening is a major programme during an extended period. Would it not make greater sense to experiment during some of the shorter recess periods to see how we cope with that—using existing staff or extra staff and security—before we proceed with this scheme? Although I admire the proposed scheme, I wonder whether it would be better to have some guidance before we jump into the bigger opening programme.
Mrs. Roe: I point out to my right hon. Friend that it was in the mind of the Administration Committee to initiate a scheme that would cause the least amount of disruption to Members of the House and the other place and to staff. It was felt that the summer Adjournment was the best time for us to assess the general public's response and to allow the scheme to settle before any consideration was given to opening during shorter periods. I remind my right hon. Friend that these facilities are expensive. The Committee wanted to do this properly to maintain the dignity of the Palace of Westminster. We felt that it was necessary to allow the scheme to run for eight weeks during the summer Adjournment so that we could assess the public's response and the way in which the system was operated.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Lady agree that the concept of a mini-scheme would be difficult to implement, because in our attempts to achieve an adequate scheme that would satisfy visitors, we have

385
sketched out proposals the bulk of which would incur the same expenditure whether we were providing for a long or a short break?
Mrs. Roe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a member of the Committee, he knows the detail in which we considered this matter. We felt that this proposal was the best option.
The Committee has also made two recommendations which, strictly speaking, are matters for the Commission and the Board of Management. However, because we wanted to ensure that a visit to Parliament would be as memorable as possible, we decided to put down a marker. We considered that the best way to ensure that the Line of Route tours operate as efficiently as possible would be to have a small team of staff whose sole responsibility would be to ensure the tours' success, and to co-ordinate tours with exhibitions and other events planned for Westminster Hall.
Westminster Hall is a 900-year-old architectural gem, and I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House believe that more use should be made of it for appropriate events. We think that staff should be on hand to assist with visitors' inquiries. Those staff would need to be fully conversant with the Palace's history and procedures. At the risk of embarrassing one particular hon. Friend, I should point out that visitors should not be told that Westminster Hall was the site of the trial of King Charles II.
I now turn to the most misunderstood aspect of our proposals: charging. As we say in the report, a reopening would be a costly project. The latest figures suggest that it would cost £500,000 for the financial year 2000-01 and £350,000 a year thereafter. Those figures represent the Commons' share of the costs only. The total costs would be over £830,000 and almost £600,000 respectively. We did not think it reasonable for costs of that scale to be borne by the taxpayer through the Vote. We therefore concluded, very reluctantly, that the costs should be borne by those who choose to visit during the summer recess.
Mr. Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend says, the amount is substantial, but it is less than the House decided a couple of nights ago to spend on an extremely silly and superfluous new Chamber. My hon. Friend was content with that; now she is telling us that the hapless tourist will have to bear huge sums.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)rose—
Mrs. Roe: The Leader of the House may be able to answer my right hon. Friend more fully than I can.
Mrs. Beckett: I would hate the hon. Lady to be misled by her right hon. Friend. What the House voted for the other evening was a proposal to bring forward expenditure to which the House was already committed.
Mrs. Roe: I thank the right hon. Lady. Let me add that we on the Administration Committee take our duties very seriously. We are always considering ways of
386
obtaining the best value for money, and, when making decisions, we always have one eye on the taxpayer's pocket.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: When we travel around the world, we see—especially in Commonwealth countries—war memorials to thousands of people who gave their lives for this country, and to keep this Parliament free. That is one of the reasons why I have grave doubts about charging some of those who visit this great symbol of democracy. I do not know whether the Committee devoted any thought to that.
Mrs. Roe: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I said earlier, it was with reluctance that the Committee reached its conclusions. We did not make our decision frivolously; we went into the matter in great detail. We also made it clear that the present arrangements for constituents to visit the Palace of Westminster would not be affected. This is an additional facility, allowing those with no access to a Member of Parliament to take advantage of the same arrangements. Nothing is being taken away from the present arrangements, which, of course, many Members use every day.
It is estimated that nearly 150,000 people will take part in the tours. As we note in our report, the experience of Westminster Abbey suggests that as many as 80 per cent. of visitors could be from overseas. However, a more strenuous effort should be made to reduce the operational costs outlined in the report. For example, capital costs of some £400,000 for a ticket office, the cost of renting audio equipment and the cost of extra security caused us concern. The consultants, in consultation with the relevant authorities, have been looking for savings and value for money.
The assumptions made by the consultants in their report were in general fairly conservative. Both the costs and the predictions of visitor numbers appeared to the Committee to be reasonable. However, the Committee appreciates that further work is needed. The Finance Office, in consultation with other appropriate authorities in both Houses, will need to develop the financial management arrangements.
The consultants' proposals involve letting some major contracts—for example, for advance booking and ticketing, and for the audio guides. One of the proposals, for merchandising, will be of concern to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). He and his colleagues on the Catering Committee must, of course, be asked for their views on the sale of souvenirs during the summer opening. However, I do not think that that should delay the House's approval of our proposals.
We have not recommended specific admission prices, but in paragraph 23 of our report, we gave an estimate of the charges that would be needed to enable us to recover our costs within five years. Adults would be charged £6.50, senior citizens, students and holders of ES40s £4, and children £2. Savings already identified suggest that we may be able to reduce the price of an adult ticket to £5.50, with equivalent reductions for other categories of ticket.
Hon. Members may ask why United Kingdom citizens cannot be allowed free access. The short answer is this: how could someone prove that he or she was a UK resident? A UK passport is no proof of residence—and,

387
in any event, such a basis for free admission would discriminate against foreign nationals legally settled here. I, for one, would not advocate a national identity card to solve this conundrum.
The Committee has agreed that, during August and September 2000, visitors on the Line of Route tours will also have access—at no extra charge—to a millennium exhibition that is planned for Westminster Hall.
Even given the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, the Palace of Westminster is sui generis: it is unique. We therefore cannot benchmark these admission charges against charges anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I remind hon. Members, however, that Buckingham Palace has an admission charge of £9.50, with no concessionary rates, and Westminster Abbey charges £5. Although there are concessionary tickets for admission to the abbey, a further £2 is levied for the use of hand-held audio-guide wands.
The Palace of Westminster would not be unique in charging for admission. The Dutch second Chamber, the Tweede-Kamer, charges 6 guilders, or nearly £2. In Australia's Parliament house, tours involving languages other than English must be pre-booked, and a charge is applied to tour operators and external organisations wishing to use the service. Although no charge is made for entry to the building or participation in public tours, a charge of 5 Australian dollars per person—again, nearly £2—applies to groups requesting a guide exclusively for them. Revenue from the tours offsets additional labour costs.
I cannot stress too strongly that we are proposing admission charges only during the summer Adjournment. We are seeking to recover incremental costs, not to make a profit. In paragraph 20 of our report, we say:
"For over 42 weeks of the year therefore, visitors would still be able to participate in tours of the Palace of Westminster, meet their constituency MP or Members of the House of Lords, listen to debates in both Chambers when either or both Houses are sitting, and attend meetings of Standing and Select Committees free of charge. Even during the Summer Adjournment, Members of both Houses would continue to be able to bring in their guests. It is not, nor has it ever been, proposed that members of the public should be charged to see the Houses of Parliament 'at work'."
Let me now clarify the issue of access for hon. Members during August and September. No change will be made to the current arrangements. Therefore, on Wednesdays and Thursdays in August, and on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in September, hon. Members and Officers of the House will still be able personally to escort, or to pay a Doorkeeper to escort on their behalf, groups of up to 16 around the Line of Route, without their guests having to pay over and above what is now an accepted "fee". Similarly, permanent staff will continue to be able personally to escort groups of up to four guests.
Our proposals seek to improve access to the Palace, not to hinder it. Although it would be a matter of regret, should the House be unable to accept my Committee's proposals, the net result might be that the Line of Route was not reopened at all during the summer.
I realise that it might strike hon. Members as strange that a Chairman of a domestic Committee should be arguing against spending public money. After all, are we not the Committees that are spending millions of pounds on Portcullis House, the kitchens and the parliamentary data and video network? Yes and no. None of those important matters is the responsibility of the
388
Administration Committee. Rather, we on the Committee have always sought to reduce House expenditure by seeking best value for money and by encouraging better housekeeping.
Over the past few years, we have initiated, or endorsed, savings on, for example, stationery and car parking amounting to more than £350,000, sometimes in the face of opposition from some hon. Members. It is not therefore new territory for us to be looking after taxpayers' interests.
As I have said, by charging we seek to recover our initial start-up and running costs within five years. However, even after five years, there will still be running costs, and it will therefore be for the present Administration Committee's successor to decide how to meet those costs. I can, of course, assure the House that my Committee will keep an eye on that matter for the remainder of the current Parliament, and will ask the relevant House authorities for regular progress reports.
I realise that some hon. Members may not be able to support our proposals, in particular with respect to charging, but I should like to say that the report was agreed unanimously by the Committee and only after much deliberation and heart searching. I therefore commend it to the House.
5.32 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate.
I welcome the way in which the Chairman has put the Committee's report to the House and welcome the work that has been done. We should try to enable more people to come into the building and to see Parliament during the summer recess and, indeed, at other times.
When I was a young school boy, I was able, in the days before security had to be so tight, to get on a tram at Wimbledon town hall, come to Westminster, get off at the bridge and walk in here virtually at any time, although in the early years after the war this end of the building was virtually a building site—the Chamber was being rebuilt. Schoolchildren in the London area at that time—when it was much easier and people did not have to worry about the type of thing that might happen to children—looked for places to go. I could go to the Tower of London for free on a Thursday morning. That is no longer possible. All such possibilities have gradually been lost over the years.
It is the question of charging that concerns me. I recognise that Parliament is a working place; we must remember that, but it is an historic building, a great piece of architecture by Barry and Pugin, and we want people to see it. Westminster Hall is celebrating its 900th year; people in this country should be able to see the building. I accept that the proposal will not in any way erode the rights that we have while the House is sitting, or the rights that we have as Members in the months of August and September. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) made that clear, although there was a slight threat that, if we did not agree to the change, we might lose the rights that we already have in August and September. I do not know whether that was intended, but, near the end of the

389
speech, it sounded as if she was saying that, if we did not agree to the change, we would not retain what we have now—that would go as well.
Mrs. Roe: No. The situation will stay as it is. I was talking about the additional facility.
Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Lady for that. If she reads Hansard, she will find that her comments could have been read in that way. Her intervention makes it absolutely clear. I am glad that a pistol is not being held to our heads with the threat "Approve the change or you will lose the rights you have in August and September."
It is the question of charging that worries me. I accept and understand why it is being introduced, but one could argue that, if people pay their taxes—about 20 per cent. of tourists during August and September are British—they have a right to come here and to see the building.
I made a serious point in my intervention. I have been to countries such as New Zealand and Canada and seen the war memorials, particularly for the first world war. I ask myself: why did those hundreds of people lose their lives fighting for this country? The first world war in particular was a European war, but people from South Africa, Canada, Australia, India and all over fought to secure victory and to ensure that we maintained our freedom at that time; they did so in the second world war, too. Anyone who goes to France and sees the war graves of the 17,000 who died on this day and the 11,000 who died on that day from the Canadian and Australian forces will be reminded of the sacrifices that those people made.
The important point is that, during the second world war, which I am just old enough to remember, this building, Parliament, the Clock Tower and Big Ben—many people call the Clock Tower Big Ben, but we know that it is the bell—were a symbol of the fight against fascism and the fight for freedom. Parliament and this building represent that. They are a great symbol.
We are not a great nation in a military sense any more, but we sometimes underestimate the regard that many parts of the world have for our traditions. Therefore, many of our traditions are bound within this building and our history over the years that we have sat here. The effect of charging on that worries me.
I welcome the move to enable more people to see the building, but it is the question of charging about which I have grave reservations, partly on behalf of the 20 per cent. of people who are British tourists, and partly on behalf of those people in other parts of the world who may want to visit it. We want them to get to see this place and to recognise what it still stands for in the world.
Hon. Members have their difference of view. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have disagreed on many occasions on different things, but we agree about what the House stands for. It stands for democracy more than any other place in the world. It has a role to play. I hope that we find some way in which to enable people to see it for free. There may be a cost to pay for that but, in relative terms, it is minimal. We should be prepared to accept that.
I do not want to delay the House any longer, but those are important issues. That is why, when the amendment is, I hope, divided on, I will support it. A little more
390
thought is needed on why we need to charge people to come into the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is such a great and important symbol throughout the world.
5.39 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Like all the issues that we are debating today, the decision on the Line of Route is a House of Commons matter. There is no Government view as such. There is no party Whip. There may be—indeed, there are likely to be—wide diversions of view within, as well as across, the political parties. It is an issue of genuine difficulty and delicacy. No hon. Member would wish to see our constituents denied access to the House—that would be entirely contrary to our parliamentary tradition—but, equally, many may have reservations about whether British taxpayers would wish us to use their money to subsidise access to tourists, primarily from overseas, who may very well be charged for that access by tour operators and organisers outside this place who arrange such visits.
In moving the motion on the Administration Committee's report, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was admirably clear about what it is that the House is being asked to decide. She made the point-it is worth reinforcing—that we should be adding to opportunities to visit this historic building. The House is not automatically open to visitors in the summer recess, or indeed in any recess. Therefore, by passing the motion, we should be creating new opportunities to visit.
I take and understand the sensitivity of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). However, with great respect, I tell him that the hon. Member for Broxboume answered his point in her speech, by drawing attention to the fact that the type of visitors to whom he referred—those who, earlier in their lives, might have fought for this place—do not now have the opportunity of visiting the House should they come here as visitors in the summer recess. Although he asked her and her Committee to give the matter further consideration, they have been considering it for a year.
I should also like to highlight the fact that, if we are to provide adequate facilities—such as audio guides in a variety of languages—expenditure of about £500,000 will be required. Studies have suggested and confirmed that, in summer, 80 per cent. of visitors to Westminster are tourists from overseas. The Administration Committee did not feel able to recommend—I understand its view—that taxpayers should be asked to meet such costs.
The Committee has also made it very clear that the proposal to charge for visits, to cover those costs, will in no circumstances affect the rights of hon. Members or staff to arrange or conduct visits for constituents.
This remains very much a matter for the House. In an ideal world, money would grow on trees, and we would be able to admit visitors and provide high-standard facilities for their visits without regard to cost. Sadly, however, we do not live in a world where that is a matter of indifference. We either reluctantly—I think that it would be reluctantly on the part of all hon. Members—decide to levy charges in those specific circumstances, or decide not to open the House further to interested visitors.
In the millennium year—with the House participating in the special commemorative exhibition, the "String of Pearls"—we have a further opportunity to open our doors.

391
Despite the anxieties and reservations that have already been expressed in the debate, I believe that we should, on balance, agree to do so.
Therefore, as I said, although there will be a free vote on the motion, and it is not a matter for the Government, I myself shall support the Committee's recommendations.
5.43 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree with the line taken in the debate by the Leader of the House.
I should like to begin, however, by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and to her Committee. The House Committees do a great deal of work for hon. Members. They consist of very few members, but devote an enormous amount of time to their work. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I have been a member of the Accommodation and Works Committee for many years and know something of the work that goes into the type of report that we are considering today. I also know something of the thoughtful care that goes into them. My hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Committee—an all-party Committee—have come up with very sensible proposals, and I really hope that the House will give them a fair wind today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne reminded us several times in her speech, this is a workplace. It is also, as she again reminded us, one of the great buildings of the world. This is a symbol of democracy; but it is also an architectural gem. It also includes within it Westminster Hall. Probably some hon. Members were in Westminster Hall on Monday, when I was there and Madam Speaker opened that fascinating exhibition on 900 years of the Hall. If colleagues on both sides of the House have not yet seen the exhibition, it will be there for some months, and I urge everyone to go and see it. It is a fascinating and very moving exhibition.
Westminster Hall is the greatest secular building in this country, and has seen more of our history than any other. Perhaps I should add, in passing, that it will see more history on 1 July, when we shall be having a very splendid banquet there. I hope that many hon. Members will come to enjoy the banquet, the first one there since the coronation of George IV, in 1821.
I make those points, with some seriousness, to stress the fact that this is not just a workplace, and that many of those who come here do so primarily not because they are interested in what we do, but because they are interested in what this building represents, and in the fact that it tells the story of this nation's past and the evolution of our democratic system.
Of course it would be quite wrong to charge anyone anything to come and sit in the Strangers Gallery in either the Commons or the Lords. No one is making such a proposal, and I am sure that no one ever would. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if such a proposition ever were made, I should be the first in the Lobby against it.
We are talking about members of the general public, many of whom will not be British subjects, who want to come in at a time when the House is not in session to admire the architecture and the works of art and to see this place. It is perfectly reasonable that there should be a modest charge for that, to recoup the expenditure that will make the experiment possible.
392
I should like to make an analogy, which I do not think is too far-fetched. Across the road, in Westminster abbey, a charge is now levied, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred. If anyone wants to go to a service at the abbey—there are services there every day—of course he or she is not charged; nor should anyone ever be. However, someone who wants to go to the abbey to admire its art and architecture does pay a modest charge. I think that that is entirely reasonable.
All that will happen here, during those summer months of August and September, is that people will pay a modest charge and be able to come and admire the building. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is also a precedent for the change. Only relatively recently, for security reasons, the practice was abandoned whereby members of the public could turn up on a Saturday, meet a guide outside and visit. I well remember that, in my first 10 years in the House, that practice was possible, and I know many people who availed themselves of the opportunity.
Frequently, even those who come now as hon. Members' guests to look round the Palace of Westminster effectively pay a modest charge. All hon. Members have many parties from our constituencies. In an average year, I have an average of one constituency party—very often a quite large one—every fortnight, and very often more than that. Often, to help one another, one's colleagues will sign up his or her constituents for the other 16 places in a group. Nevertheless, there are sometimes bills of £75 or £100 for three or four guides to take people round, and an hon. Member does not always pay that out of his or her own pocket. Those who come pay, and they do so extremely willingly.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: People do not need a guide.
Sir Patrick Cormack: They do; they must be escorted by either an hon. Member or a guide. One cannot just come and wander round. Members of the public of course have access, through St. Stephen's Hall, to Central Lobby, and that will not change—it never would change. However, members of the public who come to do the Line of Route must be accompanied by either an hon. Member or a member of his or her staff, or by one of the qualified guides. If they are escorted by a qualified guide, a charge is, quite reasonably, levied by the guide.
Mr. Pike: That is not correct. A Member can arrange for a group to go round with a permit in his or her name. If the group do not wish to pay for a guide, they do not need to do so as long as a Member has given them a permit to go round.
Sir Patrick Cormack: If I am slightly wrong, I apologise, but my point is substantially correct. There are very few who would want to do that, because they want the building to be explained to them. I enjoy nothing more than taking parties round. I took one yesterday morning. I love every stone of this building and am very proud of it. I never cease to get a thrill when I walk through Westminster Hall. I never cease to be amazed by the wonderful artistry of Pugin and Barry as I take people round, which I am always happy to do. I like the building so much that I wrote a book about it some years ago,

393
which I commend to hon. Members. It is still in the Library of the House. Perhaps I should declare another interest. I gladly and unashamedly do so.
People need to have the building explained to them if they are to get the maximum benefit from it. The overwhelming majority of those who come are glad to have a guide and very much want one.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: 1 apologise for not being here for most of the debate. I have had unavoidable meetings. The hon. Gentleman's argument has been based on the fact that people have to pay at the moment. He said that they had to pay a guide to have access. That is on the record. It now turns out that people do not have to pay. The hon. Gentleman is party to a decision to introduce a charge where previously one was not required. That is wrong.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has come in late and has not listened properly to the point. I made the reasonable point that most people who come for a tour of the House are taken round by a guide because Members do not have time to take them. The guides levy a charge, which is frequently passed on—although not always; I sometimes pay it myself. The proposals that we are debating are not without precedent or analogy.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Choice.
Sir Patrick Cormack: We are talking about choice. The hon. Gentleman can chunter away as much as he likes. He is a great chunterer. I shall not be challenged by anyone on the subject of choice. People do not have the choice to see this building in August or September, but, thanks to the modest, sensible, constructive and thoughtful proposals of the Committee, supported by a number of distinguished Labour Members, they will have that opportunity.
I share the reluctance of the Leader of the House about charging. I wish that we could do it all for free, but we cannot, at least until the initial costs have been recouped. I believe that most of those who come will gladly pay, just as they gladly pay to enjoy Westminster abbey, Buckingham palace and a host of other historic buildings throughout the country. One of the main reasons why people come to this country for their holidays is to enjoy our rich heritage of historical buildings and wonderful museums and galleries, some of which are open free, but the majority of which are not. We would merely put ourselves in that category for two months of the year if we adopted the proposal. I have a basic sympathy with the amendment, but it is far better to have the building open during those two months than to have it closed. It is far better to let people come than to keep them out.
I have three important questions for my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who will briefly sum up the debate. Does her Committee envisage that those who come will all have hand-held guides, or will there be an opportunity for guides to take people round? Many people prefer a human guide to an inhuman instrument. If so, will there be an opportunity for those staff of the House who act as guides in their off-duty hours to do so during the summer? Some of them have an encyclopaedic
394
knowledge of this place and are wonderful guides because they work here and love the place very much. I hope that they will have that opportunity. Secondly, who will do the commentary for the audio guide, how will it be organised and how many languages will it be in? My third question is merely a point of clarification. My hon. Friend made it clear that the rights of Members and senior officers of the staff would remain. They will be able to come at any time to show people round. She said that that would apply to Members' staff. At the moment it also applies to Members' spouses. Will she confirm that that will remain the case? One or two people have raised that with me.
With those brief questions I am delighted to commend the report. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for putting it together. If the House is pleased to approve the report, as 1 trust that it will be, this place will be a welcome addition to the tourist map of London.
5.56 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"declines to approve the First Report from the Administration Committee (HC394) on the proposal to re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment until the full implications for entry into the Houses of Parliament at other times of the year, and other options for making these arrangements, are examined and costed."
The amendment is supported by a number of hon. Members on both sides, to whom I am grateful. I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on two points. First, I agree that this building is a very important architectural masterpiece. I admired it when I was involved with architecture and I still do. It is still an amazing working environment, despite the fact that it is unable to move with the times in some respects, as is shown by the problems of making the disabled more welcome. I endorse the views expressed by others that we should make the building available as much as possible for people to see how it works.
I also agree with the compliments that the hon. Gentleman paid to the House Committees, particularly the Administration Committee. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) introduced her report with seductive modesty, but I warn hon. Members to look carefully at the small print.
Before I refer specifically to the report, I must deal with three general points, two of which are widespread misconceptions that have been repeated this afternoon. The first is that, somehow, the proposals in the report deal exclusively with August and September and with foreign tourists. Both those arguments are wrong. There are detailed recommendations in the report that apply to other parts of the year and there are important implications for the entry of all persons to the building.
The second misconception is that we have to get on with this. It has taken a long time to reach the Floor of the House. I asked the previous Leader of the House what was going on in July of last year, because rumours were circulating. However, there is no rush. Some people thought that we had to get on quickly because we were going to open the place this August. Nothing will happen until August 2000—14 months hence—so there is time to get it right.
The third point is that there is widespread concern that this is the thin end of a big wedge. Many hon. Members have expressed concern about that in the House

395
and outside. If I were at liberty to do so, I should quote extensively from an important letter from the Finance and Services Committee, on which I serve, setting out a number of reservations. However, as the Chairman is not here, it would be unfair. I hoped that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) might be present, because the letter expressed important reservations about the report.
The inhabitants of the other end of the building share our concerns, but they keep being told that the Commons has agreed to it, just as we shall no doubt be told that the Lords have agreed. That is not true.
Dr. Palmer: Just to clarify that point, let me say that there were fairly extensive discussions with the equivalent body in the House of Lords and only one member of that body dissented vigorously. The overwhelming majority supported the proposal. Of course, the debate will reveal whether that is the general view.
Mr. Tyler: I understand that the House of Lords has not yet taken a decision, so it has not yet shown where it stands.
I want to deal with the proposals first in relation to the principle; secondly, in relation to some practical issues; and, thirdly in relation to precedent.
First, in paragraph 3, the consultants
"identified the potential to open the Line of Route on non-sitting days at other times of the year."
From the outset, the private consultants whom the Select Committee asked to look at the proposal considered not just August and September, but the whole year. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, that is still implicit in the report.
Paragraph 3 also states that
"the majority of operational services"
would be
"contracted out to specialist organisations".
Those of us who are suspicious of contracting out, commercialisation and privatisation should look carefully at the small print of the report.
The proposal that is endorsed by the Committee at paragraph 9 of the report is that:
"the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening to Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends."
Where would it stop? We do not know, and it is not spelt out. When I deal with the economics of the proposal, the House will agree that the likelihood is that, once it has started, it will be unstoppable.
In other words, this is a completely new departure. The Select Committee is saying quite blatantly, first, that it is likely to extend throughout the year in due course; and, secondly, that, whatever safeguards are mentioned now, there is nothing to stop the system being extended to sitting days. The Committee can give us all the assurances that it likes, but there is nothing to stop it. Thirdly, it suggests an element of contracting out or privatisation.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Personally, I would be delighted if the proposals were extended to other recesses and
396
weekends, but, in respect of sitting days, the proposal would have to come before the House again and I cannot think of a single hon. Member who would vote for it.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is always telling us about precedent. Once a precedent is established for charging for entry into this building, it will be difficult to stop it.
Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He has made a point about the Committee discussing the extension of the proposal throughout the year. It has certainly discussed opening during other recesses and weekends, as he rightly said, but surely he recognises that that would involve an access that is not now available. An incautious hearer might take the view that he is saying that a charge would be made for access that is now available. Surely that access is not now available. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). It is grossly over-egging the pudding to suggest that the proposal is somehow the thin end of the wedge. I cannot think of any hon. Member who would advocate that we should charge for our constituents to come when the House was in session or who would vote for such a proposal.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I shall return to that point in a moment in relation to the economics of the proposal. It is extremely important for hon. Members to recognise that, once we embark on this course, it will become increasingly likely that people will say that the only viable way for it to operate is to extend it as far as possible.
We have already been told that up to a quarter of those who will come here in August and September will be United Kingdom citizens who have already contributed through their taxes to their democracy and are entitled to see where that democracy resides. If the proposal is extended to the Easter and Whitsun recesses, the proportion will rise. We all know that far more of our constituents than tourists are likely to want to come at that time.
I take seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I remember the wartime years only distantly, but I have many relations who served alongside those who fought on behalf of the Commonwealth countries against the Nazi dictatorship. Those people will feel that they are being treated in a rather shabby way if, at the only time that they can come here, they find that they are charged for entry.
Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I want to make progress as I know that others want to speak.
I know that some hon. Members object to all charging. I do not necessarily take that view. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has pointed out, there are already some charges, so that is not the big issue. The issue is whether the proposed method of charging will be worth losing the vital rights of our constituents and fellow citizens to come here free of charge. At the moment, groups from constituencies that are further afield can visit only during the months when we are not sitting,

397
particularly September. A school group from Cornwall might very well come at Whitsun or in September. If it were possible, I would try to make arrangements for them to be escorted round, but that cannot be guaranteed. Increasing numbers of people will find it difficult to fit in with the proposed arrangements.
There are also some practical considerations. In addition to the outside contractors that the report envisages, paragraph 14 proposes that three new staff should be appointed—two senior and one subsidiary member of staff. What will they do for the other 10 months of the year? Will they be fully employed for only eight weeks? That does not seem very economic.
We are told in paragraph 17 that the two month-scheme will cost in the region of £500,000 in year one and £350,000 in the following year, with the Lords making an additional contribution. Within that very narrow margin, the pressure to extend the period will be enormous. Any private enterprise organisation—or any enterprise within the House—would immediately seek to expand the scheme other recesses and weekends. The Select Committee is obviously aware of that. What business would employ staff and equip itself to run an eight-week year? Of course it would immediately try to extend its working year as far as possible. The level of charging is referred to in the report and the hon. Member for Broxbourne said that some savings have already been made. Perhaps we should debate the matter every week so that the cost would come down to nil, as it is impressive that, since the publication of the report just a few weeks ago, it has already been possible to reduce the charge.
Let us consider the figures in the report. A family of two adults and three children would have to pay £14 to get in. That is a substantial sum for a small family. However, if a group or school party were not lucky enough to get sponsorship, a group of 13 young people and three adults would have to pay £45.50. Under the present arrangements, the maximum would be about £20 and would include a guide.
In addition, the report anticipates some 2,000 people an hour coming through in August and September. The hon. Member for Broxbourne and others have said that there will be no disruption to hon. Members' parties coming round. Hon. Members should imagine their own party arriving behind a queue of 2,000 people. How would they queue barge? How would they get preference? Of course the proposals will affect the entry of our constituents, whether we take them round themselves or ask someone else to do it.
There will have to be experts to answer questions. As has already been said, visitors will be equipped with audio guides of a make that I understand has just been thrown out by Buckingham palace and the Tower of London because they do not work properly. Audio guides cannot answer questions, so there will still have to be people to do that. If, as happens every summer recess, the Line of Route changes owing to building work, the audio guide will be useless unless someone is paid to record a completely new message. In addition, if groups are not accompanied by qualified guides employed by this place, security charges will have to increase. There will have to be people to keep an eye on those groups. When they come with our staff or the staff of the House, they are
398
automatically supervised but, if they are unaccompanied, security staff will have to be doubled or trebled, at considerable cost. They will be there for only August and September, so I do not know what preferential rates are to be paid. Or will they be students taking up a holiday job? I have nothing against students, but their professionalism would be nothing like as great as one would expect.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire usually lectures us on the issue of precedent, and I hope that he feels that that issue is entirely appropriate. I believe that, once we start on the slippery slope of commercialisation and privatisation, there will be remorseless pressure to extend the period, to increase the categories that are included—eventually, I see our constituents being included—or to increase the charges; or all three. That will be inevitable once we have said yes.
I appreciate that the Committee has done some useful work, but it has not put a choice before the House. It has not put a choice before the Commission, or any other Committee of the House. We are entitled to a choice, and that is what the amendment provides. It does not call for the whole thing to be thrown out, as important work is being done. However, the House is entitled to know what choices there are and whether we can avoid what seems to be the least-good option.
I believe that we should invite an in-house bid. In their spare time, the staff of the House—as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire acknowledged—provide an excellent service. Why should they be done out of an important role that they fulfil admirably? Why should we not see whether they can provide, on a co-operative basis, an alternative method of dealing with the problem?
I believe that we should examine the costs. It is a fact of life, as the museums have just found, that charging itself costs money. One has to employ more people to handle the money, or use machinery, or a complicated combination of the two. The actual cost of charging is not referred to in the report, and it should be. We should keep supervised tours rather than move to an audio guide system. That would save dramatically on security costs.
If it is felt that the setting-up costs are beyond what we are entitled to consider, we should look carefully at some of the other costs being incurred within this building. I understand that Black Rod in the other place is pushing through a scheme that will cost £2.25 million to apply some cosmetic attention to Old Palace Yard. It has no practical advantage for us, or for our constituents. A small fraction of that sum, dedicated to making this House more accessible to everybody—whether they are from this country or abroad—would be a proper use of public funds.
Our constituents, the electorate, have paid through their taxes for the democratic system. I believe that it would be quite wrong for us to make them pay twice just so they can come and see us and our place of work.
6.12 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I have listened attentively to the points made so far, and I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Committee. I shall not go on at length because the issues are straightforward. In effect, we have three options. The first is the status quo, which is that there is no access, except by pre-planned groups who normally pay for a guide. That means that, if an individual—perhaps one of those

399
referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike); a relative of someone who fought for Britain—seeks to visit the House during the summer recess and cannot contact an hon. Member, he or she will be unable to do so.
The second is to spend £500,000, on our estimate—I assure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we looked extensively at alternative costings, and guided groups made up of individual applicants would be more expensive—to provide what would be basically an additional tourist attraction. The third option—the one before us—is that we provide that attraction, but that it should be paid for principally by those who benefit.
As with any proposal for change, there are those, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who propose doing nothing for the time being and awaiting further discussions and developments. They offer the prospect of a better world in which the ideal can be achieved. I have not been in this House for as long as many hon. Members here, but I predict that, if we reject the proposal today, £500,000 will not be found to provide free access for summer visitors, 80 per cent. of whom will be tourists. Politically, it will not happen.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have already had five years of revenues referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who said that more than £2 million was available for one project. Why cannot we have that money?
Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend will be aware from many similar debates on spending issues that each of us can always identify one project, not under discussion, that might be scrapped to pay for the project under discussion. We are unable to assess the scheme to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred. If it is possible to save more than £2 million by not carrying out an unnecessary scheme, we should do so.
However, that is an entirely separate issue. We are debating whether we should budget an additional £500,000 to entertain tourists from around the world who will pay sums vastly in excess of the proposed sums to come here in the first place.
Mr. David Davis: We are accountable to our constituents. The arguments that we have heard so far have posed two options—no access, or access with a charge. Our constituents will look at that and pose other options. If we are spending millions over the road—for ourselves, in effect—why cannot we find the money to give them access to this House?
Dr. Palmer: I fully agree that public scepticism about the sums spent on Portcullis House is great and will become yet greater when they become better known. However, while we are not debating Old Palace Yard, we are also not debating Portcullis House. We are debating whether we should spend £500,000 to benefit the tourist industry.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that we should not be charging our constituents twice—once through taxes, to elect us and to pay our salaries, and once to visit this place. If we were to spend £500,000 on making the scheme free, that is precisely what we should
400
be doing. We shall be charging our constituents to save money for the 80 per cent. of non-constituents who use this facility in the summer.
I would share the concerns of the House if it were suggested that this charge might be made compulsory for our constituents. However, the Committee was careful to stress that there should be no change to the present facility that any hon. Member can take his or her constituents around at no cost and at a time convenient to him or her, whether in the summer recess or at any other time.
We are speaking here exclusively of an additional facility to benefit people such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, who are not able to visit in an organised group and who wish to visit the mother of Parliaments. If we focus on what the proposal says, there is little that should be controversial. If we focus, as did the hon. Member for North Cornwall, on supposed follow-ons and extensions that might happen in the future, it is possible to conjure up all sorts of alarming potentials. The Committee focused on a proposal for the summer months and said that, if it is a success—only the House as a whole will be able to assess that—we can review whether we should extend the scheme to other non-sitting periods.
I invite the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to confirm that it is also her view that, before proceeding to any such extension, the House should have the opportunity to discuss it again.
Mrs. Roe: I am certain that the Administration Committee, no matter who is a member of it at the time, would want to have the endorsement of the House for any changes to the programme.
Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification.
Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the report that we are being asked to approve includes specific reference to extending opening to
"Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends",
and that, once a considerable sum has been spent on the proposal, the pressure to extend it will be remorseless?
Dr. Palmer: I have heard the hon. Gentleman very clearly, but we must be precise. Paragraph 9 says:
"The Committee considers that the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening"
to other periods. I have rarely seen more subjunctives in one sentence. I credit the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members with the backbone to resist any suggestion that, because we have approved a summer experiment, we have approved all the extensions that he fears.
Those who debate the matter in future can look back at this debate and confirm that we have said in the clearest possible terms that we are talking only about the summer. There are three clear options: do nothing; hope for an illusion; or opt for a scheme that provides a new facility for individual visitors, mostly from overseas.
6.22 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I completely agree with the amendment so ably and eloquently moved by the hon. Member for North

401
Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I agree with only one aspect of what the report says: that access to the Palace should be maximised for everybody, be they from this country or from abroad.
We have witnessed a rather astonishing outbreak of xenophobia: suddenly, foreigners are undesirables and we either do not want them here or want to charge them. I want to dissociate myself from that view. It is pretty disgraceful stuff. I would like all people—both our voters and taxpayers and, even more, people from abroad—to be welcome in the Palace, in the right circumstances, so that they may see and enjoy that of which we are so proud. That should surely be our main motivation.
Dr. Palmer: When the right hon. Gentleman says "even more", is he saying that we should subsidise foreign visitors at the expense of our constituents?
Mr. Forth: I would not use the word "subsidise" but I would welcome anyone here, be they from this country or from abroad. I go to the United States as often as I can and visit state capital buildings—so far I have visited about 30 and I look forward to visiting many more—and I am not charged there or on Capitol hill in the District of Columbia, because the Americans are proud of their democratic process and proud to welcome visitors, including even me. I am made to feel welcome. They want me to share in the pride that they have in their democratic history and institutions, state by state and at federal level in DC.
Mr. Pike: Should we not remember that foreign tourists spend money here? They support the economy and pay VAT and other taxes while they are here.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We often say in the House how much we want to encourage the tourist trade. If we can offer this place as an additional attraction to tourists, that in itself will do much to encourage that trade, which already generates so much revenue and so many jobs. I have absolutely no problem with welcoming visitors here, be they native taxpayers and voters or visitors from abroad. They should all be treated equally.
Hon. Members have rightly taken an interest in how we defray the costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested to me earlier today that a much more imaginative and systematic merchandising effort would go a long way towards that. Given the amount of revenue generated in the relatively small retail space currently available in the kiosks, I believe that he is right. We could also offer optional facilities or guided tours at a charge. The Committee has not explored all those avenues as it should.
The point has been made over and over again that taxpayers and voters can always come here courtesy of their Member of Parliament, but the irony is that, if we open up this place during the summer recess, that is the very time when most Members of Parliament are at their least accessible. I put it no more strongly than that and I will not go into any gruesome details, but hon. Members will know exactly what I mean.
We can say, "Don't worry, natives, you'll be able to get in via your MP while all these rotten foreigners are paying," but the occasional voter and taxpayer might have
402
a little difficulty laying hands on a Member of Parliament, especially during the summer recess when hon. Members are busy on fact-finding trips and with similar work.
All in all, I welcome the original intention of the exercise, which was to open up this great building and our traditions to as many people as possible. From that point on, the exercise has gone very badly wrong.
Mr. David Davis: I am a little perplexed by my right hon. Friend's willingness to subsidise an activity. That may be a first. The important point is that there are two decisions, not one. The first is whether we make this place available to the public in the summer. The second, separate decision, is whether we charge. I think that we should make it available, and the costs are all in that decision. After that, any further costs—for letting in foreigners, for example—are near to zero. As he says, better merchandising could meet all the costs of allowing foreign visitors in free. Does he agree that we are making a two-stage decision, the first part of which is to open up our democracy to our own people?
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not often heard to advocate the use of taxpayers' money for such purposes and I am usually the first to adopt a market approach. I think that there is a market element in what I am saying. I am trying to strike a balance between maximum access and recouping as much of the cost as possible. It is possible that the scheme could end up generating revenue even beyond the costs that have been identified by the Committee.
I am afraid that, unless I hear something very much more convincing than I have heard so far, my inclination is strongly to support the amendment and to reject the report.
6.30 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Like many hon. Members, I agree with much of the report. It is primarily about trying to extend access to this place to people from this country and abroad and, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we all welcome that move. When people visit this building—whether they are constituents, friends or tourists—one can see the way in which they are inspired and the great joy that they derive from it. Why are people so inspired by this building? I suggest that it is because this place represents democracy. This is the mother of Parliaments and it represents all sorts of ideals.
I take issue with the report's suggestion that we should charge people to come to this place and feel that sense of awe—whether during the summer recess or at any other time. That is deeply wrong. In essence, it is a matter of principle.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is preparing to ensure that entry to all our museums is free. Yet we are planning to introduce an entrance fee to this great, modern, working museum. We should not charge people to enter this place over the summer. The amounts of money are trivial. The Secretary of State is about to spend millions of pounds removing museum entry fees, while we are about to introduce just such a fee in this place. That is a nonsense.
Mr. Coaker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Paragraph 19 of the report states:
"it is now Government policy that institutions such as the Tate Gallery, the National Gallery and the British Museum should not charge an entrance fee".
The report points out the contradiction in Government policy, but then goes on to suggest that we should introduce an entrance fee to one of the best museums in the country.
The proposed charges will stop some people visiting the building. Furthermore, I believe that our constituents will react badly to the concept of charging UK citizens or tourists to enter their Parliament. They will be absolutely amazed and bewildered.
Dr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend not concede that nearly all of his arguments apply equally to Westminster abbey, which is the national centre of our established church where people might wish to worship? People are charged to enter that building.
Mr. Coaker: I might believe that entry to Westminster abbey should be free, but unfortunately I cannot vote on that issue. I have an opportunity to speak in this Chamber about whether we should charge people to visit this place, and an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I intend to seize that opportunity. I believe that the charging proposal is deeply flawed, and I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
We either charge people to enter this place or are proud that entry is free. I think we should be proud that entry to our Parliament—the symbol of our democracy—is free, in August, December, March or whenever. Any costs of extending access to this place should be met from the general tax fund. We want to extend access to people and, in so doing, ensure that people are not put off by the cost. We must remain proud of the fact that entry to our Parliament is free.
6.35 pm
Mr. John Randall: I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on the Committee. All Committees should strive to produce such a succinct report after taking evidence for a year.
I represent a constituency that is situated very close to London—in fact, it is regarded as part of London these days—but that does not mean that my constituents have easy access to this place. Like all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I welcome the fact that people will have greater access to Parliament during the summer recess. However, I am fundamentally opposed to charging for that access.
I came to the debate with the idea that only United Kingdom citizens should be allowed free entry to Parliament. However, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have argued powerfully that free entry should be extended not only to Commonwealth citizens but to tourists, who already pay tax in this country and contribute to the wealth of our economy. Therefore, I have decided not to be xenophobic about this matter.
Mr. David Davis: On this occasion.
Mr. Randall: On this occasion.
404
I speak today particularly on behalf of families. The school holidays are the only time when many people have an opportunity to travel to London and visit this place. It has been said, slightly glibly, that the entrance charge for a family is not excessive. However, if we add together all the charges at London tourist attractions, the resulting cost is very high. I believe that children should visit this place as part of their education. Charging will dissuade parents from bringing their children to Parliament because they will think that £14 per family is just too expensive.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued in support of the amendment, and I should perhaps declare an interest in the debate. I am a retailer, and I believe that we should consider increasing parliamentary retail revenues. I sometimes visit the shop around Christmas. I listen to the ringing of the till and think wistfully of my previous incarnation as a retailer. I think that more could be made of those revenues, which could be improved and used to subsidise entrance fees. I believe hon. Members should support the amendment and consider generating other forms of revenue. We must not rush into charging an entry fee.
6.38 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have been a Member of Parliament for about 20 years. I used to sit three rows behind the Opposition Front Bench and, in my first years in this place, behind me there sat a very wise Member of Parliament named Willie Hamilton—I am sure hon. Members remember him with great affection. I was a young, thrusting Member of Parliament who was trying to do his bit to bring down the Government, and Willie used to offer me some sound advice.
On one occasion, I had some new-fangled idea about modernising Parliament: I thought that sittings should commence at 10 am and adjourn at 6 pm because that was the way in which a civilised Parliament should be run. I remember Willie leaning over, tapping me on the shoulder and saying, "You'll learn, laddie. You cannot change things in this place that have been traditions for decades. If you make changes without full consideration, things will go wrong." This proposal is nonsense, and everyone who has been in the House for a long time knows it.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) who was on the Committee. I have been here for 20 years and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who intervened on me and who has said that the proposal is nonsense, has been here for 40 years. When I considered the Committee's membership, it seemed to me that several new Members, who have in the past couple of years been elected to the Committee by majority—obviously supported by others, I concede—have taken a view on these matters without recognising the implications of the proposals that they are supporting. They are simply wrong.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is one of the friendly Members whom we all adore, and I am astonished that he should support

405
this proposition. He did not seem to argue from a position of neutrality; he seemed to believe in the proposal. I find it astonishing that he should take that position.
Dr. Palmer: I am having difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument. He seems to be saying simultaneously that those new hon. Members who support the proposal are unwise and have not had the benefit of experience, but that support for the proposal from those hon. Members who have been here for a while is merely astonishing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is. That is precisely the point. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is a wise, older Member, and I am astonished that he should take the position that he has.
I want to take action in the Chamber tonight because I know that, despite what the public think, there are Members sitting in their offices all over Westminster watching our debate. The public seem to think that when the Chamber is empty, no one knows what is happening in the House of Commons, but of course many, perhaps hundreds, of MPs are watching this debate tonight. I say to them, "Please come out of your offices because unless you come and vote against this nonsense, the House will make a ridiculous decision that will make us all look rather silly."
When the public consider these matters, they will ask how it is possible—if this is true, and 1 am told that it is and I have not heard it contested—for Members of Parliament to spend £250 million on an office block for themselves and then start charging the public to come in and see the relics, exhibits and pictures in this place. That is utterly ludicrous.
We talk about charges, but I do not think that Members realise what the charges will be. The charge will be £5.50 for an adult.
Mr. Coaker: It will be £6.50.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was wrong. It will cost an adult £6.50 to come into Parliament during the summer recess. That is an absolute outrage. We must vote that proposal down tonight. I am told that if my constituents' children cannot get a ticket from me and come to London in a group, they may well have to spend £2 each to get into the House of Commons. That is just plain wrong. I say to my hon. Friends that they should make sure that the Lobbies are tonight full of people who understand the issues and are prepared to reject the whole proposition.
We heard that audio systems will be made available for people to wear so that they will know what is going on in the House. I have been told that those systems were used in Buckingham palace, but they had to be withdrawn because they do not always work. One must be standing in the right position, away from the column or on the correct side of the window. One must stand in a place where the signal can be picked up. People said, "We don't want anything to do with that nonsense. We want the old system of guides or the right simply to walk around, instead of all that high-tech paraphernalia that doesn't work."
406
This proposal is a foot in the door, and whatever hon. Members say, once we establish the principle of charging in this place, we shall extend it. Let there be no doubt about that. The intention now may not be to extend charging. It never is, but once we begin to charge, the pressure will build up. We shall ask ourselves, "Why don't we build a new exhibit next year, and put the charges up? We'll introduce a new charge for constituents, perhaps of £1, to pay for the new exhibit." Such ideas will start in a little Committee somewhere. Its members will find a justification, such as a need or a new requirement that must be funded, and then impose a new charge.
My final argument relates to the whole question of what we are doing in the House. I do not want to be party to a decision that creates any impediment to the right of people to come here and see what is here. This is the mother of Parliaments; it is the institution that is talked about with respect all over the world, so do we want to get into the squalid business of trade? We cannot associate Parliament with the squalid principles of trade; we must reject all that. I say to hon. Members, "Get out of your offices, get into the Lobbies, and let's have some common sense."
6.45 pm
Mrs. Roe: We have had a useful debate this afternoon, and it is clear that there is still much work to be done. I know that the relevant authorities will have taken note of what hon. Members have said and will address the concerns that they have expressed.

First, I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) when he spoke to his amendment. I note that he would prefer to delay a reopening pending further examination of the implications and the options. Although I have every sympathy with his desire to get things right, I remind him that the Committee has been considering the matter for 14 months, and the House authorities still have another 14 months in which to finalise all the arrangements.
Mr. Sheldon: There is a strong case for delay because the matter has not, I think, even been raised with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is planning to make all museums free. Surely the first thing that the Committee should have done was to ask the Secretary of State for his views on this matter. It would be astonishing if all the museums in the country were open and this one were closed.
Mrs. Roe: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, my Committee decided to publish its findings in the form of a Select Committee report, thereby making them public—and although hon. Members have spoken in the debate, we have not yet received much correspondence from them. In fact, we have had only one letter. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to ensure that his views were available to the Committee, and he is, of course, still able to do so.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I believe that if we delayed and waited until summer 2001 to reopen the Line of Route, we would be in danger of over-egging the pudding. I hope that he will accept my constructive suggestion that he might find it helpful to arrange a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Finance and Administration so that he can discuss the details of his concerns.

407
The hon. Gentleman made five main points, about the time of year, the unfairness of charging, the waste of staff time, MPs' problems with groups and the costs of charging. All those points are covered in the report. I am a little short of time, but I emphasise to him that the reopening is an additional facility, which would be operated on an experimental basis and, in the first instance, for summer only.
We have discussed paragraph 9 of the report. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who is a member of the Administration Committee, clearly pointed out, the report leaves plenty of room for a proper assessment to be made before we take any further steps. I am sure that the House will make its views known.
Staff will be part of a visitors' office, but they will have many other tasks. They will be required to deal with the millennium exhibition in Westminster Hall, so their duties will not be confined to the Line of Route. Charging will involve some administrative costs, but they will be absorbed in the scheme.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he felt that the proposal was the thin end of the wedge. I hope that he will realise that his fears are unfounded. Of course, the House can come to any decision; any future Administration Committee, with new members, may come to a different decision. I hope that he does not think that something will be slipped through without proper debate, assessment and review.
On the points made about guides, in paragraph 15 of the report, the Committee
"recommends that suitably knowledgeable staff should be available at the end of the tour in order to assist visitors' enquiries."
We hope that those with knowledge and experience of the House will come forward for those duties. Of course, the present guides will still be able to take round parties that have been organised by Members of Parliament, and so on. Their services will still be required.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), expressed their total opposition to charging. I understand their concerns, but, on balance, and after much soul searching—this decision was not taken frivolously—the Administration Committee concluded that the cost of reopening the Line of Route would be so great that the fairest way in which to pay for it would be to charge only United Kingdom taxpayers who chose to make use of the facility.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have heard that £2.5 million—five years' revenue—is available to subsidise this project. Is the hon. Lady in favour in principle of using that revenue?
Mrs. Roe: It is not my responsibility to decide where that money should be allocated; I am certainly not aware of the reason why it has been allocated. The Administration Committee takes very seriously the duty of obtaining good value for money for its decisions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I mentioned in my opening speech that some savings have been made. I cannot comment on money that has already been allocated elsewhere.
408
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a point about school holidays and family visitors. I repeat that the Committee was very reluctant to recommend charging. It is important to remember that, at present, no one can enjoy the facility during the summer. This additional facility will enhance those already provided.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for their support. I shall quickly run over my hon. Friend's points, on which he requested some information. Audio guides will be provided. We have been informed by the consultants that they will operate effectively and respond to the needs of visitors. Of course, we shall monitor the equipment and ensure that it reflects the requirements placed on it. There will certainly be opportunities for staff who have knowledge of the House to use their expertise in one way or another if they wish to volunteer to do so in the proper way.
My hon. Friend asked how many languages would be available. The answer is English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese. If we receive desperate requests for others, I have no doubt that we would consider them. He also asked whether spouses would still be able to escort guests. I assure him that that will be so. Again, I reiterate that nothing that is in place now will change. We are debating an additional facility for people who at the moment are not able to enjoy this wonderful treasure and piece of history.
I remind the House of four fundamental points. Our proposals represent an additional facility for visitors, especially those who might be termed "casual visitors"—the person who does not have direct access to a Member of Parliament who can organise a tour. There will be no change to the arrangements whereby hon. Members can organise visits for their constituents during the summer. Our constituents will not be charged to see either or both Houses at work.
Finally, and reluctantly, if the House does not approve our proposals—I know that the hon. Member for Workington would like to ransack another budget to meet the costs—the Line of Route will not reopen during the summer. Without that admission charge, reopening it is not an option. I remind the House that the matter must still go before the House of Lords, which will also go through our report. We do not yet know its conclusions.
Mr. Pike: Surely the hon. Lady is misleading the House because, at the end of the day, it is not for the Administration Committee to say that, without charging, we cannot reopen the Line of Route in August and September. It is for this House and democracy to do so. If we say, "Take the proposal back, have another look at it and come up with another one," the Committee will have to take note of that.
Mrs. Roe: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recall that I said that, at the end of the day, the House will decide. In no way would I undermine the House's final decision. We have very seriously considered the figures over much time and come to the conclusion—reluctantly—that in order to make reopening feasible, we will have to charge.
I hope that I have covered all the points raised. I again thank hon. Members for their courtesy and their kind comments about the report. The Committee felt that this

409
was the best way to bring the issue into the open so that everyone would be given an opportunity to see exactly what it was proposing and why. Of course, the matter is for the House to decide, but I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, thus giving those who at the moment do not have access the opportunity to enter this wonderful Palace.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 36.

Division No. 199]

[6.57 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Gerrard, Neil

Ballard, Jackie

Gibb, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Gibson, Dr Ian

Battle, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bennett, Andrew F

Gorrie, Donald

Berrningham, Gerald

Green, Damian

Brady, Graham

Greenway, John

Brake, Tom

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Breed, Colin

Hammond, Philip

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hanson, David

Burnett, John

Harris, Dr Evan

Burns, Simon

Harvey, Nick

Burstow, Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Butterfill, John

Healey, John

Campbell–Savours, Dale

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Chidgey, David

Howells, Dr Kim

Clappison, James

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Kidney, David

(Rushcliffe)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Coaker, Vernon

Lansley, Andrew

Coffey, Ms Ann

Leslie, Christopher

Connarty, Michael

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cotter, Brian

Loughton, Tim

Cousins, Jim

Love, Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McNamara, Kevin

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

McNulty, Tony

& Howden)

MacShane, Denis

Day, Stephen

Mactaggart, Fiona

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fabricant, Michael

Marshall–Andrews, Robert

Fearn, Ronnie

Merron, Gillian

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Moore, Michael

Foster, Don (Bath)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Nicholls, Patrick

Garnier, Edward

Oaten, Mark

410

Olner, Bill

Stunell, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Swayne, Desmond

Paterson, Owen

Syms, Robert

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Pope, Greg

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Prior, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Randall, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Rendel, David

Touhig, Don

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Trend, Michael

Ryan, Ms Joan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Savidge, Malcolm

Tyler, Paul

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tyrie, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, Jonathan

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sheerman, Barry

Ward, Ms Claire

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Simpson, Keith (Mid–Norfolk)

Webb, Steve

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

Willis,Phil

Soley, Clive

Tellers for the Ayes:

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mr. David Heath and

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mr. Adrian Sanders.

NOES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Betts, Clive

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Boswell, Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Caplin, Ivor

MacShane, Denis

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

McWalter, Tony

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

(Chipping Barnet)

Maxton, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Pound, Stephen

Cran, James

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Crausby, David

Raynsford, Nick

Dowd, Jim

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Gapes, Mike

Ruffley, David

Heald, Oliver

Spring, Richard

Hill, Keith

Tipping, Paddy

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Whittingdale, John

Jamieson, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Jones, Ms Jenny

Tellers for the Noes:

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Mrs. Marion Roe and

Key, Robert

Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House declines to approve the First Report from the Administration Committee (HC394) on the proposal to re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment until the full implications for entry into the Houses of Parliament at other times of the year, and other options for making these arrangements, are examined and costed.

Line of Route

  Members' Travel
  7.10 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
  That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that
  (1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

  (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and

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

  (2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the following: amendment (a), to leave out the first reference to '1st April' and insert `lst November'.
  Amendment (k), after subsection (1), insert
  '(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met'.
  Mrs. Beckett: This is a classic, although relatively minor, House matter, which has a slightly odd history. It would be wise to point out to the House—and, indeed, to one or two people from the media who seem to have been misled about it—that this is an issue in relation to which members of the Government have nothing whatever at stake.
  The motion proposes to vary the scheme introduced nearly 10 years ago by the Conservative Government, which offers Members funding to make one journey a year to familiarise themselves with the workings of the European institutions—that is, the European Parliament or the Commission.
  If the motion is passed, the funding made available—which has, I understand, never been increased, and in which no increase is proposed today—would be available either, as now, for one visit a year to those institutions, or, at the choice of a Member, for one visit a year to the Parliament of another member state instead. The low take-up of the fund suggests that at present it is of less use to Members than, presumably, its originators expected.
  I see no particular virtue in preserving unchanged a scheme of little use or value if quite a minor change might make it more useful; and when the change was suggested, I was perfectly willing to see whether it would increase the value of the scheme to Members.
  412
  The motion has appeared on the Order Paper several times now. I freely confess that I had, mistakenly, assumed it to be non-contentious, as it involves a minor rule change and no—I repeat, no—extra funding. When an objection was first made, I therefore imagined that there was a misunderstanding as to what was intended. However, it now appears that there was no misunderstanding, but some real objection, and that is why the matter now comes before the House for debate as well as decision.
  Before those who wish to see the matter debated get too excited or carried away, let me set out why I thought that this was not a matter of contention across the Floor of the House. The basic scheme was introduced under the Conservative Government—incidentally, all those who have objected so far were Ministers in that Government—and there is no extra funding to arouse concern.
  Initially, it appeared that the objection might be based on a misunderstanding, as it was first suggested that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee had objected because his Committee had not been consulted. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) expressing dismay at any perceived discourtesy, but also some surprise, because the PAC seemed to have had no role hitherto in the setting up or administration of the scheme. Indeed, it is a little hard to see why it would.
  Press reports have since suggested that some other objection is in fact entertained, and that can be aired here today.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I think that the right hon. Lady is coming to the end of her remarks, so will she give us some information? What was the overall take-up of the previous system among hon. Members?
  Mrs. Beckett: From memory, I believe that about 68 or 70 Members—certainly a small number—used a small proportion of the fund.
  I repeat that, to me, the proposal seems a minor matter that might be of assistance and use to Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House—and, indeed, to those on the Opposition Front Bench. It is not of the slightest benefit in any way, shape or form to the Government. It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to deny itself that facility, and I invite it to make its decision.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House has been more or less accurate in her description of what brought this matter to the Floor of the House. There were repeated attempts to sneak it through quietly without debate, as many things go through the House, but I, and others, took the view that it was not a minor matter, as it involves a substantial sum of public money. It should be aired in public, because it involves Members voting themselves the opportunity to travel at taxpayers' expense. I would have thought that that was a reasonable matter for a public airing, and I am therefore pleased that we now have the opportunity briefly to debate the matter here, to have it out in the open and vote on it properly, so that everybody can see where everybody else stands.

  413
  It is odd that the Leader of the House first said that this was a minor matter, and then went on to emphasise that there was no extra funding. I am glad that she now accepts the virtue of that claim. There was a time when Labour Members—perhaps even the right hon. Lady herself, in a previous incarnation—might have thought that extra funding was a virtue, but I am happy to see that she now regards the fact that there is no extra funding as a plus. At least we have moved some distance in that direction, for which I am grateful.
  However, that is not the point at issue. The real issue is this: if one sets up a system with public funding—taxpayers' money—and there is a derisorily small take-up, since only a small proportion of Members of Parliament decide to spend that money travelling to European Union institutions in boring old Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, what does one do? I suggest that we scrap the scheme and save the taxpayer some money. Give the money back to the taxpayer and say, "MPs have been given a chance to travel at your expense. They haven't taken it up, so the most logical thing is to do away with the scheme."
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare no interest, for the simple reason that I have never made myself available for any such trips to Europe, but I can see how the amended idea would have a great advantage. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as we are going in for afforestation, and new national forests have been set up, it might be useful for Members whose constituencies are involved to go to, say, Finland, which has a national afforestation policy, and learn about that?
  Mr. Forth: If I thought that the Finnish national Parliament was in the middle of a forest, I might agree.
  Allegedly—I shall say more about my reasons for using that term in a moment—the point of the scheme is for Members of Parliament to visit other national Parliaments. My point was that my preference, which I hope my vote will later be able to reflect, would be to scrap the whole scheme and hand the money back to the taxpayer.
  Instead it is suggested that we say to Members, "I know that you didn't really want to go to boring places such as Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, so we shall offer you the chance to go somewhere more interesting." By including European Union capitals and Parliaments, we shall open up the possibility of Members going to Athens, Rome or Lisbon, for example. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has said that he wants to go to Helsinki. Good for him, but what we are debating is whether he should go at the taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. David Maclean: A wonderful new Center Pares-type holiday experience centre has just been created in my constituency. On the basis of the logic of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I wonder whether it would be advantageous for me to travel to the south of Portugal this summer, or to the beaches of the south of France, or Disneyland in Paris, and see how they do such
  414
  things there. The proposal is wide open to abuse, especially if we extend it further, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South suggests.
  Mr. Forth: That may be so, but my right hon. Friend will be acquainted with the wording of the motion that we are debating, which says that Members should be reimbursed for
  "the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state".
  It is envisaged that Members of the Westminster Parliament will go to other national Parliaments. That seems a fairly open and shut case.
  However, how we would define parliamentary duties, how we would satisfy ourselves that Members really were travelling on parliamentary duties, and how we would know what they did when they got where they were going is the subject of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). No doubt he will speak to that in a moment, and I do not want to steal his thunder. However, there could be the merest question in some of our minds—I put it no more strongly than that—if hon. Members were able to travel at the taxpayer's expense to such places as Lisbon, Athens or Rome. I leave it to the imagination to decide whether their minds would be entirely concentrated on their parliamentary duties.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I have used the scheme. As I am a member of the NATO parliamentary group, I visited Brussels, where I spent a day with the NATO parliamentary secretariat, and I also visited Strasbourg and saw the European Parliament, which did not impress me, although it broadened my experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great difference between travelling to such institutions, where there is an infrastructure ready to receive the individual who wishes to broaden his knowledge of them, and travelling to Lisbon or Athens, turning up as a tripper at the front door, not speaking the language and with no proper infrastructure to receive visitors?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend's amendment touches on the extent to which we could satisfy ourselves that the trips were being made for a proper reason and carried out in a proper way. That is part of my argument against the motion, quite apart from the fact that it has been backdated to 1 April, which I find reprehensible.
  When the measure was originally tabled, in an attempt to sneak it through quietly without debate, it was before 1 April. Now that we are returning to the matter almost into June, the movers have not even bothered to change the date. It seems to give some weird kind of retrospectivity—perhaps time travel is involved, as well as distance travel.
  It appears that we could have travelled from 1 April onwards, according to the terms of the motion. Whether hon. Members could present their plane tickets from any journey made since 1 April is an interesting matter, to which I may or may not receive a reply towards the end of the debate. It strikes me as more than a little bizarre that we are being asked retrospectively to approve travel of a rather dubious nature.

  415
  I shall leave it to others to decide whether Members of Parliament should travel business class, but why they should get twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate is beyond me. I should have thought that the civil service class A subsistence rate was quite sufficient for most Members of Parliament. The whole thing reeks of Members of Parliament voting themselves something rather splendid and jolly.
  Given that hon. Members have not taken up the more modest offer that was available before, it is reprehensible that instead of doing away with the facility all together, the House is being asked to make it more attractive and to induce more of them to take up the possibility. The taxpayers must be agape at what is going on, at the very time when we in Westminster often criticise what is going on in Brussels in the European Commission, or in Strasbourg in the European Parliament.
  We often criticise those institutions. We would lay ourselves open to similar accusations if the Members of the European Parliament said, "Are you not the people who did not take up the opportunity to come to Strasbourg and Brussels, but are now voting yourselves the opportunity to visit more exotic locations?" It simply is not good enough.
  There is now little opportunity to amend the motion in the way that I originally intended. When we divide on it, I shall vote against it, because I believe that it is my duty to the taxpayer not to vote myself and my colleagues increased opportunities to travel at taxpayers' expense, but where possible—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not have a responsibility to his constituents to know something about how European institutions work, and to go to places such as Brussels and find out what is available for the benefit of constituents? Of course I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Brussels, as he was an MEP for five years. Presumably he travelled a great deal at that time and knows his way around, but many of us who have not been MEPs need to get there so that we can make the case for our constituencies, our regions and our country.
  Mr. Forth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not agree that the taxpayer should pay for him to go with a begging bowl to get more taxpayers' money out of Brussels in order to recycle it back to this country. That has never appealed to me, and we should not encourage it.
  The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to point out that I have a passing knowledge of such matters. I was an MEP for five years, and I was also a member of the Council of Ministers for nearly nine years. My knowledge leads me to say that I am in no great hurry to return to those institutions, which I found profoundly unattractive—but that is a debate for another day.
  The proposition before us is simple. It needs no gilding or elaboration. Either we say that the fund, not having been properly taken up, is returned to the taxpayer, or we vote ourselves the opportunity to spend it much more freely and much more frequently. I know which way I shall vote.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. David Davis: The interesting part of the debate is the degree of misunderstanding of my purpose and that of my right
  416
  hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in objecting to the motion. I know that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He seems to think that our objection is part of a Euro-sceptic plot. It is anything but that. If one took a Euro-sceptic perspective, one would encourage visits to national Parliaments rather than to European institutions.
  The Leader of the House expressed another misunderstanding, which I have corrected in a letter to her. It was based on my comment to her Parliamentary Private Secretary when I was asked why I objected. I said that I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It was not a matter of amour propre or of being consulted. I was concerned for the reputation of the House. The Public Accounts Committee was created in the first instance because of the poor reputation of public service in this country. My concern was to protect the reputation of the House.
  There has been a decline in the reputation of this institution in the past few years, for a variety of reasons—alleged misconduct on the part of various Members, and harsher party politics. The criticism of democratic parliamentarians has been reinforced by recent allegations made against Members of the European Parliament. That has undoubtedly led to a loss of public trust in Members of Parliament.
  It is vital to the authority of this institution that we maintain the public perception of the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is from that perspective that I address the issue. That integrity and that authority would not be helped by tabloid headlines about freebies over the next few years if, as my right hon. Friend argues, the scheme is misused.
  In my view, the comments of the Leader of the House were a touch disingenuous when she spoke about the way in which the motion was first presented to the House. It was presented initially for resolution at the end of business on a Friday. Fortunately, I saw it and objected to it. I thought that the matter ought to be debated so that it would be clear and above board. It was then presented in a mixture of other motions, and was promptly withdrawn when it was seen that my right hon. Friend and I were in the House and were ready to object to it.
  The supposedly non-controversial measure, to which my right hon. Friend and I clearly objected, was put up again on Thursday 6 May—the day of the local government elections, when it might have been expected that someone might not be present to object to it. Although I was in east Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend was here and did object to it.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman lost three Tory seats as a result.
  Mr. Davis: That is an interesting deduction, but not one to which I would subscribe.
  The purpose of the measure seems to hinge on the argument that the £250,000 or thereabouts set aside for the scheme as it currently exists has not been used, so we had better find a way of using it. Like my right hon. Friend, I think that if public money is not spent, the proper course is for it to be returned to the taxpayer, not for some other, possibly spurious use to be found for it.

  417
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) asked about the take-up of the scheme. Over the course of seven years, the amount of money spent out of the putative £250,000 has been as low as £29,000 in one year and £33,000 in another. The average take-up has been £44,500 out of budget of £250,000. It has clearly not attracted the interest of the vast majority of hon. Members. That is fine—I have no objection to it—and it is for Members to make their own decision. I am in favour of less spending, but I am perfectly happy for them to visit those institutions to inform themselves of how they work. Before Labour Members intervene, I should say that, unfortunately, I made 100 visits in three years.
  Mr. Forth: But not using the fund.
  Mr. Davis: No; because of my previous duties as a Minister.
  There are legitimate purposes for foreign travel. I sit on the Liaison Committee and regularly make judgments on Select Committee travel, and I apply to every one the test of whether it is worth while, and of value to the taxpayer, for a Select Committee to travel to Australia to consider the issue of missing children or whatever issue it may be. No doubt there may be a number of purposes for which it is legitimate for Members to travel, but finding something for Government Back Benchers to do on difficult days is not one of them, and they do not necessarily include visiting capitals that are in the sunshine and near beaches.
  My amendment is aimed at making sure that the fund is used for its proper purpose and I have asked the House to amend the motion by adding the words:
  "a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met".
  Making a statement of the purpose in advance is a straightforward and reasonable condition to be put on any use of public money.
  Mr. David Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were passed, would not it achieve the additional purpose of fulfilling the intention of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It would make the backdating inoperative because, by definition, no one could have made a submission before claiming the appropriate moneys.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That would be an unintended, but extremely virtuous, outcome of the amendment. Anyone who had not submitted in advance his purpose for making a visit could not claim on the scheme, which is entirely sensible.
  The House would be in an odd position if it did not refuse to give out taxpayers' money to a Member of Parliament to subsidise a trip to a foreign country
  418
  somewhere in Europe without his saying in advance where he was going, why he was making the visit and what the benefit to the taxpayer was.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have no particular objection to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. If he is suggesting that he thinks that it would make the motion acceptable, I have no quarrel with it.
  Mr. Maclean: That will not make the motion acceptable.
  Mr. Davis: I say to my right hon. Friend that I have to answer for myself; I say to the right hon. Lady that I am not sure what the convention is.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?
  Mr. Davis: I shall answer in a second. The Minister is not in opposition; he must get used to sitting on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps I will answer him in my own time. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will earn his salary in due course and will not have to fill my post.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister is worth every penny.
  Mr. Davis: Yes, but no more.
  The amendment would make the scheme acceptable. If the Government can accept it, I should be happy to support the case that has been made on the basis that it written into the motion.
  Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps I can provide further clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason why such a provision was not introduced initially by me is because there was a time, as he may know, when the Fees Office was reluctant to become involved—in any way, shape or form—in undertaking such a role. I understand that that reluctance no longer exists and I am perfectly happy to accept his amendment.
  Mr. Davis: I thank the right hon. Lady. The simple fact is that Members of Parliament fill in forms ad nauseam. I seem to spend vast quantities of my weekends writing down where I have been in my own constituency, so I certainly do not think that a condition as light as this could not be administered by the Fees Office and I am glad that it is willing to do so. Is the right hon. Lady accepting my amendment?
  Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
  Mr. Davis: In that case, my speech has achieved its objective and, I hope, saved the taxpayer several hundred thousand pounds.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) can feel satisfied that his amendment has been accepted by the Government and that he now finds the motion acceptable, but I am afraid that I must apply a harsher test than that which the

  419
  Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has applied. I have great respect for the work that he does as Chairman of that Committee, and I have no wish whatever to make a bid for his job, but I am afraid that I must adopt a tougher view of the expenditure of public money than the one which he has apparently adopted by graciously giving in to the Government tonight.
  Mr. David Davis: I object to the notion that I have given in to the Government. So far as I can see, the Government have given in to me.
  Mr. Maclean: Whatever this is, it is consensus and there is something rather vulgar about consensus when it involves the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and those on the Treasury Bench.
  I listened with incredulity once again this week when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggested that it is our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome in August or to Lisbon—[Interruption.] He did not say August.
  Mr. Sheerman: I am concerned, and have always been concerned, only with European institutions, particularly those in Brussels. Any Member of the House who does not know how the European institutions work and how to take advantage of them for his constituents is not doing his job properly and is not serving his constituents to the fullest extent.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It seems, therefore, that he is opposed to the extension of the scheme from Brussels and the European institutions to the other European capitals. I am sorry that I did him a disservice. I thought that he suggested in his intervention that it would be meritorious for us all to travel to those other European capitals and that it was our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome, Madrid, Athens and Paris—using taxpayers' money and at appropriate times of the year, of course—to study the national Parliaments and learn how they work so as to be better able to serve our constituents.
  I must say that the hon. Gentleman is more persuasive than I am. I must admit that, using all my skills, I cannot sit opposite a constituent, look him or her in the eye and say, "I must have some of your money so that I can travel to Paris, Lisbon and Rome and to the other European Parliaments at your expense to make me a better MP so that I am more knowledgeable of the affairs of those countries and better able to do my duty to you." Who are we kidding?
  A scheme has been proposed by the Government, but we can tell from its history that they know that it is bad politics. That is why they tried to sneak it in on numerous occasions after 10 o'clock at night and why they tried to bounce it through on the nod on Fridays, and on many other occasions. They know fine that it would not wash if the public—our constituents—found out that the House had extended an unused scheme for Members of Parliament to visit Brussels, Luxembourg and European institutions.
  It seems that the scheme is used by less than a tenth of the Members of the House, but, because we are not working that scheme and are not taking up the amount of taxpayers' money that we have already allocated to
  420
  ourselves, we have decided to make the scheme sexier and make it more likely that we will soak up the taxpayers' money by adding some juicier and more exciting capitals.
  Mrs. Beckett: First, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme is in no way in the interests of the Government, because Ministers are covered if they need to travel on parliamentary business.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has not been in opposition very long—although I feel confident that, given the way that he is carrying on, he will get plenty of practice—so what I know from my experience as an Opposition Member may not have occurred to him. That is that there are occasions when hon. Members, of all parties, are engaged in business that means that it is beneficial, sensible and helpful to liaise with politicians in other member states.
  Visits of various kinds are arranged for that purpose. In opposition, many Labour Members had to make such visits at their own expense. Those visits were not for pleasure, but were in pursuit of parliamentary business. On the basis of that experience, it seemed to me only sensible to propose an extension to the scheme.
  Finally, and even more briefly, the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have every right to object to the motion and to insist on it being debated. However, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the reputation of Parliament. Nothing does more harm to that than the continued assertion by Members of Parliament that every foreign trip is a jaunt. He is kidding himself if he thinks that the public do not make a distinction between the sort of cases that he describes and worthwhile trips by Select Committees.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that long exposition by the right hon. Lady. However, I have been in opposition for the same number of days as she has been in government. One day, perhaps, we shall both be better at our respective roles.
  Of course there is no advantage to Ministers in the proposal, but there certainly is to Government Back Benchers, that vast army of the bored unemployed. That army is not so vast tonight, of course, because so many Labour Members have pressing business in their constituencies. However, it is in the Government's interest that that vast army should be out of the House when contentious debates are coming up, whether they be on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, or on cutting welfare benefits or disability benefits. Those contentious debates may well turn out to be very convenient moments for Government Back Benchers to acquaint themselves with the workings of the Athens Parliament.
  Mr. Sheerman: It dismays many Government Members—and some Opposition Members too—when the right hon. Gentleman continually makes assertions that lower the reputation for integrity of Members of the House. I find it offensive. The right hon. Gentleman rejects even the notion that, in some senses, we are in a European federal state, and he believes that we should not travel throughout Europe. Some people do not like what

  421
  they call the F word, but I find it offensive that the right hon. Gentleman considers that those who believe in a European democracy that works only do so for a free trip.
  Mr. Maclean: I do not believe that the trips are free. They are free for Members of Parliament, but they are paid for by our constituents. What is the justification for that?
  Of course the Leader of the House is right to say that Ministers gain no advantage through the proposal, and that not every foreign trip is a jaunt. When the Deputy Prime Minister was in India, Mauritius and other places at Easter or during the Budget, we all know that that was not a jaunt. Of course not: the scuba diving was essential to his understanding of the conditions in those countries, which he clearly intended to adopt in his integrated transport policy for this country. I look forward to the scuba diving aspect being implemented in some way in Hull, or Huddersfield, or elsewhere.
  Of course, Ministers need some recreation time on foreign trips, which involve a lot of hard work, as I know for a fact. If one does not take control of the programme, the embassy will have one working from 4 o'clock in the morning until midnight. 1 have no complaint about the work that Ministers do, but no Back Bencher should ever pretend that all foreign trips are arduous and tough. That is not the case. We can make them arduous if we wish, but there is no need for the money that has not been taken up to be soaked up by being spread across other institutions in Europe.
  The justification for the proposal is to soak up the money in that way. It is not that there has suddenly emerged a pressing need to learn about the workings of Parliaments in other European countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tabled an amendment about visiting NATO countries. I shall not speak to it as it was not selected, but it is equally valid. Given that the Government are straining the special relationship between Britain and Washington—the Foreign Secretary is wrecking it daily—it may be more important for Members of Parliament to visit Washington to repair the damage. However, if the Government can justify trips to Lisbon, Madrid, Athens and Rome, it is equally meritorious to visit the capitals of our NATO allies. The point is that I do not see any need for visits by Back Bench Members to other European capitals to be funded at the taxpayer's expense.
  I support the view advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, even though the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has been accepted by the Government. That amendment merely puts some appropriate accountancy ethics into a system that is fundamentally wrong. I hope that I will have an opportunity to oppose the principle behind the proposal, even though that amendment has been accepted.
  7.46 pm
  Sir George Young: I shall intervene briefly, as so far the debate has featured contributions from individual Opposition Back Benchers. We on the Opposition Front Bench, who have responsibility for monitoring and scrutinising legislation, have a slightly different perspective.
  422
  The Conservative party does not have a view on this matter, and we are on a free vote. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) are perfectly entitled to insist that matters such as this are debated in the House. I want to put in on record that I have never been on a Select Committee visit overseas, but I have used this scheme. About a year ago, right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I went to Brussels. We had some very useful visits and worked quite hard.
  I do not follow the logic, however, that the scheme should be scrapped. Given that more and more legislation comes from Europe, it is important for Opposition Front Benchers to maintain contacts with European institutions, so I do not think that scrapping the scheme would be right.
  I have no difficulty with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. When I used the scheme, I had to state where I was going and why, so the Fees Office has some capacity to monitor the scheme. It is within the experience of many hon. Members that the Fees Office has the capacity to interrogate us about the purpose of telephone calls to America. That means that it has some capacity to track down what we get up to in other countries.
  I was delighted to hear that the Leader of the House finds amendment (k) acceptable. If that is the case, I shall be happy to support the motion, as amended.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I confess that I may be the onlie begetter of this proposal. I raised in opposition, and again as a Government Back Bencher, the idea that there should be stronger relations between the House of Commons and other national Parliaments. When I was elected five years ago, I was surprised to discover that one could not make a telephone call to Europe, or send a letter there, or discharge one's duties to constituents if that involved going to Europe.
  Frankly, tonight I would rather be in Barcelona, but as soon as the debate ends I must change into a dinner jacket and repair to the German embassy for a dinner in honour of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that well-known Conservative hero. As a Back Bencher, I feel a bit nervous about taking on three Conservative Privy Councillors opposed to the proposal.
  Mr. David Davis: Only two.
  Mr. MacShane: I am told that the number is down to two. We are seeing a bit of a split. This is the beginning of big-tent politics—Patten Tuesday, Goodlad and Davis today. Things are moving forward as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) comes on board with the Government side.
  A couple of points are worth making. I asked the House of Commons Library how much it costs per hour to run this place. The answer is £150,000. We have already spent a good part of that because the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Haltemprice and Howden objected to this proposal, which we flagged up in opposition and in government as an issue that

  423
  needed to be considered. The right hon. Gentlemen who complain that we should not spend taxpayers' money have turned the tap on full in the past 40 minutes.
  A moment ago we voted not to decrease public expenditure by charging foreign visitors to come to the House of Commons in the summer. Hon. Members have a right to do that, but they then have no right to say that they are defenders of the public purse. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are not increasing the vote of the House—it is not Government money—by a single penny.
  I should have thought that this proposal would appeal to the more Europhobe Conservative Members. They should endorse a measure that would increase the connections and relationships between the national Parliaments of Europe.
  Mr. Davis: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, because he is misquoting his Front-Bench colleagues. They said that no more money would be allocated, which is not the same as saying that no more money would be spent. In the past seven years, the amount allocated has been £250,000 a year, whereas the amount spent has been £44,000 a year. If the scheme succeeds in its stated intent, the amount spent will increase to £0250,000, so spending will increase. We should not be under that misapprehension.
  Mr. MacShane: That depends on the take-up, and the evidence is that, under the existing scheme, a maximum of between 70 and 100 hon. Members take it up. That money has been voted by Parliament, so the full amount could be spent. It has not been spent, and this scheme will not increase that voted expenditure by a single penny. I would be interested to know, as someone who likes to count the figures, where the non-spent money goes. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, so perhaps he will look into that.
  Each hon. Member can, if he so chooses, go up and down to his constituency once, twice, three or four times a day travelling first class or claiming mileage. There is no examination of how that money is spent. If we want to represent this Parliament's interests in other national Parliaments or to represent our constituents' interests abroad—a large number of people work in Europe and maintain an address in this country, and more than half our trade is with European Union countries—it is absurd to suggest that such travel should be stopped.
  Alternatively, we could find other sources of funding for these trips. We could phone up the owner of Harrods and ask for a weekend in the Ritz. We could go on other junkets and do far more damage to the good name of the House. Unless we found an external source to pay for such trips, they could not take place.
  I have no shame in arguing that case. I am grateful that my colleagues on the Front Bench have accepted the excellent suggestion of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I think that we should be upfront, and that this information should be made public. That is far better than using alternative sources of money.
  Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should be upfront, would it be acceptable for a list to be published each year stating where each Member went, the cost of the trip and what they did?
  Mr. MacShane: I would have no problem with that. If hon. Members provide a full record, all that information
  424
  is published in the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that, as a Minister, he went to Europe 100 times.
  Mr. Davis: To Brussels.
  Mr. MacShane: He went 100 times to Brussels. I thought that he meant that he had made 100 trips to other European capitals while serving as a Minister. In The Guardian today, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
  "It is important that members of select committees should travel abroad so that Parliament is kept informed."
  The article says that the total bill is £450,000, which is 10 times what is spent at the moment on the measure that we are discussing. I am not a member of a Select Committee or a right hon. Gentleman, and I find it slightly offensive that Ministers can travel to Europe as often as they want, and that members of Select Committees can spend £500,000 of taxpayers' money as and when they please. There is one difference. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I look at the costs against the cost of equivalent ministerial trips—MPs travel club class while ministers travel first class."
  I am happy to table a third amendment requiring them to travel economy class, if that helps to win support.
  Mr. Davis: It would certainly help to win my support. The hon. Gentleman shows what is wrong with the thought processes behind the measure. He seems to see this as a division of spoils. I did not read the article from which he is quoting, but I told the journalist that what matters is that taxpayers benefit from taxpayers' money—full stop; nothing else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of this as a division of spoils between Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that is entirely the wrong approach. The right approach is to ask who pays for it and who gains from it. It should be the taxpayer who gains from it, not Members of Parliament.
  Mr. MacShane: One bitter lesson that we have learned under new Labour is not to give interviews to journalists from The Guardian. The right hon. Gentleman might follow that advice. He is saying that paid trips are okay for Ministers and for members of Select Committees, but Back Benchers can get stuffed. I speak for Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I speak for some of them, and I speak for members of the Opposition Front Bench, for members of the Government and for the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I hope that this measure will go through.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I went to Europe under this arrangement three years ago during an argument over the future of the Campbell Soups factory in my constituency. I talked to an official, and when I came back to the United Kingdom I briefed the GMB union on what I had learned. The union brought a series of actions and the Campbell Soups company had to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation. That shows how effectively the scheme works. That was achieved because I managed to track down a Commission official who knew all about an obscure area of European law.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for that practical example of how the scheme can work. I believe that it

  425
  will enhance the ability of hon. Members to discharge their duties, and it will bring the national Parliaments of the European Union a bit closer together. I do not believe that the taxpayers—our voters—will object to this amount of money being spent. I commend this motion to the House, and I hope that it is passed, as amended.
  Amendment proposed: (k), in line 16, at end insert
  '(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 5.

  Division No. 200]

  [7.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Gorrie, Donald

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Beggs, Roy

  Heald, Oliver

  Beth, Rt Hon A J

  Healey, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Betts, Clive

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Boswell, Tim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Jamieson, David

  Brake, Tom

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Burnett, John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert

  Campbell–Savours, Dale

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Linton, Martin

  Cohen, Harry

  Love, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  McIsaac, Shona

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  McNulty, Tony

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacShane, Denis

  & Howden)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dowd, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Etherington, Bill

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  426

  Moore, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Syms, Robert

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tipping, Paddy

  Page, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prior, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rendel, David

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rowlands, Ted

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whittingdale, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Willis, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. David Maclean.

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

  (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and

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

  (1A)a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met; and
  (2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.

  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
  8.9 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:
  1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary Business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st April 1999 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

  (a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or

  (b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

  I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I think that one or two things should be put on record. The motion gives the lie to many wild and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government hold Parliament in contempt. It is we who introduced the scheme for the funding of Opposition parties, and it is we who are extending and modernising that scheme today.
  It is some 24 years since my predecessor Edward Short introduced the scheme that now bears his name. He said then that it was
  "to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their parliamentary duties."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1869.]
  That proposal came when more demands were being made on our politicians and on our parties for greater professionalism than ever before. The concept of the gentleman amateur was being superseded in politics, as elsewhere in life.
  In recent years, those demands have been ratcheted up another gear. More pressure is being put on Members of all parties and on the parties themselves, but it is put especially on the parties of Opposition more effectively to match the Government of the day.
  In opposition, we argued for the move to provide proper funding for Opposition parties. For the record, I say, perhaps a little gently, to the Conservative party that many in the party resisted the move for some years. However, it has long seemed to Labour Members that the resources made available properly to carry out the role in the House were inadequate for their purpose. It is for that, among other, reasons that, in government, we set up the Neill committee to examine and to recommend on the matter.
  The Government are grateful to Lord Neill and to his colleagues for their work and proposals, to which we have given the most careful consideration. One of their proposals in this area—the proposal for a policy development fund, to which all partes will have access—requires further legislation and will have to await such an opportunity, but I make it plain that the Government accept that proposal in principle, and will legislate on it when parliamentary time allows.
  428
  Basic Opposition funding does not require such a delay. Hence, I lay our proposals before the House in the order that is before us. They do not mirror the Neill proposals in every respect, but they do follow his most important recommendation that overall funding should be increased
  "substantially, perhaps by as much as three times".
  The motion increases the constituent parts of the existing formula—one which takes account both of votes cast and of seats won—by a factor of 2.7. It reflects the recommendation that there should be, in addition to the increase in basic Short money, a separately identified sum specifically for the office of the Leader of the Opposition, in recognition of the constitutional role played by, and thus the specific demands on, the holder of that post.
  Lord Neill's committee recommended a fixed allocation of money for the official Opposition, irrespective of the outcome of an election in seats or votes, but without making a specific recommendation of an alternative formula, or method of calculation. After very careful consideration, the Government remained of the view that the existing formula, well-tried as it is, still provided the best basis for reaching such decisions.
  The principal outcome of the Neill committee's work, in that respect, was the proposal substantially to increase funding for Opposition parties' parliamentary work. The Government have thoroughly honoured that recommendation. There is no doubt that the sums of money being provided for Opposition parties exceed, by a substantial amount, anything that has previously been seen. Indeed, I suspect that they exceed what anyone, including Conservative Members, might have expected. However, Labour Members believe that Parliament will be stronger as a result of the measure. I invite the House to accept the proposition.
  8.13 pm
  Sir George Young: Like the Leader of the House, we are grateful to Lord Neill and to his committee for their deliberations and conclusions. The right hon. Lady moved the motion in a non-confrontational mode; I shall respond in similar mode—I hope as briefly and quickly as she did.
  The view of my party on the proposal is that, while the assistance offered is slightly less than what was recommended by the Neill committee and has been slow in arriving, it is all that we are going to get from the Administration. On that basis, I will support the recommendation. It is certainly preferable to the alternative.
  The Neill committee concluded that the funds were inadequate for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Therefore, for the past two years, the Opposition have been surviving without the resources to which the Neill committee felt that we were entitled. However, those on the Opposition Front Bench have made bricks without straw. In the past 10 days, the Government have not had everything their own way. I pay tribute to the Back Benchers who are present, who are here presumably out of altruism because there is nothing in the motion for them, but who have been effective in harrying the Government. Of course, all Opposition parties owe a debt of gratitude to the Library, whose professionalism informs so many debates in the Chamber.
  It cannot be right, with government becoming ever more complex and with power drifting away from Parliament to the Executive, for Opposition parties to be

  429
  under-resourced, particularly when, as the Neill committee identifies, the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers' money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers.
  The Neill committee identifies the figures. The Government spent £3.6 million on special advisers in the first year of the current Parliament; we received under £1 million. That has now risen to £3.9 million. The increase in special advisers happened virtually overnight, whereas the comparable increase in our own special advisers is having to wait two years.
  It would be churlish to criticise the Government for what is happening. I think that the House is anxious to make good progress. A healthy democracy depends on a well-briefed, well-resourced Opposition. That is good for government as well. Our democracy will not be quite as healthy as Lord Neill prescribed, but it is a very good start.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

    Select Committees (Quorum)
    8.16 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
    That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
    `(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.
    I am pleased to move a short, practical and time-limited motion. It has been brought to the House following a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He has the unique distinction of being the first Member to chair a concurrent meeting of four Select Committees. The four—Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, Defence and International Development—are considering the first annual report on strategic export controls, which was published by the Government last year.
    Each of the four Committees has a quorum of three and a membership of 11—12 in the case of the Foreign Affairs Committee. When they meet, at least three members from each Committee must be present—a total of 12—if they are to take evidence. The absence of one member debars his colleagues from the same Committee from asking questions of witnesses. Not unnaturally, it has not always been possible to get all 12 members together at the same time.
    The Chairman suggested a temporary amendment to the Standing Orders to provide, in those circumstances, for the quorum to be two from each Committee, making a total of eight. That is for the process only of evidence taking and deliberating. If the Committees decide to produce a report, it will still need to be agreed by each Committee in turn, while fully quorate.
    The Select Committees have combined in an innovative way and have come across an unforeseen difficulty. It is an issue that may become increasingly common as Select Committees pursue cross-departmental concerns. The House may need to consider the matter again at a future stage.
    I understand that there have been difficulties with quorum in two Select Committee meetings jointly to consider single gateways. The motion as it stands will not help them, but I am willing to look at that matter again in consultation with the relevant House Committees, if necessary. With that, I hope that the House will approve the motion.
    8.18 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Yet again this evening, I find myself in agreement with Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office made the case clearly and cogently. It is one with which we are entirely happy to concur.
    I make two brief points. First, Select Committees are always at their best if they are rather more than quorate. I hope that the motion will not be taken as any encouragement for Members to stay away. Secondly, it behoves us all to look carefully at the structure and

    431
    timetabling of Committees in the House to make it easier for Members to fulfil both their Committee commitments and their responsibilities in the Chamber.
    With those two minor caveats, I am happy on behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team to support the motion.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office for moving the motion. The motion arises from an extraordinarily unique situation in which we are trying to develop a joint Committee—comprising four Select Committees, which is in itself a pretty formidable exercise—to inquire into the annual report on strategic export controls.
    We have already met, and I believe that the position will be fully protected, so that every member of every Committee will be entitled to attend. When the joint Committee's reports are prepared, the whole Committees will be able to participate.
    We feel that, in dealing with the nitty-gritty of the Committee's work, a quorum of three members per Committee would be not only onerous, but difficult for us in dealing with our business from one minute to the next. The motion contains a very modest request on an experimental matter, and I think that the House should support it and give the arrangement a chance to work.
    The joint Committee is the first one in which four Select Committees have been combined in this way. It will be very interesting to see how the Committee proceeds, especially as we shall have to proceed by consensus. We shall have to wait to see how well we do in that.
    We believe that the Committee has the job of scrutinising the Government's very important initiative on a joint inquiry into the first annual report on strategic export controls, and I really do believe that the House should give us the chance to try to make that process work. I am making the request on behalf not of one side of the House or one Committee, but of both sides of the House and all the Committees—who asked me, as Chairman, to write to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask for the motion to be tabled and moved. I hope that the House will support it.
    8.21 pm
    Mr. David Heath: There is a consensus on the issue on both sides of the House. I concur entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is my Chairman on the joint Committee on strategic arms exports. I also note that, if this were a sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would be quorate.
    However, there is a real difficulty in the way in which the quadripartite Committee has been established—which is not to say that Liberal Democrat Members do not welcome its establishment or are not determined to make it work. The sad fact is that the House's Standing Orders do not make it easy for joint Committees to operate. I suggest to the Minister, in commending the motion to the House, that that matter should perhaps be considered, either in the Modernisation Committee or elsewhere, so that we might establish an apparatus enabling an ad hoc joint Committee— as this one is—to work effectively.
    432
    I do not think that the matter dealt with in the motion is the only procedural problem that the Committee will experience as we do our work. However, I am sure that we shall find ways of avoiding the pitfalls that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has described. Nevertheless, I foresee all sorts of difficulties, such as when the various Select Committees, having agreed one of the quadripartite Committee's reports, propose different and various amendments to it in their own Committees. We shall have to determine how to resolve those differences, should they arise.
    I hope that the Committee will be able to work by consensus. I have some confidence that, under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, we shall be able to do so. However, we shall have to find an apparatus enabling the system to work.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I should like to make a somewhat different speech on the matter by dealing with an issue that I do not think the House has yet fully considered—the implications of the joint Committee for the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Perhaps I should explain that that Committee is not quite a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but was established under the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is essentially a Committee that is appointed by the Prime Minister, although it is not a Committee of Parliament.
    When I first heard about the establishment of the joint Committee—chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—on the annual report on strategic export controls, it seemed to me quite obvious—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is slightly off the mark; he must restrict his remarks precisely to the matter of the quorum.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thought that, although the Intelligence and Security Committee is not a Committee of Parliament, it should have been represented on the Joint Committee—which deals specifically with issues that are relevant to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I should have thought that, in ideal circumstances—were the Intelligence and Security Committee a parliamentary Committee—we should ourselves want to have a quorum of at least two people from that Committee on the joint Committee, to ensure that its proceedings are properly reported back to our Committee. Regrettably, however, that is not to be the case.
    I am taking this opportunity simply to flag up once again the principle that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be a fully parliamentary Committee.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I am tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) along the path of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the particular problems in relation to intelligence that were raised in the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into Sierra Leone, but I suspect that, were Ito do so, I should be properly cut off very quickly by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    433
    I was also tempted to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), if only to allow him to get his breath back. However, I shall just make a general point—in what is, essentially, a very quorate Foreign Affairs Committee—on the peculiar problems highlighted by the quadripartite Committee.
    The fact that each Department is monitored by one House Select Committee creates a certain inflexibility. We have come across that problem in dealing with Europe, for example, as we have no European Select Committee with our continental partners.
    Some of us attended the joint Committee's first meeting, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil did extremely well in steering us through some of the pitfalls that became readily apparent. Clearly, the normal concept of one Department, one Committee cannot easily be adapted under our current Standing Orders to accommodate this new creation of a quadripartite Committee. Everyone accepts that it would be absurd if the same Minister had to appear before four separate Select Committees—the Select Committees on Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Development—to go over, in total duplication, the same ground.
    It was therefore quite proper that the new creation should somehow be grafted on to our system. However, in that first meeting, it became apparent that—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said—we shall have to consider very carefully the inflexibilities that have arisen in the Select Committee system. I should hope that, after a due period of experience, we shall return to a consideration of ways and means of adapting our Standing Orders to the new creation.
    Let us proceed as best we can. If people of ill will wish to make life in Committee very difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, they will certainly be able to do so, particularly in the relationship between the newly created Committee and the other Committees, and in the agreement—or non-agreement—of its subsequent reports.
    Today, however, let us give the motion a fair wind. The matter will have to return to the House—so that our Standing Orders may be reconsidered, and so that we may, through experience, ensure that the new Committee is established properly within our Standing Orders to work and to avoid duplication.
    8.29 pm
    Mr. John Healey: I welcome the motion, but regret its limitation in applying only
    "where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently".
    Two Select Committee inquiries in which Select Committees have combined forces are currently under way. The first is the joint Committee on strategic export controls—which has given rise to the motion—and the second is the joint inquiry into the single work-focused gateway by the Select Committee on Social Security and my own Employment Sub-Committee. While the Social Security Committee has the standard 11 members, the Employment Sub-Committee has only eight and in
    434
    practice has only seven, because the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has been promoted to the Front Bench and we have been waiting many months for a replacement.
    Some may feel that we are slacking if we are unable to find three of our seven for meetings of the joint Committee, but we are also pursuing a joint inquiry with the Education Sub-Committee on access for all to further and higher education and on the barriers to employment and education for disabled people. The Sub-Committee is also concluding an inquiry into the future of the Employment Service. Tomorrow we start taking evidence from the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England on the labour market and employment implications of economic and monetary union.
    Despite that work load, we were determined to undertake a joint inquiry with the Social Security Committee into the single work-focused gateway, because it is potentially the most radical step forward in welfare reform and could result in very radical changes to the way in which people experience the welfare system. It seemed proper to combine our expertise on the issue.
    However, both Committees are frustrated by the Standing Orders under which we have to operate. At one of our first evidence sessions there were four members of the Social Security Committee, but only two from the Employment Sub-Committee. We had to take evidence not as a joint Committee, but as the Social Security Committee. That meant that the two of us from the Sub-Committee had to sit through the evidence session and were not allowed to ask questions. In the following evidence session there were four members from the Employment Sub-Committee and three from the Social Security Committee, but one was likely to have to leave 15 minutes before the end of the evidence session, so we were obliged to take evidence as the Employment Sub-Committee, and the three from the Social Security Committee were unable to make a contribution to the proceedings.
    I appreciate that there may be a danger in reducing the quorum of a Select Committee to two, particularly as the Chairman generally has only the casting vote, which may allow the other members present to drive through whatever they want. However, that need not be a problem because most Select Committee work proceeds on the basis of consensus. It is feasible to reduce the quorum for evidence sessions only, leaving it at three when the Committee is making decisions or considering a draft report.
    The predicament that has given rise to the motion is a symptom of a wider challenge for the Select Committee system. As the Government increasingly do business across Departments, the departmental Select Committees will become increasingly ill-suited to the job of scrutinising what the Executive are doing, unless we can also work more effectively across departmental boundaries. Joined-up government requires joined-up scrutiny.
    The problem will recur. Any inquiry that Parliament might wish to undertake on the work of the social exclusion unit would involve contributions from the Committees on Home Affairs, Social Security, Health and Employment. The same might be true of scrutinising the work of the women's unit, drugs policies and, arguably, anything that falls within the remit of the Cabinet Office, for which Parliament has no Select Committee.

    435
    I welcome the motion, but I urge the Government to consider a wider review of the work and Standing Orders of Select Committees through the Liaison Committee or the Privileges Committee so that we can do our work more effectively and scrutinise the Government's business properly.
    8.35
    Mr. Tipping: In my opening remarks I made it clear that with increasing cross-departmental co-operation there would be a need for Select Committees to work more closely together. That would necessitate a further look at the Standing Orders. That has been reinforced by hon. Members from both sides. We will look again at the issue.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
    `(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.

    PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND
    Ordered,
    That, in pursuance of section 1(2) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, Mr. Eric Martlew be appointed a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in the room of Paddy Tipping.—[Mr. Paddy Tipping.]

    DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS) BILL
    Ordered,
    That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with a committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm. 4298);
    That three be the quorum of the Committee;
    That the Committee shall have power—

    (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

    (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

    436

    (iii)to report from time to time;

    (iii) to appoint specialist advisers;

    (iv) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

    (v) to communicate to any Select Committee appointed by either House its evidence and any documents of common interest;

    That the Committee shall report by 31st July 1999;
    That Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Graham Stringer, Ms Margaret Moran, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Robin Corbett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. James Gray and Mr. Paul Burstow be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

    PETITION

      Conservation and the Environment (Purbeck)
      8.36 pm
      Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition, the signatures for which have been collected by my constituent, Mr. James Selby Bennett, since last Saturday in the Purbeck district council area of my constituency. The petition says:
      Purbeck's position is unique due to its contribution to the nation's needs for oil, minerals, tourism and the Army's only tank training centre. Purbeck receives no additional recompense for this contribution. Purbeck is also an area of unusual geography, which in turn produces an environment of extraordinary rarity and fragility. For several decades the need to improve the single dangerous road access to Purbeck has been recognised but has been put off pending a large development which was intended to fund it. Now road access rectification has been prevented by the environmental designation of a small part of the route alongside a railway.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to
      1. achieve a balance between the conservation issues and the safety and environmental damage to the Purbeck community, and
      2. ensure that this balance is struck by our own Government and not delegated to the commission of the European Union.
      I share my constituents' view that this is a matter to be decided by our British Government. Almost 1,500 signatures have been collected since Saturday in a small area of my constituency.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Mr. Bill Sutherland
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    8.38 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise from a slightly unaccustomed position on the Back Benches to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Sutherland, who was at one time in the service of the police. I do so because I have had no success in having it properly examined by other means. In a sense, this is an action of last resort, so I make no apology for detaining the House. It may be useful to the Minister if I outline some of the main points of the case and then draw some conclusions.
    In June 1988, Mr. Sutherland, who was then a police constable, attended a planning committee meeting regarding the application of a Mr. Sam Morris for a toy and leisure centre to be sited opposite Caledonian Road underground station in Islington. He attended as a private resident, as was made clear at the outset. However, the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator was unable to speak, so Mr. Sutherland was asked to comment. He gave the opinion of the local residents, with which he agreed, who were generally against the application. Summing up, the council highlighted the comments made by Mr. Sutherland and the application was refused. It was later reported, incorrectly, in the Islington Gazette that Mr. Sutherland had attended as the local policeman and had given the views of the police. That was not the case, as was made clear at the time. Chief Superintendent Alan Moss later wrote to the council's planning committee to explain that the police had no serious objections to the case.
    On 2 August 1988, PC Sutherland, as he was then, was made aware that his actions at the planning committee had caused the wrath of his chief superintendent at Holloway, Archie Newlands. Chief Superintendent Newlands informed PC Sutherland that Chief Superintendent Moss was annoyed at his input at the planning meeting and that he should contact Chief Superintendent Moss. Chief Superintendent Newlands humiliated PC Sutherland and treated him in an unnecessarily callous manner, choosing deliberately to misunderstand his presence at that committee. So bad was his treatment of Mr. Sutherland that Superintendent Doug Hopkins, his deputy, subsequently apologised for his behaviour when he left the office.
    Later in August, PC Sutherland was contacted by two of Chief Superintendent Newlands's secretaries regarding their concerns that they had received a call from Mr. Morris asking favours of Chief Superintendent Newlands. Mr. Morris wanted a letter sent to Islington borough council with Chief Superintendent Newlands's signature on it. The secretaries asked PC Sutherland to report the matter to the area senior management, which he subsequently did.
    As the Minister will recall, or be reminded of in his briefing, that was not long after the Holloway Road incident, which had repercussions on the internal police investigation procedure, so everyone at Holloway was a little sensitive about these matters. PC Sutherland felt that, as a result of the Holloway Road incident, they would be more reactive and responsive to complaints. They were
    438
    told by senior management that all officers must act with "openness and honesty" at all times if they suspected a fellow officer of wrongdoing. Quite rightly, people feared the repetition of such an incident.
    In September 1988, PC Sutherland reported Chief Superintendent Newlands's behaviour and his relationship with Mr. Morris to Assistant Commissioner Geoffrey McLean at New Scotland Yard. He advised that PC Sutherland should not continue his service at Holloway and he was subsequently moved. Commander Ken Merton was put in charge of the inquiry. PC Sutherland was told that the inquiry would take six weeks, but eventually it took just over six months. Commander Merton retired after six weeks and the inquiry was taken over by John Gold Taylor. PC Sutherland was interviewed for three days.
    In November 1988, it came to Mr. Sutherland's attention that Chief Superintendent Newlands was being transferred to Brixton in January 1989 with no explanation. On 8 February 1989, PC Sutherland was finally informed that his complaints were unfounded and no further explanation was given. Yet early on in the inquiry, PC Sutherland had been informed that Mr. Morris had denied making any phone calls, whereas it was subsequently found that he had. In addition, PC Sutherland had been told early on that the secretaries, both of whom he had known for a number of years, had substantiated his allegations at the time.
    Mr. Sutherland, as he is now, agreed to go along with the investigation because he trusted the system. Now, after all these years and all his attempts to get some redress, he feels tricked and deeply disillusioned with the manner in which he was treated. He says that, with hindsight, he would have serious doubts about going through the same process again. When I discussed the matter with him, he said that although he still maintains that an extra wrong would not put the case right, he feels deeply unhappy that the blame seemed to have been placed on him rather than the person whom he alleged had committed a wrongdoing.
    Mr. and Mrs. Sutherland had lived in the Holloway area for more than 20 years and Mr. Sutherland had spent some 25 years policing the area. He was highly respected in the area and in the police force and he had been awarded the British Empire Medal for his outstanding contribution of police service to the community. That is hardly the record of someone who was an internal troublemaker or a discredit to the police force. However, when he made the complaint against Chief Superintendent Newlands, he was taken away and sent to a crime prevention branch. In other words, he was treated like a leper.
    In contrast, Chief Superintendent Newlands continued to work at Holloway during the first part of the investigation until he was moved. Later, it seems as though nothing was done about his behaviour—nor did he have to comment on it at any time. It is strange that Chief Superintendent Newlands was moved in the middle of the inquiry, despite the fact that apparently no wrongdoing was found to have occurred.
    Mr. Sutherland says that, when such an experience happens, it seriously weakens the foundations upon which so much of life is built, particularly in a force as closely knit as the police. It also clearly affects one's self-esteem and self-respect, and he has been made to suffer.

    439
    His health has deteriorated dramatically, and he suffers from a serious nervous complaint for which he has been receiving treatment for some time.
    Mr. Sutherland said:
    "People have always looked up to the Police as a benchmark of what is good and honourable, and rightly so. In my case, that has been destroyed and I, an ex-policeman, would never trust them in future."
    That reaction might be expected, but it is one that I would hope the Minister will address.
    What is clear is that the internal investigations system did not work, and there are serious questions about whether it would work in future cases similar to that of Mr. Sutherland. Surely the case should not have taken so long and then been dismissed in such an arbitrary way. Mr. Sutherland believes that the manner in which the witnesses were interviewed was biased, and certainly was not open. All the witnesses were serving officers in the Holloway division and at no time was he allowed access to any of them. Mr. Sutherland made the complaint in good faith about the chief superintendent because of information that he was given by the chief superintendent's secretaries. Clearly, he had nothing to gain from such a complaint and, as we have seen, he had everything to lose. Yet he still made the complaint.
    Mr. Sutherland believes that some form of independent ombudsman should handle internal complaints. He believes that the police have far too much power to be both judge and jury inside a closed system, without redress for those who have come forward with issues of conscience or with problems that they have seen in the system.
    Mr. Sutherland recognises that the introduction of "Right Line"—which allows staff to pass any concerns about a colleague whom they believed might be acting improperly—while encouraging, does not go far enough. Some forces are setting up proactive squads which seek to identify corruption before it comes into the public arena. However, there is more to be done to encourage those who are decent, honourable and honest to come forward without fear of the repercussions that happened to my constituent.
    During, and particularly after, the investigation, Mr. Sutherland was shunned by other policemen. It is difficult always to specify how the process works, but I am sure that the Minister would accept that that sort of thing happens in a tight-knit community—particularly if it is encouraged from the top by a nod or a wink, or if there is a general assessment that somebody is a troublemaker.
    In the end, Mr. Sutherland was invalided out of the police force, directly as a result of an accident at an athletics track, which Mr. Sutherland believes—I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual—was not an accident. He believed that it occurred as a result of those in his company at the time taking a view about his previous actions. I am not attempting to make further allegations about individuals.
    I raise the matter because I was deeply concerned about this matter some years ago, and I have tried hard to seek redress for Mr. Sutherland. Not once have I had the whisper of an apology or an attempt to reopen the case, to look at it properly, or to ask the questions that should have been asked. Every time, I am told, "It is too long after the event. It is so stupid to open up cases again. We have other, more important, things to do than that."
    440
    In conclusion, Mr. Sutherland used to be a policeman, and he used to serve the force and the public with great honesty and decency. Every day, he set about doing what he believed to be right and proper, in line with his duties. In July 1988, he had, for the first and perhaps only time, cause to complain about someone in authority—in this case, his chief superintendent. He is now dead but, due to a variety of issues, Mr. Sutherland was concerned about his actions. Yet he was made to feel as though he should not have made the allegation.
    Having raised the issue, far from being applauded for doing what he thought was right, Mr. Sutherland was shunned, ostracised, moved, humiliated and, eventually, forced to leave the police force. His crime was to raise a concern about a senior officer who, he thought, had got too close to somebody outside and was open to the wrong sort of influence in the pursuit of his duty.
    When the case was finally examined, the individuals about whom Mr. Sutherland had raised concerns were utterly exonerated, and no comment was made to him about the reasons or about what happened in the inquiry. Perversely, after a series of problems, the man who had had the temerity to raise the matter was eventually invalided out of the police force. To this day, he continues to attempt to get the police to investigate the original charges reasonably and properly or at least to give him a full, open explanation of why his case was dismissed and he was treated as he was.
    I hope that the police will have the decency to reopen the case and that the Minister will say that they should. Given all the circumstances surrounding the case, the police would do well to allow my constituent to get redress. On his behalf, I say that it is never any good to try to shoot the messenger. Surely an organisation such as the police force should learn to deal with the message.
    My constituent has suffered; his life has changed and it will never be changed back. He has to live with that, and I see no reason why the police should avoid any further investigation. I ask the Minister to put pressure on them.
    8.51 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman has set out in some detail his concerns relating to the case of Bill Sutherland, a retired Metropolitan Police officer. As he will know, I am not the regular spokesperson on the Metropolitan police. That task is ably carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I regret to say that she is in Brussels, at a meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. However, I am very happy to respond.
    The investigation of internal complaints is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has provided me with information about the background to the matter, about the initial inquiry and about the subsequent review in 1995 by Commander Quinn, director of the Metropolitan Police's complaints investigation bureau.
    The Commissioner tells me that in July 1988 the then PC William Sutherland made a series of allegations about the management of the Holloway division where he was based, in particular in respect of a Chief Superintendent Newlands, now deceased, and his association with a local business man, Mr. Sam Morris, also now deceased. In all, allegations were made against three serving officers.

    441
    As those against whom the allegations were made were of a senior rank, in line with the regulations in force at the time, the then commander of the complaints investigation bureau led the inquiry. As a matter of record, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1988 the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 were in force; they have now been superseded by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, although those apply only to complaints made after 1 April 1999.
    Because none of the allegations concerned criminal activity, the inquiry was internal and did not require the involvement of officers from an outside force. During the inquiry, which lasted from July 1988 to January 1989, I am told that Mr. Sutherland gave a detailed written statement, and the hon. Gentleman tells me that he was interviewed. A further 18 witnesses were seen, all of whom made written statements to the investigating officer.
    The investigation also produced 112 pages of documentary evidence. The records of interview alone amounted to 54 typed pages. I am told that none of the witnesses cited by Mr. Sutherland was able to offer evidence substantiating his allegations. I am also told that the report recommended that no action should be taken against any of the officers named in the allegations.
    PC Sutherland was personally advised of the conclusions of the report in February 1989. I know that Mr. Sutherland retired from the Metropolitan police service in 1992. Since his retirement, Mr. Sutherland has corresponded regularly with Members of Parliament and with senior officers in the Metropolitan police about his concerns and allegations and about what he considers to be the unsatisfactory internal investigations procedures within the Metropolitan police.
    I am aware of the on-going correspondence on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman has received replies from both Commander Quinn and, in 1996, from the then Deputy Commissioner stating that a further review had been carried out and they were both satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed.
    I understand that Mr. Sutherland also made further allegations—although not directly related to the original inquiry—about what he believed amounted to malicious acts against him. The Commissioner has advised me that a full explanation was offered to Mr. Sutherland rejecting each of the allegations as unsubstantiated. I have raised the inquiry again with the Metropolitan police, who have confirmed that they are content that the procedures followed in the initial inquiry complied fully with the regulations in force at the time, and that they have no reason to doubt the conclusions that were reached. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman or Mr. Sutherland have any material that they believe is new and of a significant nature and they wish to give it to me, I will be happy to pass it to the Commissioner for his consideration.
    It is not for me to comment on the allegations themselves. Those matters are properly for the investigating officer to consider. However, we must recognise the importance of ensuring that all police forces—including the Metropolitan police, for which the Home Secretary is the police authorityare properly equipped to deal with allegations of impropriety, as well as —other general complaints.
    442
    It is, of course, important for the Metropolitan police to satisfy themselves today—in a new climate, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—about how Mr. Sutherland's claims were investigated. They have reported to me that they are confident that the conclusions of the inquiry report are both fair and accurate. I know, too, that the Metropolitan police take very seriously any allegations of wrongdoing by any of their officers, whether they are made by the general public, fellow officers or by civilians.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in his annual policing report for 1999—2000, the Commissioner is uncompromising when it comes to integrity:
    "Integrity lies at the very heart of policing and it is essential to build and maintain trust within the MPS and with Londoners."
    I agree with that, but it is a matter of ensuring that that promise is delivered.
    The Commissioner has publicly expressed his determination to tackle corruption in the Metropolitan police. In recent years, the Metropolitan police have deployed sophisticated methods to investigate corruption and the Metropolitan police's complaints investigation bureau—CIB—created a new branch, CIB3, whose purpose is to investigate allegations of serious corruption.
    In December 1998, the Commissioner launched the Met's corruption and dishonesty prevention strategy, which aims to ensure that there is no hiding place for those who are dishonest or unethical. One aspect of this is the "Right Line", a confidential telephone line for any members of staff who wish to report concerns about corrupt, dishonest or unethical behaviour in a confidential and secure way. This is administered by CIB's intelligence cell. It is publicised by a poster campaign and an advertisement in the internal police newspaper The Job. I welcome the Commissioner's commitment to ridding the Metropolitan police of corruption. I fully support him in those efforts, as I support every other force that is actively seeking to tackle corruption.
    I would also like to say a few words about the conduct of internal investigations. It is the Government's policy that internal investigations should be conducted fairly, impartially and thoroughly. Today, detailed procedures exist for internal police investigations that provide safeguards for the thoroughness of the investigation and for officers under investigation.
    The procedures are set out in the "Guidance to Chief Officers on Complaints and Discipline" and, from April 1999, in the detailed "Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures". The procedures are designed to accord with the principles of natural justice and the basic principles of fairness. In particular, the guidance on internal investigations is designed to ensure proper investigation of the matter in question, as well as to be fair to officers under investigation.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree—this point was made by Mr. Sutherland—that unless officers believe that their complaint will be not only treated in confidence but investigated by somebody who is beyond reproach and utterly impartial, they will feel that they dare not make a complaint for fear of the consequences that Mr. Sutherland and others reaped in similar cases? Is not that assurance still missing from the procedures?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to ensure confidence in the conduct

    443
    of investigations. I shall certainly pass on to the Commissioner the points that he has made about independence, but the Commissioner and the Home Secretary are satisfied that the conduct of investigations, certainly under the new procedures that have just been introduced, will be satisfactory and will win confidence.
    In addition to those principles, investigations should be completed as soon as practicable and the investigating officer should ensure that the officer under investigation—and the complainant, if applicable—is kept informed of the progress of the investigation, particularly if there is delay. We certainly want to ensure that where there are long delays and those involved are concerned about the reasons for those delays, an explanation is given.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I realise that this is not the hon. Gentleman's brief, but will he do one more thing for me and ask the Metropolitan Commissioner and anybody else who is involved whether, given the new attitude that exists, they would be prepared to reconsider the case once more in a positive light?
    Mr. O'Brien: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Commissioner. I must, however, remind him that a succession of senior officers in the Met have, over a period of 11 years, considered the allegations made by Mr. Sutherland. In no instance has any of those allegations been found to be substantiated. The senior officers have repeatedly examined the papers and they have not concluded that they could take any further action on that matter.
    444
    It is important that the investigating officer who is responsible for the inquiry ensures that it is carried out as impartially, confidentially and properly as possible. The investigation of all internal allegations is rightly a management responsibility for the chief officer of the force concerned. Chief officers share the concern to identify and deal with officers who have been accused of abusing their positions, particularly if there is evidence that they have done so.
    I am sorry to hear of Mr. Sutherland's disillusionment and his significant health problems and worries, which have arisen partly from his deep concern about these matters. The hon. Gentleman has said that the debate was in many ways a last resort. Bearing in mind what I have said about passing on some of his comments to the Commissioner, the hon. Gentleman can tell his constituent that by raising this matter, he has done all that can be done. I regret that I am not in a position—nor is the Home Office and, I am told, nor is the Commissioner—to help his constituent any further. It is time to say that very clearly to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
    The hon. Gentleman, as any hon. Member should, has raised the matter properly and argued his case. The debate was, as he said, an action of last resort; the response is the one that I have given. I am told by the Commissioner that he cannot take this matter further. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman requests, I shall pass his comments on to the Commissioner.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) women and (b) disabled magistrates sit on the (i) Barnsley and (ii) Doncaster bench. [85246]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are currently 56 women on the Barnsley bench and 90 women on the Doncaster bench. No formal records are kept of those who are registered disabled on either the Barnsley or the Doncaster bench.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average age of the magistrates who sit on the(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster bench. [85245]

  Mr. Vaz
  The average age of the magistrates who sit on the Barnsley and Doncaster benches is 56.

DEFENCE

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Armed Forces to implement the partnership agreement between his Department and the Commission for Racial Equality. [85666]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief of Defence Staff signed a five year Partnership Agreement with the CRE in March 1998. It provides an unambiguous foundation for Service racial equality policies, committing the Armed Forces to reflecting more closely the rich ethnic balance of our society, and developing a culture which positively welcomes diversity. It also calls for clear lines of accountability in tackling discrimination and racist behaviour and in ensuring that all personnel embrace a personal responsibility to implement the spirit of the Agreement.

  The Armed Forces have made considerable efforts to implement the Agreement's principles and I am pleased to report excellent progress over its first year of operation.

  All the Services continue to attach the highest priority to recruiting and retaining more ethnic minority personnel. Recruitment advertising campaigns targeting ethnic minorities have proved attractive, with career applications doubling over the last two years. All three Services now have specialist recruiting teams dedicated to increasing awareness of Service careers amongst ethnic communities, and a new long-term "Community
  144
  Partnerships" campaign has been launched to build bridges between the Services and black, Asian and other non-white communities across the nation. The proportion of intake to the Services in 1998–99 which was from ethnic minorities was 1.8 per cent., about a 40 per cent. increase on 1997–98.

  Significant emphasis has also been attached to equal opportunities and cultural awareness training. The Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Centre at Shrivenham was launched in September 1998 and has already trained over 1,000 Service Equal Opportunity Advisers to provide specialist advice and training to their units. Similar training is now mandatory for senior military officers, and over 300 have already passed TSEOTC courses.

  The Services are continuing to develop a culture which not only holds zero tolerance to any form of racist behaviour, but which also positively welcomes racial diversity. Individual Service efforts in the field of equal opportunities are now co-ordinated through the Corporate Framework announced in March 1999, which encourages a sharing of best practice across the Armed Forces. Service recruitment, promotion and management procedures are objectively reviewed to ensure that they do not unwittingly discriminate against ethnic minority personnel.

  All personnel are regularly reminded of their own personal responsibility not just in combating racism, but in ensuring a harassment-free serving environment. The Chief of Defence Staff has formally declared "war on racism", and the Service Chiefs have reminded their Commanders, as recently as March this year, that any form of racist behaviour is incompatible with military service. Any incidents or accusations of racism or harassment are taken very seriously and will be promptly and thoroughly investigated—guilty parties face the severest penalties up to and including dismissal.

  Progress is regularly reviewed, with representatives from all three Services meeting with the CRE Commissioners on a regular basis. I also met with Sir Herman Ouseley, the CRE Chairman earlier this year, and will be doing so again in the future. The Chief of Defence Staff, who has overall responsibility for implementation of the Partnership Agreement, will be reviewing our progress with the CRE shortly.

  In the year ahead, the Services will consolidate their successes to date and continue to drive forward equal opportunity initiatives. Complacency is not an option; this is a long-term process and the Armed Forces remain committed to implementing the spirit and letter of the Partnership Agreement.

  Logistic Information Systems Agency
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85667]
  145
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:Key Target 1—To deliver Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs) with increasing efficiency. Target 3 per cent.
  Key Target 2—Maintain or improve cost ratio of Information Systems delivery staff to Administrative staff of 1:0.59.
  Key Target 3—Maintain or improve ratio of value of fixed assets to value of work delivered of 1:14.
  Key Target 4—To improve delivery performance to customer requirements such that:
  95 per cent. of Requests for Change are assessed within 7 days. 98 per cent. of Requests For Change are assessed within 21 days.
  The average period required for Request For Change Authorisation is reduced by 20 per cent. from 105 days to 85 days.
  90 per cent of Requests For Change are moved from the Tasking Phase to the Implementation Phase within 42 days.

  NATO Forces (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) weapons and (b) military forces deployed by NATO in the conflict with Yugoslavia.[83288]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The following UK units, or elements thereof, together with their associated weapons systems, are currently committed to NATO operations in the Balkans:

  Royal Navy

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Iron Duke

  HMS Grafton

  HMS Splendid

  HMS Bulldog

  HMS Sandown

  RFA Fort Austin

  3 Lynx Helicopters

  Army

  Elements of Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps

  1st Signals Brigade

  16th Signals Regiment

  2 Signals Regiment

  7 Signals Regiment

  3rd Armoured Division Signals Regiment

  30 Signals Regiment

  l4th Topographical Squadron Royal Engineers

  659 Squadron Army Air Corps

  Headquarters 4th Armoured Brigade

  Kings Royal Hussars

  4th Regiment Royal Artillery

  21st Regiment Royal Engineers

  1st Battalion Irish Guards

  2nd Armoured Field Ambulance

  D Squadron Household Cavalry Regiment

  A Company the Green Howards

  Burma Company King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  Headquarters (UK) Combat Service Support Group

  28th Regiment Royal Engineers

  17 Port and Maritime Regiment

  29th Regiment Royal Logistics Corps

  27th Regiment Royal Logistics Corps

  Royal Military Police

  146

  Royal Air Force

  16 Harrier GR7s

  8 Tornado GR1s

  3 E-3D Sentry AWACS

  4 Tristar tankers

  3 VC 10 tankers

  1 Nimrod R

  2 Puma helicopters.

  It is for other individual member countries to provide information on their contribution of weapons and forces to NATO operations.

WALES

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary schools and (b) high schools he has visited; and if he will make a statement. [84359]

  Mr. Michael
  Since taking up office, I have visited 11 primary schools and 6 secondary schools in Wales.

  These are:

  Primary:

  Evenlode County Primary, Penarth;

  Grangetown Junior and Infant, Cardiff;

  Cornist County Primary, Flint;

  Saron County Primary, Ammanford;

  Rumney Junior, Cardiff;

  Emmanuel Primary, Rhyl;

  Blackwood Infants, Blackwood;

  Dinas Powys Primary, Vale of Glamorgan;

  Narberth County Primary, Pembrokeshire;

  Ysgol Tegryn Primary, Pembrokeshire;

  Ysgol Gynradd Talybont Primary, Ceredigion;

  Secondary:

  Croesyceiliog Comprehensive, Cwmbran;

  Alun High, Mold;

  Ysgol Friars, Bangor.

  Duffryn High, Newport;

  Cathays High, Cardiff;

  Bryn Gwyn Comprehensive, Llanelli.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future structure and objectives of the Careers Service in Wales. [85089]

  Mr. Hain
  The recently published Education and Training Action Group report proposes the establishment of an all-Wales all-age careers information, advice and guidance service by April 2001. Under this proposal, the existing Careers Service companies would be branded together as 'Careers Wales' and would take on responsibility for providing careers information and guidance to adults as well as to young people. The ETAG report also suggests that there may be advantage in reducing the number of Careers Service companies and re-aligning their boundaries to match those of the four economic regions of Wales. These proposals will be for the National Assembly of Wales to consider.
  147
  The objectives for the Careers Service in Wales were set out in 'Requirements and Guidance for Providers' (March 1995), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These objectives covered the initial five year contracts of the Careers Service companies in Wales. Objectives for future years will be for the National Assembly to determine.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russian Government (Arms Supplies)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Russia about the supply of weapons to countries in the Middle East. [85333]

  Ms Quin
  During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia from 3–5 March, he discussed with Foreign Minister Ivanov the dangers of arms exports and assistance to countries of concern, including in the Middle East. Officials also discuss weapons exports with the Russians during regular contacts on export control and strategic stability issues.

  Pakistan and India
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of Pakistan and India concerning their signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [85331]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to urge both Pakistan and India to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister raised this issue with senior members of the Indian Government during his visit to India in March.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have a further opportunity to discuss this when he meets the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Sartaj Aziz, in London on 2 June.

  Crowd Recognition Devices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that devices, used to recognise individuals in crowds, have been used by states subject to export restrictions by the UK, where those devices have been exported by the UK.[85212]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 566. The Government do not control the export of crowd recognition devices for identifying individuals at rallies or other such events. We are therefore unaware of any exports of such equipment from the UK.

  Applications to export controlled goods and technology to all destinations are treated on a case by case basis against our national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The list of countries subject to specific export restrictions, including arms embargoes, is contained in the
  148
  Summary of Government Commitments regarding the application of Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Coroners Offices
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the coroners offices in England and Wales, together with their addresses and the local authority areas covered by each. [85476]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I shall write to my hon. Friend with details, but information about coroners and their offices is available from standard published police and court directories.

  Mr. Eric Mann
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications there were between his Department and the Prison Service on 18 and 19 May concerning the proposed visit to Westminster by Mr. Eric Mann. [85456]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: Mr. Eric Mann is serving two consecutive six-month prison sentences (one for cultivating and possessing cannabis for personal use, the other for breach of a suspended prison sentence imposed for similar offences) at Prescoed prison.

  The Prison Service communicated with the office of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the prisons and probation Minister, on 19 May. This was to alert the Minister to Mr. Mann's temporary release from prison and his intended participation in a press conference during his visit to Westminster.

  Subsequently, the Prison Service made a decision to amend the conditions of Mr. Mann's release. Ministers took no part in any of the Prison Service's subsequent decision-making regarding Mr. Mann's licence. They were, however, advised of the decisions made.

  Private Communications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the effect of the Users Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution, and the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, on access to private communications by(a) United Kingdom and (b) foreign surveillance bodies; and if prior request for a warrant will always apply; [85270]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of implementing the (a) User Network/Service Providers Technical Requirements Resolution and (b) Mutual Legal Assistance Convention; and what representations he has received on them. [85238]

  Kate Hoey
  The draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance Convention in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union requires the requesting Member State to obtain authority for interception under its domestic law before making a request. The requested Member State is also required to obtain a warrant in accordance with national law where the
  149
  subject of the request is on its territory. Any interception on the United Kingdom public telecommunications network will, therefore, continue to require a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The cost of transmitting the intercept product in response to such a request falls to the requesting Member State.

  The draft Convention also provides a legal basis for the "service provider" solution to satellite interception. It places an obligation on Member States not to prevent satellite telecommunication operators from making their facilities available for the purpose of complying with an interception warrant issued by another Member State, provided that the subject of the interception is on the territory of the Member State ordering the interception. It does not, however, impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators to make such facilities available.

  The draft Convention also contains a number of non-interception provisions. These are not expected to have any significant financial implications for the United Kingdom. Indeed, simpler and quicker procedures for seeking and providing legal assistance under the draft Convention could result in some cost savings.

  The draft Council Resolution on the lawful interception of communications in respect of new technologies is intended to supplement an existing 1995 Council Resolution. Its purpose is to make clear that law enforcement agencies have similar interception requirements for traditional telephony and new technologies such as the Internet and satellite communications.

  The 1995 Council Resolution has not been incorporated in United Kingdom law, and, therefore, does not place obligations on telecommunications operators. Similarly, the draft Resolution is not legally binding and will not impose any obligations or costs on satellite operators or Internet Service Providers.

  The draft Convention and draft Council Resolution remain under Parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses in accordance with the normal procedures. I am aware of representations from Justice and Liberty.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 110 and 18 May 1999, Official Report, column 295, on home detention curfews, how many of the 14 curfewees referred to in the replies committed offences during their period of curfew (a) punishable with imprisonment and (b) punishable with four years or more imprisonment.[85247]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Of the 14 curfewees referred to, 13 were charged with offences which were imprisonable. It would not be appropriate to comment on the sentences likely to be imposed by the courts in any individual case. Within the broad statutory limits set by Parliament, sentences are a matter for the courts alone, taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating factors. However, in seven of the cases, the maximum penalty is more than four years' imprisonment.
  150

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lancashire Police Force's progress in becoming year 2000 compliant. [85217]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is important that all police forces in England and Wales take every measure to ensure year 2000 compliance. The Home Office has commissioned an Independent Assessment of all forces, including Lancashire, by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The results of this survey will be published at the National Infrastructure Forum on 13 July.

  Passports
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the current delays in processing passport applications at the UK Passport Agency. [85214]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency is taking a number of measures to ensure that its customers' needs are met. It is prioritising applications received in the post and made in person by customers' declared travel dates, and is meeting these dates for 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. The Agency is employing additional staffing resources, and optimising the efficiency of its examination processes consistent with the need to maintain the integrity and security of its issuing procedures. In order to clear quickly straightforward applications, certain existing passports are being extended for two years.

  The Agency is currently experiencing very high seasonal demand for passports and its aim is to continue to meet customers' travel dates and to reduce its turnround time for straightforward applications to ten days by September.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current delays in processing passport applications by the UK Passport Agency.[85213]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current delays in processing passport applications by the UK Passport Agency have arisen as a result of problems with the implementation in the Liverpool and Newport passport offices of new high technology driven passport issuing arrangements, together with high seasonal demand for passports. This has increased the processing times for straightforward non-urgent applications.

  My assessment of the present operational situation is that it is extremely serious, particularly in the Liverpool passport office. I am receiving reports weekly from the Agency's Chief Executive on the operational position, and the measures being taken to improve it.

  In order to satisfactorily meet its customers' needs, the Passport Agency is prioritising applications by customers' declared travel dates, and is meeting these dates for 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. The Agency's aim is to continue to meet customers' travel dates, and reduce its turnround times for straightforward passport applications to ten days by September.
  151

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to enhance the recruitment, retention and promotion of black and Asian police officers in the Metropolitan Police Force. [85334]

  Kate Hoey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 17–18.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the Statement of Service Requirements issued to the companies shortlisted to bid for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Casework Programme and (b) the casework business model produced by Sema following its 1994 study. [84974]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will arrange for copies of both documents to be placed in the Library.

  Passport Office, Liverpool
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the waiting time to receive a passport from the Liverpool passport office; and if he will make a statement. [85056]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Liverpool passport office's current processing time for non-urgent straightforward passport applications is 49 days. Urgent requests are being given priority and 99.99 per cent. of urgent dates are being met. In practice, 65 per cent. of the Liverpool office intake is processed in under 20 days.

  Passport applications are taking longer than normal to process at the Liverpool office as a result of operational problems arising from the implementation of new high technology driven passport issuing arrangements. Also, Liverpool are dealing with very high seasonal demand for passports with intake of applications since April 1999 over 20 per cent. up on the same period in 1998.

  The Agency's aim is to continue to meet customers travel dates, and to reduce its turnround time for straightforward applications to ten days by September.

  Voluntary Sector Grants
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to publish the statistics on central Government department grants to the voluntary sector for the last two years. [85355]

  Mr. Boateng
  The collection of information relating to grants made by Government Departments to the voluntary sector over the period 1995–96 to 1997–98 is nearly complete. The figures will be published as soon as possible.

  Prisons (Drug-free Units)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug-free units there are in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will list the prisons in which they operate. [85443]
  152
  Mr. George Howarth
  There are approximately 4,000 voluntary testing places covering one third of prisons in England and Wales. We have commissioned a survey of the current provision of drug-free units. I will write to the hon. Member with the results when they become available.

  Prison Officers (Complaints)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of ill-treatment have been lodged against prison officers in each of the last five years. [84945]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I regret that information is not collected in this form.

  Tote
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who owns the Tote. [85482]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Horserace Totalisator Board is a non-departmental public body whose members are appointed by the Home Secretary. The Board is responsible for the assets owned by the Tote, but the Tote itself is owned by no one.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police forces in England and Wales which have produced guidance for their officers on dealing with mentally disordered offenders. [85389]

  Mr. Boateng
  National guidance on mentally disordered offenders was issued to the police and other agencies in the criminal justice system in September 1990 and a revision issued in April 1996. Chief officers were asked to ensure that all their officers were aware of the circular. Information is not held centrally on the number of chief officers who have issued other guidance on mentally disordered offenders to their officers, but some are known to have done so.

  In respect of Cheshire Constabulary, detailed policy and guidance to operational officers on dealing with mentally disordered offenders was issued in 1994 and was last revised in 1998. All local policing divisions have nominated officers of inspector rank who are responsible for the implementation of those guidelines and for maintaining locally based protocols with other agencies.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is currently provided for police officers in England and Wales on dealing with mentally disordered offenders. [85390]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of their probationer training, all recruits to the police service in England and Wales receive awareness training on persons suffering from mental disability. This training is supplemented by practical role play exercises which can be used to reinforce learning. In addition to the content of the former probationer training curriculum, forces may provide further training on the needs of mentally disordered persons, if there was a particular local need for this. Sergeants who act as custody officers receive further, more detailed, training in the Custody Officer Training Programme which, although
  153
  designed centrally, is available for delivery by forces. A training video, produced by the National Schizophrenic Fellowship in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and designed to help officers to identify and cope with mentally disordered persons, is also available to all police forces.

  Mr. R. A. J. Coe
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an offer under Option C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme to Mr. R. A. J. Coe (reference FCS 052048). [85477]

  Mr. Boateng
  A payment offer will be made this week.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the taskforce chaired by the Director General of the Prison Service to report to him on the management of Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution and Remand Centre, Feltham. [85485]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Director General established a taskforce to take forward the recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report on the inspection of Feltham. The Director General chairs a steering group to which the taskforce reports. The taskforce has submitted four reports to the steering group on various aspects of the Chief Inspector's report on Feltham. The steering group is expected to report to Ministers shortly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's central co-ordinated rebuttals strategy for use following his oral statement of 21 May 1999,Official Report, columns 1371–73, on biotechnology.[85491]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government's strategy is to encourage open, rational and well informed debate. This is the best way to safeguard the public interest. On 21 May I made a series of announcements including the publication of a review of the regulatory framework, and a report from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser on public health implications of genetically modified foods. These will provide the foundation for such a debate.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the cost of creating, reviewing and maintaining an internet directory of cancer care services; and if he will make a statement; [84240]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce and maintain an internet directory of cancer care services and information; and if he will make a statement. [84239]
  154
  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's Information Management and Technology strategy for the National Health Service "Information for Health", published in September last year, called for (amongst other things) the creation of a National Electronic Library for Health (NELH) of accredited healthcare information that would be made available to patients, the public and healthcare professionals.

  One element of the NELH is the provision of information about cancer services. The cost of providing these is estimated at £75,000. The NELH project will be working with voluntary organisations with patient representative groups to promote and make available as widely as possible reliable and relevant information on a number of health topics, including cancer.

  The NHS Information Authority is currently working in collaboration with the NHS Executive and the Centre for Health Information Quality to identify the costs and options for creating, reviewing and maintaining online healthcare information services. A business plan will be put to the NHS Information Authority with the objective of creating the NELH by the end of the year.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to commission research into the causes of ME and the development of appropriate diagnostic procedure. [84574]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Working Group which has been convened by the Chief Medical Officer will specifically address the question of diagnostic criteria and will also make recommendations about the need to identify and commission further research into CFS/ME. The working group is already putting together a submission for a systematic literature review which will look at which treatments are effective and sub-groups. This will be considered by the Department's Policy Research Programme.

  Pollution
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the studies his Department has funded since January 1998 to investigate the effects of pollution on health, with particular reference to pollution from(a) landfill sites, (b) factories and (c) exposure to chemicals in the home; and when these studies were or will be published.[84897]

  Ms Jowell
  This Department has carried out and commissioned a number of studies on the health effects of pollution since January 1998, many jointly with other Government Departments. The details of these studies have been placed in the Library. It is not the Department's policy to publish the findings separately, though researchers are encouraged to publish their findings in peer—reviewed journals and in the scientific press, on completion of the studies. The vast majority are disseminated in this way.

  This Department, together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has co-funded an indoor air pollution research programme as well as research into the non-auditory health effects of noise and the health effects of chemicals in the environment.

  155
  Together with the DETR and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it has cofunded a programme of work on trends in male reproductive health and the possible influences of occupational and environmental chemicals. Also, together with DETR, HSE, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland the Department contributes towards a contract with the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine to form the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU). SAHSU has also carried out research on the effects of air pollution on health, since January 1998.

  The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  In addition to those projects listed, the Department expects to issue a major call for proposals on the effects of air pollution on health over the summer and a call for further research on the effects on health of landfill sites.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultation the regional NHS executive offices will carry out before distributing HIV/AIDS treatment and care money recently allocated to them with(a) people with HIV and (b) providers of HIV services; [85065]

  (2) by what date regional NHS executive offices will distribute the £6.2 million HIV/AIDS treatment and care money recently allocated to them. [85064]

  Ms Jowell
  The guidance issued to regional offices for the distribution of the additional £ 6.2 million for HIV/AIDS treatment and care made it clear that the funds were to be used to assist with the extra costs of combination therapies for those with a clinical need. The guidance also recommended that ROs consult with others, including their constituent health authorities and their regional Specialised Commissioning Group where appropriate, before distributing the funds.

  Regional Offices may also consult other groups or individuals before making their final decision. The guidance to Regional Offices does not specify a date by which the allocations totalling £6.2 million are to be made. Most Regional Offices are currently in the process of deciding, in consultation with others, the basis for the distribution to health authorities.

  The forthcoming guidance to the National Health Service on the use to be made of this sum, and the balance of the HIV/AIDS treatment and care and HIV prevention funds, includes the requirement for Regional Offices to submit a separate report to Ministers at the year end on the use of the £6.2 million allocated to them.
  156

  Oral Contraceptives
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths of women have been caused by use of a combined oral contraceptive in the last 10 years; and in each case what was(a) the reaction that caused the death and (b) the product. [85038]

  Mr. Denham
  In the last ten years, between 20 May 1989 and 20 May 1999, there have been a total of 2,408 adverse reactions suspected to be associated with the combined oral contraceptive pill received through the United Kingdom's Yellow Card adverse drug reaction reporting scheme. A fatal outcome was reported in 104 of these reports as listed in the table. The 104 deaths reported over ten years need to be taken in the context of around three million women taking the Pill each year in the UK.

  Not all deaths suspected to be related to the use of the combined oral contraceptives are reported to the Medicine Control Agency/Committee on Safety of Medicines via the Yellow Card spontaneous adverse drug reaction scheme; we therefore cannot provide the total number of deaths. It is also essential to bear in mind that a report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not mean that the reaction/death was caused by the medicine concerned. Many other factors are likely to contribute.

  The Pill is highly effective in preventing pregnancy. The risks of fatal adverse reactions associated with combined oral contraceptive Pills are very small; and are much smaller than those associated with pregnancy.

  The product information on the Pill provided for doctors, as well as the patient information leaflet in each pack, give advice on the contraindications, side effects, warnings and precautions for use of the Pill which should be strictly adhered to.

  Suspected reaction

  Number of cases with a fatal outcome

  Cardiac failure

  1

  Sudden death unexplained

  1

  Left ventricular failure

  1

  Myocardial infarction

  5

  Pulmonary embolism

  84

  Subarachnoidhemorrhage

  1

  Cerebral vein thrombosis

  1

  Brain stem infarction

  1

  Cerebral infarction

  2

  Cerebrovascular accident

  1

  Cerebral thrombosis

  2

  Chest pain

  1

  Pelvic venous thrombosis

  1

  Respiratory arrest

  1

  Ovarian Carcinoma

  1

  Products associated with the suspected adverse reactions include: Binovum; Brevinor; Cilest; Conova; Diane; Dianette; Eugynon; Femodene; Femodene ED; Gynovlar; Loestrin; Logynon; Logynon ED; Marvelon; Mercilon; Microgynon; Minilyn; Minulet; Norimin; Ovran; Ovran 30; Ovranette; Ovulen; Ovysmen; Synphase; Tri-minulet; Trinordiol and Trinovum.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people used infertility services in National Health Service hospitals in each of the last three years. [85084]
  157
  Mr. Hutton
  Information about hospital episodes for patients receiving in-patient treatment for infertility for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 is shown in the table. During a course of treatment for

  Operation code

  1995–96

  1996–971

  1997–981

  Q13—Introduction of gamete into uterine cavity

  1,996

  1,593

  1,716

  Q38.3—Endoscopic injection into fallopian tube

  227

  186

  116

  Q41—Other operations on fallopian tube

  11,138

  8,327

  7,558

  Q56.1—Fertility investigation of female (not elsewhere classified)

  4

  8

  4

  Total

  13,365

  10,114

  9,394

  1Figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data, (ie the data are ungrossed)

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Department of Health: Statistics Division SD2B

  Child Protection
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Council of Europe on joint policies for the welfare and protectio of children. [85088]

  Mr. Hutton
  Officials from the Department contribute to the work of the Council of Europe on issues related to the welfare and protection of children, through the formal Committee structure of the Council of Europe. I am due to participate in a Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Family Affairs in Stockholm on 14–16 June, where the theme will be "Towards a Child-Friendly Society". In preparation for the Conference the United Kingdom has provided a National Report on "child-friendly" initiatives.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales. [85215]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no data specifically relating to the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales. The overall incidence rate after the age of 65 across Western Europe is 18.3 cases per 1,000 person years.

  It is estimated that approximately 600,000 people over 65, or 5 per cent. of that population in the United Kingdom, suffer from dementia. Alzheimer's Disease accounts for just over half.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Enforcement Officers the Medicines Control Agency currently employs; what changes there have been in this number in the past year; and what plans there are to increase this number. [85222]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]: There are 23 Enforcement Officers working within the Enforcement Group who deal solely with criminal investigations into allegations that medicines legislation has been breached.

  There has been an increase of approximately 12 per cent. in the number of Enforcement Officers in the last 12 months, reflecting an increase in the work load.
  158
  infertility an individual may have more than one hospital episode. Treatment under other operation codes may be related to infertility. However, the codes given correspond as closely as possible to the information requested.

  There are no plans further to increase the number at present but this area of the Agency's responsibilities is kept under careful review so as to ensure the protection of public health can be maintained.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his response to the results of his Department's consultation on the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [85444]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: About 160 replies were received to the consultation on "Faster access to modern treatment", a discussion paper setting out detailed proposals for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Officials are following up a number of detailed points with the organisations concerned. Final decisions will be announced in due course.

  Listening to Women
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been of the Listening to Women roadshows; and how many women have attended each roadshow to date. [85377]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: To date, nine Listening to Women roadshow events have taken place, attended by 1,125 women. Still to take place are the Leeds, Nottingham and Welsh events. The breakdown is:

  Attended by

  Manchester

  83

  London

  74

  Norwich

  67

  Birmingham

  58

  Bristol

  87

  Newcastle

  89

  Reading

  59

  Glasgow

  c. 500

  Belfast

  108

  Total cost

  1£87,918.54

  1Including Value Added Tax

  159

  Abortion
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines have been issued to GPs on the action they should take regarding their patients if they hold a conscientious objection to abortion; [84991]

  (2) what plans he has, following Mr. Justice Alliott's judgment in the High Court case of Dr. Sheila Matthews, to issue new advice or guidelines to GPs about referring patients to another doctor if they have a conscientious objection to abortion. [84992]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]In 1991 the General Medical Services Council of the British Medical Association issued guidance to general practitioners through Local Medical Committees, reminding them of their obligations under their terms of service. That guidance remains extant and GPs who have a conscientious objection to abortion should refer the patient to another doctor as soon as possible.

  Regional directors of the National Health Service Executive have been asked to ensure that Primary Care Groups have arrangements in place so that women considering an abortion are able to have easy access to a GP who can make a referral where appropriate.

  Vaccines (Bovine Material)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the evidence given by Mrs. Edwina Currie to the BSE Inquiry in respect of the use of vaccines which in their early stage of manufacture had used bovine material prohibited for use in human food(a) in general and (b) in relation to the level of risk relating to injecting infected material. [85493]

  Ms Jowell
  It is for the independent bovine spongiform encephalopathy Inquiry to assess the evidence given to it, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government will respond to the Inquiry's report after it is published.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of(a) those people who have been in long-term care or nursing homes for four years or more and (b) all people in long-term care or nursing homes continue to pay part or all of their fees;[85226]

  (2) if he will estimate the average cost of four years' care in a nursing home. [85228]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 20.

  High Security Hospitals (Staffing)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts are currently vacant in each high-security hospital for(a) nurses, (b) nursing assistants, (c) occupational therapists, (d) forensic psychologists and (e) psychiatrists. [85388]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of posts currently vacant for nurses, nursing assistants, occupational therapists, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists at each of the three high security hospitals are set out in the tables.
  160

  Posts currently vacant

  Rampton Hospital

  Qualified nurses

  20

  Nursing Assistants

  0

  Occupational therapists

  2

  Forensic psychologists Psychiatrists

  3

  Psychiatrists

  2

  Broadmoor Hospital

  Qualified nurses

  36 (20 qualified nurses in the appointment process)

  Nursing assistants

  24 (15 unqualified nurses in the selection process)

  Occupational therapists

  3 (only 8 posts in the whole establishment and 3 staff on full-time secondment training at present)

  Forensic psychologists

  0

  Psychiatrists

  3

  Ashworth Hospital

  Qualified nurses

  34

  Nursing assistants

  24 (current recruitment drive will enable these vacancies to be filled within the next 2-3 weeks)

  Occupational therapists

  3

  Forensic psychologists

  1

  Psychiatrists

  Consultant posts

  7

  Staff grade

  1

  Interstitial Cystitis
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what publicly funded research is being carried out into the causes of interstitial cystitis; and if he will make a statement.[84970]

  Mr. Hutton
  A body of international research evidence is published in the world-wide literature and details of work supported by the Department are on the National Research Register in the Library and on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. In addition, the Medical Research Council is funding basic research, including the study of molecules and cells, genetics, infections and immunity, which will inform future research in this area.

  In the National Health Service research and development programme, priorities take account of widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services, within a framework overseen by the Central Research and Development Committee for the NHS.

  We have asked those who manage the priority setting process to ensure that interstitial cystitis is included in consideration of future research priorities.

  NHS Trust Mergers
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts that have(a) been created, (b) merged and (c) been dissolved since 1 April 1998. [85147]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is contained in the table. All of these mergers took effect from 1 April 1999.
  161

  Region

  Trusts established or amended

  Merged/dissolved or absorbed trusts

  Eastern

  Local Health Partnerships NHS Trust

  Allington NHS Trust, Mid Anglia Community Health NHS Trust and East Suffolk Community NHS Trust (3 into 1)

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire and Luton Community NHS Trust

  Bedford and Shire Health NHS Trust and South Bedfordshire NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  London

  Ealing Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health NHS Trust and Brent Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust

  West London NHS Trust, North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, and Riverside Mental Health NHS Trust(3 into 2)

  London

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust and Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  London

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  Royal London Homoeopathic NHS Trust and Parkside Health NHS Trust (2 into 1—Absorption)

  London

  The Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust and Chase Farm Hospital NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  London

  South West London Community NHS Trust

  Merton and Sutton Community NHS Trust, Wandsworth Community Healthcare NHS Trust and Richmond Twickenham and Roehampton Community Services NHS Trust (3 into 1)

  London

  South London and Maudsley Mental Health NHS Trust and Community Health South London NHS Trust

  Optimum Mental Health NHS Trust, Bethlem and Maudsley Mental Health NHS Trust, Lambeth Healthcare NHS Trust and Lewisham and Guy's Mental Health NHS Trust (4 into 2)

  London

  The Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  St. Helier NHS Trust and Epsom NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  North West

  North Sefton and West Lancashire Community NHS Trust and Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  Southport and Formby Health Services NHS Trust, Southport and Formby Community NHS Trust and West Lancashire NHS Trust (3 into 2)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust and Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Cleveland Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (3 into 1)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust and Tees and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust

  Hartlepool and East Durham NHS Trust, South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust and North Tees Health NHS Trust (3 into 2)

  South East

  Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust

  Life Care NHS Trust and Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust (2 into 1—Absorption)

  South East

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Kent Hospitals NHS Trust, Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust and Thanet Healthcare NHS Trust(3 into 1)

  South West

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust and Southmead Health Services NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  South West

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust and Trecare NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  Trent

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust

  Fosse Health NHS Trust and Leicestershire Mental Health Services NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  Trent

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust and Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  Trent

  South Lincolnshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mulberry NHS Trust and South Lincolnshire NHS Trust (2 into 1)

  Trent

  East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Derbyshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust, Nottinghamshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust and Leicestershire Ambulance Services NHS Trust (3 into 1)

  Trent

  Lincoln District Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Lindsey NHS Trust and Lincoln and District Healthcare NHS Trust (2 into 1—Absorption). Lincoln and Louth Hospitals NHS Trust has taken on some of the service provision of West Lindsey but are not part of the merger. All staff and assets have transferred to Lincoln District Healthcare

  162 163

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of land in the UK were cultivated as trial sites of genetically modified crops in each of the last five years; and how many acres of land will be cultivated as trial sites of GM crops in 1999. [83283]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1998, the area cultivated as trial sites of genetically modified crops was approximately 300 hectares. In the current year, the total figure, including the farmscale evaluations, is expected to be about the same. These are approximate figures because consents for releases are granted on the basis of a maximum area that can be grown and companies do not necessarily sow all the area for which they have approval. Figures for earlier years are not available, but were no more than the 1998 levels.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the research commissioned by his Department into the cross-contamination between genetically modified crops and crops that are not genetically modified. [84535]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: Yes, all reports from research commissioned by the Government into the cross-pollination of genetically modified (GM) crops and non-GM crops are published. Gene transfer in oilseed rape was considered in my Department's Research Report No.12, Investigation of Feral Oilseed Rape Populations, a copy of which is in the Library. Ongoing research commissioned by MAFF on pollen transfer will be published when the work is complete.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on differences in his policy in respect of GM crops on(a) limited commercial planting and (b) farm-scale trials. [85363]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: There are no differences in policy, the growing of all GM crops must be covered by a valid consent issued in accordance with Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Before a consent is granted the applicant must have carried out an assessment of the risks posed to the environment and demonstrated compliance with all aspects of the directive. Those crops planted as part of the farmscale evaluations will in addition be studied for ecological effects in comparison with equivalent non-GM crops.

  EC Directive 90/220/EEC
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to propose to his European partners amendments to EC Directive 90/220/EEC.[83261]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are currently negotiating the amendment of Directive 90/220/EEC. The European Commission published its proposal for the amendment of the Directive in February 1998. An orientation debate was held in June 1998 under the United 164
  Kingdom Presidency, and detailed negotiations took place in the Council Working Group under the Austrian Presidency in the second half of last year. At the December Environment Council, Ministers agreed that while substantial progress had been made, further detailed negotiations were required to resolve many of the outstanding issues. The German Presidency has indicated it will seek to reach a common position at the June Environment Council.

  The position of the Government with regard to the original Commission proposal has been laid out in Explanatory Memorandum 6378/98, submitted to the House of Commons on 23 March 1998. In response to a request from the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, I wrote to the committee on 27 November with details of the Government's priorities in the negotiations. A Scrutiny debate was held in the House of Commons European Standing Committee A on 24 March 1999, and the Government submitted a further Explanatory Memorandum (7138/99) on 30 April following the publication of the Commission's amended proposal taking account of the publication of the European Parliament's Opinion.

  The priorities of the Government are to ensure that the revised Directive meets growing public concerns regarding ethical, environmental and social issues and achieves a more transparent regulatory regime. In addition, the Government support many of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament and incorporated into the amended Commission Proposal. In particular, the Government welcome changes to clarify the requirements for the environmental risk assessment, the stronger requirements for public information and consultation, and a new Article on consultation of the Commission's ethical committee.

  All of these documents are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost per heavy goods vehicle of the fitting of an exhaust system incorporating a particulates trap in order to attract the reduction in vehicle excise duty announced in his Budget statement. [83824]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's assessment of the current cost of retrofitting a particulate trap to a heavy goods vehicle is between £3,000 and £4,500, compared with the maximum Vehicle Excise Duty reduction of £1,000 when vehicles meet the emissions standards required to receive a Reduced Pollution Certificate. The cost for smaller vehicles is at the lower end of this scale, increasing to the upper figure for the largest and most powerful lorries. It is expected that the cost of emissions reduction technologies will fall as the market for them grows, leading to competition between manufacturers and economies of scale in the production of devices.

  Drinking and Driving Laws
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions
  165
  he has reached from his analysis of the responses received to the consultation about possible changes to the law relating to drinking and driving. [84369]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are still considering how best to take forward the matters raised in the consultation document in the light of the responses received and in the broader context of road safety policy. Our conclusions will be incorporated within the road safety strategy which we will publish later this year.

  Non-genetically Modified Soya Beans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports his Department has received concerning the efforts of the state Government of Rio Grande do Sul to guarantee non-genetically modified soya bean production throughout their state; and what plans his Department has to give assistance. [84500]

  Mr. Meacher
  I met the Secretary of Agriculture for the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul on 13 May at his request to hear about the ability of his State to supply non genetically modified soya to UK customers. We shall certainly take this information into account in sourcing for the future and I have agreed to a further exchange of information at official level.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the names and current employers of the board members of each regional development agency and (b) the names and previous employers of the senior management team appointed by each regional development agency. [84714]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the official guidance on the minimum distance between mobile telephone and other communication masts and(a) residential property,(b) schools and colleges and (c) places of business in(i) other EU countries, (ii) Scandinavian countries, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Canada; [84953]

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of professional medical opinion on the guidance for the minimum distances between mobile telephone and other communication masts and occupied properties; and if he will make a statement. [84954]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's statutory advisers on radiological protection matters are the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The Board's advice to Government is based upon a continuing review and assessment of published scientific studies covering the fields of biology and medicine, epidemiology and dosimetry.

  The NRPB have issued guidelines on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This guidance specifies restrictions on the exposure of people, rather than safe
  166
  distances from equipment, and is related to established health effects of EMFs, such as effects on perception, central nervous system effects and the heating of tissues.

  The NRPB advise that radio waves at ground level and in regions accessible to the public tend to be many times below guideline levels and should present no health risk. Telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 to ensure that their work activities, which would include the operation of their apparatus, do not present a risk to employees and the general public. The practical effect of the combination of the NRPB guidelines and health and safety legislation should be that people are kept at a safe distance from sources of EMFs.

  The NRPB also advise that there is no convincing evidence of a causal effect between exposure to EMFs and other health effects, such as cancer, and that published human health studies relating to these do not provide a basis for advice on setting exposure standards.

  The Government continue to monitor international work on the possible health effects of EMFs and to gather information on worldwide practice on the limitation of public exposure to EMFs. The UK has also participated actively in negotiations of the proposed EU Recommendation on this subject and in the World Health Organisation's International EMF Project. We shall continue to take international practice and research results into consideration in taking forward policy on this matter, including in developing guidance on land use planning and electromagnetic fields.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what powers are available to(a) the DVLA and (b) local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles on the public highway; [84980]

  (2) what plans he has to review the powers and procedures exercised by (a) the DVLA and (b) local authorities for the removal of abandoned vehicles from the public highway;[84981]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of the removal of abandoned vehicles from the public highway by (i) local authorities and (ii) the DVLA in each year since 1995–96; [84978]

  (4) what procedures exist within his Department for the monitoring of the number of abandoned vehicles on the public highway collected by (i) local authorities and (ii) the DVLA. [84979]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The DVLA has no powers to remove abandoned vehicles on the public highway. Local authorities have powers, under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to remove such vehicles. The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 prescribes the procedure that should be followed by local authorities. There are no plans at present to review these powers and procedures.
  167
  There is no requirement for local authorities to provide information on the costs of removing vehicles. My Department does not monitor the number of abandoned vehicles collected from the public highway by local authorities.

  Carlisle Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance the Government are giving toward the Carlisle Northern Relief Road. [85042]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Should Cumbria City Council bid for support for this scheme as part of their Local Transport Plan, it would be considered along with other major schemes across the country.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [85094]

  Mr. Meale
  Emissions of CO2 in the UK are estimated to have been 155 million tonnes of carbon in 1997. 1998 emissions are provisionally estimated to have been about 156 million tonnes of carbon, about 1 per cent. higher than in 1997, and 7 per cent. lower than in 1990. The increase between 1997 and 1998 was associated with delays in commissioning and starting up combined cycle gas turbine power stations, planned maintenance at nuclear plant and some reduction in imported electricity.

  Petrol
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether the packaging of each available anti-wear additive for petrol will list the functional chemical component and the concentration of its active element when added to unleaded petrol in the recommended amount. [85251]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information to be provided on additive packaging would be a matter for individual suppliers.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, columns 71–72, on British Standards, if he will make a statement on (a) the early problems in Sweden associated with the lead replacement petrol, (b) the reasons for sodium being dropped from the draft standard for lead replacement petrol issued in 1998 and (c) what problems were identified in Sweden with the use of sodium in lead replacement petrol and (d) whether the problems solely related to the use of sodium. [85248]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the introduction in Sweden of Lead Replacement Petrol (LRP) in 1994, an increase in engine component wear was identified by engine repairers. The problems focused upon engine valves and on turbochargers and appeared to have been caused by a phenomenon known as hot corrosion reportedly due to the use of sodium in the fuel. With the emergence of this information, LRP in Sweden was changed to a potassium-based product and once the changeover was complete the incidence of engine damage 168
  dropped. During the changeover of the fuels, concern over the use of both sodium and potassium existed, but I understand this mostly disappeared as the use of potassium increased. The British Standards Institution has adopted a precautionary approach by excluding sodium from its draft standard for lead replacement petrol.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether sodium-based additives to petrol are being marketed in the United Kingdom to the public. [85249]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are not aware that any petrol supplier is marketing petrol which includes a sodium-based additive. The Federation of British Historic Vehicles has tested and endorsed one self-dosing additive containing sodium.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the information he has published in the last 12 months on the use of sodium-based additives in petrol. [85250]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has published two advisory leaflets to help motorists who may have concerns about the withdrawal of leaded petrol. These include general information on additives as an alternative to lead, whether already included in lead replacement petrol or provided separately for motorist's use, but do not refer to particular types of additives. Copies of the leaflets have been placed in the House Library and may be viewed on the Internet at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/unleaded/index.htm.

  Passenger Transit System
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station project between commissioning initial feasibility studies and abandonment of operation; and if he will make a statement. [85069]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a commercial matter for Birmingham International Airport Ltd.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who owns the surviving overhead structure of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station; and if he will make a statement. [85073]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd that it owns the surviving overhead structure.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station was formally commissioned after trials to the intended operator; who the intended operator was; and if he will make a statement. [85067]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd that the MAGLEV system was formally commissioned on 16 August 1984; and that the intended operator was the airport undertaking as part of the former West Midlands County Council.
  169
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revive the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station; and if he will make a statement. [85071]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Birmingham International Airport Ltd. is committed to reinstating a link between the terminal building and the railway station. It is also subject to a planning obligation in a section 106 planning agreement between the airport company and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council with reference to the outline planning approval for the extension of the passenger terminal facilities and related infrastructure granted in July 1996. The airport company is considering what form the link should take and how it can best be integrated with the multi-modal interchange which is being planned for the airport.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in whom the residual rights and liabilities of the principal design and construction contracts of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station are now vested; and if he will make a statement. [85075]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd. that in the agreement between the former West Midlands County Council and the individual joint venture companies, the parties agreed that patents, registered designs or copyrights in the case of mechanical and electrical aspects of the transportation system were to be the property of the individual company undertaking that particular aspect of the work, and that in the case of civil engineering and building aspects of the system intellectual property rights were to be the property of the Council. The airport company is a successor in title to the former Council.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who commissioned the initial feasibility studies for the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station and when; who let the contracts for its construction, with whom and when; and if he will make a statement. [85066]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd. that the initial feasibility studies for the MAGLEV system were commissioned in 1979 by the former West Midlands County Council, which owned Birmingham Airport at that time; and that the contracts for its construction were let by the Council in 1981, as part of the airport's development, with the People Mover Group (GEC, Balfour-Beatty, Brush Electrical Machines and Metropolitan-Cammell) and John Laing.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total of passenger fares collected in the period of fare-paying operation of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station. [85070]
  170
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd. that the MAGLEV system always formed part of the airport's essential infrastructure as the link to the railway station and that no fares were ever charged for its use.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has become of the passenger cars for the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station and who owns(a) them and (b) the proceeds of their sale; and if he will make a statement. [85074]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd. that it still owns the passenger cars and that they remain stored at the airport.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when and by whom it was ultimately decided to abandon operation of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station; and if he will make a statement. [85068]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Birmingham International Airport Ltd. that it took and implemented this decision in July 1995.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of making the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system linking Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Railway Station operational; and if he will make a statement. [85072]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The cost of reinstating a link between the airport and the railway station is a matter for Birmingham International Airport Ltd. It will depend in part on how it is decided to integrate it with the multi-modal interchange which is being planned for the airport. But I understand from the airport company that a study in 1995 concluded that it was not technically feasible to make the MAGLEV system itself operational.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the occasions on which actions for damages were assessed as to liability against a party considered to have been responsible for the failure of the MAGLEV overhead passenger transit system at Birmingham International Airport; and if he will make a statement. [85277]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for Birmingham International Airport Ltd.

  Asbestos Imports
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ban the import of all forms of asbestos; if he has received the Health and Safety Commission's recommendation on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [85473]

  Mr. Meacher
  The policy on asbestos is decided and is final. The import of blue and brown asbestos is already banned. Earlier this month, a draft European Directive was voted on which would tighten the restrictions on imports of white asbestos. An overwhelming majority
  171
  voted in favour. I am pleased to say that the Health and Safety Commission, at its meeting yesterday, approved draft Regulations to implement a ban, and I look forward to receiving its advice.

  Unfortunately, there are legal problems in formally making the Regulations before the European Commission ratifies the vote of the technical committee. The Government are now lobbying the European Commission to adopt the directive as a matter of urgency.

  Memorials
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's discussions with the Confederation of Burial Authorities on the sale of memorials to the public. [85526]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department is currently preparing a paper for discussion with the Confederation of Burial Authorities, the National Association of Memorial Masons, and other representative bodies, both public and private sector, on the existing legal basis under which local authorities charge for the provision of memorials, and the Confederation's proposals for clarifying this.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on the building of new council housing in England and Wales. [85519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for housing policy in England. His statement on "Housing and Regeneration Policy" on 22 July 1998 set out our policy. The need for new social housing in a local authority's area is a matter for that local authority to establish in its local housing strategy, as part of the Housing Investment Programme process. Most new social housing is provided by Registered Social Landlords supported by the Housing Corporation, either through its Approved Development Programme or through Local Authority Social Housing Grant, in areas where such developments are seen as a priority in local housing strategies.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the tonnage of freight which has transferred from road to rail in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [85520]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has not made estimates of this type. However, the Department does provide freight grants to companies to assist with the capital costs and track access charges associated with transferring freight from road to rail and inland waterway. Since May 1997, the Department's Freight Grants Unit has awarded grants to assist in the transfer of an estimated 15,918,610 tonnes of freight.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what surveys his 172
  Department has commissioned on the amount of asbestos which is present in buildings which are still in use; and if he will make a statement. [85518]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No such surveys have been commissioned by the Department in the last 10 years.

  At the request of the Department, the Medical Research Council, Institute for Environment and Health, carried out a review of the sources and uses of asbestos in buildings, the levels of exposure in the non-workplace environment and the health effects of such exposures. The report of this work entitled "Fibrous materials in the environment" was published by the Institute on 18 November 1997. A copy is in the Library.

  Local Authority Properties
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of local authority properties which are regarded as unfit for human habitation. [85517]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are asked to provide information on all dwellings in their area which are unfit (i.e. because they fail to meet the fitness criteria in Section 83 of Schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) in their annual Housing Investment Programme returns. Separate figures are requested for local authority, registered social landlord, other public sector and private sector dwellings. The figures provided are local authorities' own estimates and are not necessarily compiled on a consistent basis.

  The latest available figures are for 1 April 1998 and are given in the 1998 "HIP OI All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library. The print includes county totals where estimates have been provided by all the authorities in the county.

  Belmont Stables, Mill Hill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the planning appeal in relation to Belmont Stables, Mill Hill. [85619]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Inspector will submit his report to the Planning Inspectorate very shortly.

  RAF East Camp Site, Colindale
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress in respect of the planning decision in relation to the RAF East Camp Site, Colindale. [85618]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will issue a decision in due course.

  Civil Aviation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from UK airlines concerning the future of US/UK civil aviation agreements. [85479]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are in frequent communication with UK airlines, large and small.
  173
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's policy to retain responsibility for bilateral negotiations with third countries on civil aviation agreements. [85480]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We would consider transferring bilateral responsibilities to a third party only if we judged that to be in the wider interests of UK aviation.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has held with their US counterparts concerning the future of US/UK civil aviation agreements; who was present at those meetings; what were the agenda and the conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [85478]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At a meeting in Washington on 20 April, the Deputy Prime Minister and US Transportation Secretary Slater agreed that informal talks between UK and US officials about air services arrangements should take place in May. This was confirmed by my noble Friend Lord Whitty in the House of Lords on 28 April 1999,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 301–03, and the two teams of officials met on 18–20 May in London. The UK team comprised three DETR officials, two FCO officials and a representative from the Civil Aviation Authority; the US team comprised three State Department officials and three Department of Transportation officials. The discussions were broad and preliminary, with the emphasis on a phased approach to air services liberalisation.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the delivery of the recommendation from the Inspector on the Heathrow fifth terminal. [85513]

  Mr. Caborn
  The inquiry closed on 17 March 1999 and the Inspector told the inquiry that he expects to take up to two years to produce his report. Some 39 Applications and Orders are before the Inspector, who has taken evidence from over 750 witnesses with over 5,400 inquiry documents and 25,000 written representations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide the application as soon as possible after receipt of the Inspector's report and recommendation.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend fuel duty rebate to community transport schemes. [85613]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Possible changes to the scope of the bus fuel duty rebate scheme will be considered as part of the advice on all aspects of the public funding of bus services which we will be requesting from the new Commission for Integrated Transport when it begins its work next month. We will also be considering carefully all the recommendations of the review of voluntary and community transport commissioned by my Department, the report of which will be published shortly.
  174

  Minicabs (London)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to issue the consultation paper on the proposed rules for London minicab operators in accordance with the implementation of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. [85669]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today with the Public Carriage Office issued the consultation paper. The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was an important step in bringing the safety of the travelling public in London in line with the rest of the country. The provisions of the Act were warmly welcomed by both the industry and consumer safety groups.

  This consultation paper is the first step in implementing the Act and sets out proposals for the licensing of London minicab operators. It aims to strike a balance between the need to protect consumers and the interests of small business.

  There will be an eight week period for responses and following assessment of responses we intend to undertake a short consultation before announcing the regulations for the licensing of London minicab operators.

  Further consultation documents on the proposed rules for London minicab drivers and vehicles will be issued later this year and early next year respectively.

  New Trains
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the fleet of 44 new trains to be introduced into service by LTS Rail Ltd. comply with the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [85727]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.

  We have received such an application from LTS Rail Ltd. The exemptions, which have been discussed with our statutory advisors, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, are mostly of a very minor nature and have been requested for a relatively short time only.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed, we believe that the introduction of the new class 357 trains will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people in the area.

  An Order relating to the exemption of these rail vehicles has been laid in Parliament today.

  Countryside Agency (Report)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Government' s response to the fourth report of session 1998–99 of the Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on the Countryside Agency (HC 6). [85728]
  175
  Mr. Meacher
  I can inform the House that the Government's response was published today. It is available as Command Paper 4539.

  Cleaner Vehicles
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which cars and engines qualify for(a) the Energy Saving Trust Powershift Programme and (b) the dual-fuel option of that programme. [85475]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Powershift Register published by the Energy Saving Trust provides details of all the alternatively fuelled vehicles and engine conversions, including dual-fuel options, that meet the minimum quality and safety standards laid down by the Trust. Powershift grants are available for those vehicles listed in the Register that offer significant emissions reductions compared with their petrol or diesel equivalent, with the highest grants going to those vehicles that offer the greatest emissions benefits.

  Waste Management White Paper
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue the proposed White Paper on waste management. [85483]

  Mr. Meacher
  I intend to publish a draft waste strategy shortly. We will consult fully with all interested parties before publishing a final version of the new waste strategy as a Command Paper at the end of the year.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times officials from his Department have met officials from the US Government to discuss genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry since 1 June 1998; if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting; and with which US Government department his officials met. [80834]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers and officials in this department are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. We are also studying practice and trials in a number of countries overseas, including the United States. My officials have met with US Government officials on about a dozen occasions since June 1998, including at multinational meetings such as those held under the auspices of the OECD and UNEP. Information on dates and locations of meetings held at official level is not collected centrally.

  Rail Freight Grants
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 10, if he will list the amount of money which his Department has paid in rail freight grants to Eddie Stobart Ltd, in each of the last five years. [81969]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) wrote to my hon. Friend as the then
  176
  Minister for Transport. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library.

  Novel Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Canadian regulatory system for novel crops in respect of the environmental impact of such crops in his review of the regulatory process in the United Kingdom. [82070]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: My officials are able to discuss the regulatory approach of other OECD countries through the OECD Expert Group on the Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology. The aim of this Group is to improve the harmonisation of regulatory approaches to the assessment of products in order to avoid trade barriers. The Government have asked the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) to consider the relative benefits of the process based and product based regulatory systems with respect to herbicide tolerant crops as set out in my answer of 24 May 1999, Official Report, columns 5–6.

  Capital Receipts Initiative
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total amount of capital receipts that have been released for Carlisle City Council in each year since 1990. [85041]

  Ms Armstrong
  In the three years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 capital allocations made through the Capital Receipts Initiative to Carlisle have been £0.373 million, £1.240 million and £1.226 million respectively. These allocations are made in the form of supplementary credit approvals and can be spent on housing and housing related regeneration projects which meet local priorities. The Capital Receipts Initiative was introduced during 1997–98.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the funding of language teaching in Northern Ireland. [84450]

  Mr. McFall
  The Government consider it important to encourage the teaching of the major European languages in Northern Ireland and so language studies are one of the 6 areas of compulsory study within the Northern Ireland curriculum. All grant aided post-primary schools must offer pupils the opportunity to study one of French, German, Spanish or Latin, but funding for such provision is not identified separately. Schools may also offer Irish and pupils taking Irish thereby fulfil the requirements of the curriculum.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [84451]

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. [84456]
  177
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the Belfast agreement. [84458]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when the Northern Ireland Executive will be formed. [84460]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Beggs), and to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to increase co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic as set out in the Good Friday agreement. [84452]

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to increase the co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic as set out in the Good Friday agreement. [84453]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Six new implementation bodies will work on an all-island basis on inland waterways, food safety, trade and business development, special EU programmes, language and aquaculture and marine matters. Six areas where enhanced co-operation will take place through existing bodies, north and south, have also been identified. These bodies are ready to function once powers are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the role of an Irish-UK parliamentary body in implementing the Good Friday Agreement. [84464]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As the Good Friday Agreement is implemented, it will be important to build relationships between the UK and Irish Parliaments and the elected institutions of the devolved administrations. Strand Three of the Agreement states that"The elected institutions of the members (of the British-Irish Council) will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body."

  The Government welcome the positive contribution which the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body has made over recent years. Whilst we will encourage interparliamentary links to develop further, it will be a matter for the elected institutions themselves as to how they choose to proceed.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the decommissioning of weapons. [84454]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have welcomed the start to decommissioning made by the LVF on 18 December. The Decommissioning Commission continues its vital work. The Government also continue to meet with representatives of all the political parties to discuss all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. We are determined that all aspects move forward in parallel.
  178

  Structural Funds
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the impact of European structural funds on peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.[84455]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The European Union is funding the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation which aims to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Additional EU aid for the Programme for 1999 brings the total awarded to 400 million euros (approximately £285 million).

  New Deal
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many companies are signed up to the New Deal in Northern Ireland. [84459]

  Mr. McFall
  At the 23 April 1999, 2,646 Northern Ireland companies had confirmed their support for New Deal by signing an Employment Agreement.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are in place to ensure that employers receiving subsidies under the New Deal are complying completely with the minimum wage legislation for all their employees, including those subsidised under the New Deal. [85120]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Cecil Walker, dated 25 May 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training & Employment Agency to reply to your question about the National Minimum Wage and, specifically, its implications for employees in jobs which attract a New Deal subsidy.
  The role of implementing National Minimum Wage policy lies with the Department of Trade & Industry and the monitoring and enforcing functions have been assigned to the Inland Revenue. The Training & Employment Agency has no direct responsibility in these matters but the Agency's JobCentre staff are offering guidance based on DTI explanatory leaflets for both employers and employees. They are also signposting enquiries to the National Minimum Wage telephone information and enquiries lines. (Copies of the DTI leaflets are enclosed.) The Agency now requires all employers reporting vacancies, for which job applicants are sought, to confirm that at least National Minimum Wage rates will apply.
  On the specific issue of New Deal employees' National Minimum Wage entitlements, Personal Advisers maintain a counselling and monitoring role during the subsidy period with employees and employers to ensure that all New Deal criteria and job recruitment agreements are being honoured.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Prison Officers (Redundancies)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress with redundancy arrangements for prison officers in Northern Ireland.[84461]
  179
  Mr. Ingram
  117 staff left the Prison Service on 30 March 1999 under the voluntary early retirement/early severance scheme. A further 93 staff are expected to leave by 30 June 1999. All those leaving under the scheme receive a comprehensive programme of support services.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the types and number of weapons in the possession of terrorist organisations which have been responsible for acts of violence in Northern Ireland. [84462]

  Mr. Ingram
  For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to disclose such intelligence matters. I can however say that substantial amounts of firearms, munitions and explosives are held by various groups in Northern Ireland.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the objectives are of the new Government initiatives on restorative justice in Northern Ireland.[84463]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith).

  Drumcree
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the prospects for achieving a local accommodation over the disputed parade at Drumcree this year. [84465]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge).

  Child Protection
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children in Northern Ireland who are registered with local authorities are registered on the Child Protection Register; and if he will make a statement. [85085]

  Mr. McFall
  There were 1,418 children in Northern Ireland on the Child Protection Register at 31 December 1998, the latest date for which such information is available.

  Compensation Agency
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the future plans for the Compensation Agency will be published; and if she will make a statement. [85867]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Compensation Agency will publish today its Corporate Plan and Business Plan. The Plans explain the Agency's business and organisation and set out the assumptions about work loads and resources which underpin the plans and targets.
  180

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Farmers (Tibet)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has made to the World Bank about its proposal to help fund the re-settlement of farmers from outside the region to Tibet; [85129]

  (2) what representations she has made to China about the re-location of farmers from outside the region to Tibet. [85128]

  Clare Short
  I understand that these questions relate to the World Bank's proposed Western Poverty Reduction Project in Qinghai province of China (bordering the autonomous region of Tibet). We have requested further details of the proposal from World Bank staff in Washington. I will write to my hon. Friend when this information is available.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial and other assistance her Department intends to provide to establish a UK National Commission for UNESCO. [84896]

  Clare Short
  We will provide a core grant not exceeding £70,000 a year towards the costs of a UK Commission for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). We and other Departments will also consider support for specific activities in accordance with Government priorities. It is expected that civil society groupings with an interest in UNESCO will provide additional funding for the Commission.

TREASURY

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [84191]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: 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 Government Information and Communication Service (HC770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The numbers in post at 1 May 1999 are 7.

  Special Advisers in this Department advise Treasury Ministers on the full range of policy issues.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of not implementing the recommendations of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review. [85101]
  181
  Dawn Primarolo
  If the recommendations of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review had not been implemented and the allocation of £35 million over 3 years had not been made to Customs to effect these recommendations, Customs would be unable to achieve by 2001–02 the target set in the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper for detecting alcohol and tobacco fraud. There would also be an even greater threat of large-scale excise crime.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in what capacity his then special adviser addressed the Chalk Farm Branch Labour Party meeting on 9 February; and if the Government's economic policy was discussed and questions on this subject answered; [84827]

  (2) how many invitations to address meetings of Labour Party branches or constituency Labour parties his special advisers have (a) received, (b) accepted and (c) declined since May 1997; [84826]

  (3) what criteria he applies when advising his special advisers on the acceptance of speaking engagements; [84829]

  (4) how many speaking engagements have been undertaken by his special advisers since May 1997; [84825]

  (5) if he discussed in advance the content of his special adviser's speech to the Chalk Farm Labour Party on 9 February. [84828]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any speaking engagements undertaken by Treasury Special Advisers have been fully in line with the terms of their contracts.

  Disabled People (Contributions)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many disabled people and people with a long-term illness in work he expects to pay (i) no contributions and (ii) contributions of less than 25 times the lower earnings limit in each of the next five years; and if he will give this figure as a proportion of the total number of this group in work. [85510]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The only information available is based on the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, covering Great Britain, and shows that about 550,000 people with a long-term illness, disability, or infirmity were working but not paying national insurance contributions. This represents about 12 per cent. of the total number of this group in work.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase in demand for childcare places as a result of the introduction of the childcare tax credit within the working families tax credit. [84958]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have commissioned work into the demand for childcare places within the context of the National Childcare Strategy. Results from this analysis are due to be published later in the year, and follow-up work is envisaged in 2001 which should help inform our understanding of existing and future demand for childcare.
  182
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on parents' ability to pay higher childcare fees of the introduction of the childcare tax credit element of the working families tax credit. [84957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The ability of parents to pay childcare fees at the prevailing rates following the introduction of the childcare tax credit will depend on a range of factors. It is not practicable for the Government to estimate reliably whether, or to what extent, the introduction of the childcare tax credit component of the Working Families Tax Credit will have an effect on childcare charges.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Inland Revenue will take account of differences in the cost of childcare during holiday periods, compared to term time, when calculating the childcare element of the working families tax credit. [84960]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The calculation of the childcare element within the Working Families Tax Credit will take account of differences in the cost of childcare in holiday periods, compared to term time, in the same way that Family Credit takes account of these variations currently.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence parents will be required to produce to support a claim for the childcare tax credit element of the working families tax credit. [84955]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Parents will be required to obtain confirmation of their costs, or expected childcare costs, from their childcare provider in the same way that they would currently for Family Credit.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information childcare providers will have to provide to the Inland Revenue to show how much those parents claiming working families tax credit are charged for childcare. [84959]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Childcare providers will be asked to verify parents actual or expected childcare costs for WFTC using a form similar to the one they are currently asked to complete for Family Credit.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the working families tax credit will be assessed when the snapshot of income immediately preceding an application comes out at a time when the applicant is on parental leave without pay. [84751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 May 1999]: The rules for the assessment of WFTC where one or both parents are on unpaid parental leave will be the same as those used currently for Family Credit where the parent, or parents, are on any other sorts of unpaid leave. The exact treatment will depend entirely on the individual circumstances of the family.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which social security benefits will be excluded from the calculation for entitlement to working families tax credit. [84950]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The same social security benefits will be excluded from the calculation for entitlement of WFTC as are currently excluded from the calculation of entitlement to Family Credit. These are Child Benefit, Child Benefit (Lone Parent), Guardian's Allowance,
  183
  Maternity Allowance, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Personal Council Tax Transitional Relief or Reduction, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, £10 Christmas Bonus, Constant Attendance Allowance, war pensioner's mobility supplement, supplementary pensions for war widows, Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance, any Social Fund payment, Severe Disablement Occupational Allowance, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. And in addition, the first £10 of the total income is disregarded (up to a maximum disregard of £20) where it comes from War Widow's or Widower's Pension, War Disablement Pensions, or equivalent payments made by foreign social security schemes.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been further developments on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [85668]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House about yet another publication from the Tax Law Rewrite project. The Inland Revenue will shortly publish the project's sixth Exposure Draft, which contains draft clauses on employment income. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  This Exposure Draft is the third to be published in the last three months. The work of the project is gathering pace and we can look forward to further publications later in the year.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government were first informed of the European Commission's intention to pursue infraction proceedings against the application in the United Kingdom of the domestic flight return-leg exemption from air passenger duty.[82638]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission issued a Reasoned Opinion on 23 June 1998 in this matter.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement on the Government's response to the European Commission's infraction proceedings against the application in the United Kingdom of the domestic return-leg exemption from air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [82637]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are still considering how to respond to the European Commission's challenge to the domestic return-leg exemption.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what supplementary revenue will be obtained from air passenger duty if the current domestic flight return-leg exemption from this duty were to be abolished. [82645]

  Mrs. Roche
  At current passenger numbers, and assuming no behavioural effects, it is estimated that the additional revenue from abolishing the domestic return-leg exemption would be in the order of £60 million.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the impact on accessibility to low-cost domestic air travel if the current domestic return-leg air passenger duty exemption were to be abolished. [82643]
  184
  Mrs. Roche
  I have not received any representation on this particular issue.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the rate of air passenger duty which would have to be levied on flights within the EU, should air passenger duty be applied to both legs of domestic return flights in the UK, to ensure the income to the Treasury from air passenger duty remains as forecast in the document Budget 99.[82644]

  Mrs. Roche
  The precise figure will depend on the proportion of domestic flights within the UK which contain a return leg. Depending on the proportion of return journeys, a rate of between £8 and £9 would be consistent with broad revenue neutrality if Air Passenger Duty were applied to both legs of domestic return flights. This estimate assumes current passenger numbers and no behavioural effects.

  Small High-tech Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has received to the consultation document, Financial Promotion; and what steps he is considering to help eliminate the equity gap in respect of the funding of smaller high-technology new businesses. [85656]

  Ms Hewitt
  The consultation paper includes consideration of ways to facilitate informal capital raising to assist small and medium-sized firms, including those in the high-technology sector, gain access to investment funding. A number of responses have been received and are being considered.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of those he expects to claim the disabled persons tax credit who will be paying(a) no national insurance contributions and (b) contributions of less than 25 times the lower earnings limit in each of the next five years. [85509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about 25 per cent. of DPTC recipients will pay no national insurance contributions in 1999–2000. The percentage actually paying no contributions in subsequent years will be higher, because of the increase in the thresholds announced in the Budget. However, contributions on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the new threshold will be notionally paid with no loss of benefit entitlement. The proportion earning less than the lower earnings limit is expected to remain at about 25 per cent.

  I regret that no information is available on the proportion of DPTC claimants paying contributions on earnings of less than 25 times the lower earnings limit in a year.

  Independent Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the position of Independent Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue was established; how this position is advertised and appointed; how many complaints in each year since its establishment have been referred to the Independent Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue; how many were(a) upheld and (b) dismissed; and what

  185
  representations he has received concerning parliamentary scrutiny of the appointment of the Independent Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue. [85350]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Office of the Revenue Adjudicator was established in May 1993 to introduce an element of impartiality into the Revenue's complaints system.

  The post is advertised in the national press and appointment made through open competition.

  The Adjudicator's Office received 14,322 complaints in the six year period to 31 March 1999. Of these, 11,644 were resolved without the need for full investigation.

  Of the 2,434 complaints investigated, 1,106 were upheld, 1,194 not upheld and 134 withdrawn.

  Bates Report (PFI)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will publish the Bates report on the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement; [84993]

  (2) if he will publish the second Bates report on the private finance initiative. [84994]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 122.

  Inflation Target
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons 2½ per cent. remains his inflation target; and if he will make a statement. [85349]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's inflation target is 2½ per cent., defined by the 12-month increase in the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX). Low inflation is an essential precondition for achieving the Government's objectives of high and sustainable levels of growth and employment.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes to current economic policy would be required to achieve a 2 per cent. inflation target by the end of 2000. [85348]

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce legislation to change the measure of inflation used by the Bank of England to define progress towards achieving the Government's target rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement. [85384]

  Ms Hewitt
  In his last Budget on 9 March 1999, the Chancellor confirmed the Government's inflation target is 2½ per cent. defined by the 12-month increase in the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX). This target was reaffirmed in a recent letter from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England, setting out the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee. A copy of this letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England with regard to the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices; [85385]
  186
  (2) what consultations (a) Treasury Ministers and (b) Treasury officials have had with officials of the Bank of England with regard to the use of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices as a measure of inflation in the past 12 months. [85386]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor and Treasury officials meet regularly with Bank of England officials to exchange views on a wide variety of issues.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current and future use of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices as a measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. [85387]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's inflation target is 2½ per cent. defined by the 12-month increase in the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX). This target was reaffirmed in a recent letter from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England, setting out the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee. A copy of this letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Secondary Markets
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the functionality of secondary markets in financial services; and what plans he has to ensure that consumers are made aware of the existence of secondary markets in financial services. [85124]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]: The Government aim to ensure that all parts of the financial services markets operate as efficiently and fairly as possible. The Financial Services and Markets Bill will give the Financial Services Authority a statutory objective of consumer protection and public awareness.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Dry Rooms
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to de-regulate dry rooms in bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation. [85115]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government's new tourism strategy aims to create a regulatory framework in which tourism-related businesses, including accommodation businesses, can prosper. My Department is working with other Departments to review regulatory burdens on the tourism industry, with a view to removing those which are unnecessary. I understand that the Home Office will be looking at the question of dry rooms as part of its general review of liquor licensing law.

  Britain Visitor Centre
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are the funding arrangements for the Britain Visitor Centre; and what will be its annual running costs. [85299]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]: The Britain Visitor Centre is funded by the British Tourist Authority, partly through rental payments by sub-tenants and partly from grant-in-aid. The annual running costs for

  187
  1999–2000 are expected to be £975,000, of which £625,000 is covered by rental payments and £350,000 by grant-in-aid.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the funding agreements which his Department has concluded with its sponsored bodies following his Department's Comprehensive Spending Review. [85819]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of 33 agreements that the Department has concluded with its Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Next Steps Agency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioner households in Shrewsbury and Atcham will receive the £100 winter fuel allowance. [84865]

  Mr. Timms
  From an examination of the number of eligible pensioners identified in the post code areas for Shrewsbury and Atcham for the winter of 1998–99 we estimate that around 57,000 individual pensioners in over 42,000 households will benefit from Winter Fuel Payments next winter.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what the fraud savings from the automation of benefit payments at post offices would have been had the project been completed on schedule. [85229]

  Mr. Timms
  Fraudulent payments associated with paying benefits through giro cheques and order books were estimated to stand at around £180 million per annum when the project was initiated in 1996. The payment card, when fully in place, was estimated to cut out 90 per cent. of such fraudulent payments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Funding (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the additional amount of money is which Cambridgeshire County Council would have delegated to schools in 1998–99, if the proportion delegated had been at the level of the local education authority which delegated the highest proportion. [85357]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The highest proportion of the Potential Schools Budget delegated by a local education authority in 1998–99 was 95.8 per cent. If Cambridgeshire had delegated at this level, the additional amount of the Aggregated Schools Budget available to its schools would have been £11 million.
  188

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on business costs of the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [85152]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government's estimates of the costs and benefits of introducing the later rights in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of introducing the first part of the duty of reasonable adjustment on trade organisations under Part II of the Act, are contained in separate Regulatory Impact Assessments. Copies are available in the Library. They can also be found on the disability website—www.disability.gov.uk.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he will take to ensure that the Disability Rights Commissioner provides technical support to employers and service providers in Coventry. [85153]

  Ms Hodge
  The Disability Rights Commission Bill is currently before Parliament. The commission, when established, will be an independent statutory body which will prepare and review statutory codes of practice and make arrangements for conciliation in the field of access to goods, facilities, services and premises. It will also provide a central source of information and advice to employers, service providers and disabled people.

  It will be for the Commission to determine how best to provide its services to all its stakeholders when it is established and to report on its activities through its annual report to Parliament.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission and its impact on business competitiveness. [85151]

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

  7,000 individuals and organisations were sent a copy of the White Paper or a summary of it. Out of 626 responses (of which 12 per cent. were identified as coming from businesses or organisations representing business interests) 94 per cent. supported the main proposals on the establishment and role of the Commission. An analysis of responses compiled by an independent market research organisation will be placed in the Library in the near future.

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

  Disability Leave Agreements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning disability leave agreements. [85154]
  189
  Ms Hodge
  We have had no specific representations about disability leave agreements, but the idea of disability leave has been discussed recently by the Disability Rights Task Force and the Advisory Committee on Disabled People in Employment and Training (ACDET) Group looking at job retention. Voluntary disability leave agreements between employers and employees can help people with disabilities play a full part in working life.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for schools in Essex Education Authority the change in the average size of classes taught by one teacher between January 1998 and January 1999 for pupils in(a) nursery classes, (b) Key Stage Two and (c) secondary schools. [84580]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have pledged to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest, and we are on target to meet that pledge.

  The available information for Essex Local Authority is shown in the table.

  Essex local education authority area January each year

  Average class size of one teacher classes

  1998

  1999

  Nursery classes

  25.0

  24.7

  Key stage one

  26.6

  26.5

  Key stage two

  28.6

  28.7

  Overall primary

  27.6

  27.7

  Secondary

  21.7

  21.6

  IT (Inner-city Schools)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to develop the use of IT in schools in inner city areas. [85332]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under Excellence in Cities we shall be developing Learning Centres in inner city areas. The first 30 will be up and running in the Excellence in Cities target areas by September 2000, with more to follow after that. This was announced as part of a major programme focused on the inner cities, and supplements the very substantial support already available through the National Grid for Learning and the New Opportunities Fund.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given the Further Education Funding Council on the future of franchising activity by colleges; and if he will make a statement. [85466]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State authorised the following advice to the FEFC in December 1998—that (i) FEFC funding should not be transferred from colleges to employers other than exceptionally for the lease of equipment and premises; (ii) franchised arrangements should not operate well outside the college's area—and where a college did extend its operations in this 190
  way then it should do so after consultation with the local college or colleges concerned; and (iii) the FEFC should consult the DfEE about the implications for funding policy of its study of the costs of franchised provision.

  In response, the FEFC has: required that colleges do not transfer funding to employers other than exceptionally; established a local priorities working group to advise on policy for off site delivery; and reduced the funding available for the majority of franchised activity.

  Jobseekers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if parents signing on for jobseeker's allowance are entitled to be accompanied by their children at a jobcentre interview. [85092]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Willetts, dated 26 May 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question about the presence of children accompanying their parents at Jobcentre interviews. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  We appreciate that many people looking for work have dependent children and that it is sometimes convenient for them to bring a child with them when attending interviews at the Jobcentre. In accordance with our general policy that Jobcentres should present a welcoming environment to all jobseekers, we are happy for this to be the case. Where the presence of children makes it difficult to undertake the interview effectively we will discuss re-arranging the interview for a time when alternative care arrangements can be made.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Closures
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the decisions which have come before him since May 1997 on school closure; and the outcome of each of those decisions. [85356]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A list of the school closure proposals decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since May 1997 is shown in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Engel
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he received from the Cabinet Office relating to the procedures for the appointment of his new special adviser, Mr. Tom Engel; [85545]

  (2) what will be the responsibilities of his new special adviser, Mr. Tom Engel; [85542]

  (3) if he will list those areas on which his special adviser, Mr. Tom Engel, will not receive papers or give advice, so as to avoid conflicts of interest, as specified in the model contract for special advisers. [85544]
  191
  Mr. Blunkett
  Tom Engel will start work as Special Adviser to me on 1 June. He will be employed under terms and conditions set out in the model contract for Special Advisers. He was appointed following a competitive interview process and his appointment is fully in line with Cabinet Office procedures, including having been authorised by the Prime Minister.

  Tom Engel will be required to sever all links with his previous employer, Westminster Strategy, and his policy responsibilities in the Department will have no relevance to the responsibilities he held at Westminster Strategy. He will work to me across the range of subjects for which the Department has responsibility.

SCOTLAND

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created as a result of the

  Cumulative AIDS deaths as at 31 December of selected years by health board of AIDS registration, and for Scotland,as at 31 March 1999

  Health Board

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1988

  1998

  1999

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  9

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  12

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  30

  30

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  8

  19

  180

  180

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  5

  Lanarkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  10

  10

  Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  14

  335

  335

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  128

  130

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  0

  1

  1

  2

  3

  13

  42

  721

  723

  Source:

  The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health AIDS/HIV Register
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Erskine Bridge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the final cost of the repairs and ancillary work to the Erskine Bridge following the accident involving an off-shore installation under towage; if these costs were recovered from the parties deemed responsible; and if he will make a statement. [84678]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: The final cost of the repairs and ancillary work to the Erskine Bridge is £4.25 million. The Scottish Office is committed to recovering these costs and has intimated its claim to those considered to be responsible. This claim will continue to be pursued.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  192
  additional grants available in the regional selection assistance priority pilot areas; and what proportion of the budget allocated for this purpose remains unspent. [84868]

  Dr. Reid
  Since the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) Priority initiative was launched on a pilot basis on 22 May 1998, 14 projects have been offered grant assistance of £1.9 million. This will lead to the planned creation of an additional 99 jobs for the residents of the 5 particularly deprived areas chosen for the pilot phase.

  Funds are available from within the overall RSA budget and are not specifically allocated for this initiative.

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

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cumulative numbers of people with AIDS who died in(a) Scotland and (b) each health board area of Scotland in each year from 1981 to 1988, in 1998 and in 1999 to date. [84820]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information is set out in the following table:

PRIME MINISTER

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [84199]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: Detailed information on the number of 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.

  Media relations are handled by the Downing Street Press Office which consists of 8 press officers, 3 of whom are special advisers. They work under the direction of my

  193
  Official Spokesman and are the only people authorised to have direct contact with the media on my behalf other than on occasions where others may be specifically directed by my Official Spokesman.

  The Strategic Communications Unit was set up on 14 January 1998. Speaking on behalf of the Government is not part of the SCU's function but the civil servants and special advisers there obviously speak to the press from time to time.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) opinion polling and (b) focus group research carried out on the authority of the Government into the use of military force in connection with the Kosovo conflict. [85046]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Concordats
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in drawing up concordats between UK departments, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive. [85435]

  The Prime Minister
  Work has been done within the UK Government to prepare a set of draft concordats to provide a framework of guidance on relationships to ensure smooth conduct of business with the new devolved Administrations. I expect these drafts to be passed to the devolved Administrations for their consideration in due course.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about progress made in providing assistance to Macedonia and Albania as an outcome of the donors' meeting held in Paris on 5 May. [84789]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]: At the Donors' Conference for Macedonia on 5 May, the international community, including international financial institutions, pledged $252 million in financial assistance to Macedonia. The EU has pledged 25 million euro in refugee related budgetary assistance, 10 million euro in humanitarian support and 22 million euro in developmental assistance. Details are in the EU and World Bank Chairmen's Conclusions of the Donors Conference, which will be deposited in the Library of the House. The Albanian Donors' Conference is to be held today.

  Poet Laureate
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will set out the established procedures for announcing the appointment of the Poet Laureate; and if he will make a statement; [85446]

  (2) what procedures he has put in place to establish who informed The Times newspaper of the identity of the next Poet Laureate. [85447]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: Downing Street had planned to announce the name of the new Poet Laureate today, Wednesday 26 May. In view of the story appearing in The Times on Wednesday 19 May
  194
  this announcement was brought forward by a week. In accordance with normal procedures, with the agreement of Buckingham Palace, Downing Street announces this appointment by way of a Press Notice. The Times has made it clear that the leak did not come from Downing Street.

  NATO (Media Relations Advisers)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government officials and special advisers are advising NATO headquarters on presentational and media relations. [85380]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: Last month the NATO Secretary General and SACEUR asked my Chief Press Secretary to visit NATO and advise on media relations. Since then he and a number of other Government officials have been helping NATO and SHAPE deal with the enormous media demand. They are working with NATO staff and officials from several other NATO countries.

  Effective communications are important, particularly when Milosevic has a state run media and no cameras are allowed to film the atrocities being carried out in Kosovo.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 May. [85080]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

  I will also be attending the celebrations to mark the opening of the Welsh Assembly.

  Mr. Tom Engel
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Prime Minister if the appointment of Mr. Tom Engel as a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was approved by the Prime Minister. [85543]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  European Trade Policy
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for Ministerial consideration of European trade policy issues. [85730]

  The Prime Minister
  I have established a new Committee to discuss these issues. The Sub-Committee on European Trade Issues (E)DOP(T), under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will report to the Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Issues ((E)DOP), which also meets under the Foreign Secretary's Chairmanship. The composition and Terms of Reference of this new Committee are as follows:

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Trade Issues ((E)DOP(T))
  Composition:
  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chairman)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer
  Secretary of State for International Development

  195
  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union is also in attendance.

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider questions relating to European Union trade policy issues and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Sub-Committee on European issues."

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the review of the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence and development of high level targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities. [85731]

  Mr. Morley
  In response to last year's Agriculture Select Committee Report on Flood and Coastal Defence, the Government agreed to review the funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defence. As a first step in the review process, a consultation letter was issued to interested parties on 7 May. A copy has been placed in the Libraries.

  A consultation paper seeking comments on substantive high level targets for flood and coastal defence from March 2000 will be issued to a wide range of interested organisations later this week; a copy will be placed in the Libraries. The Environment Agency will be consulting separately on further elaboration of its flood defence supervisory duty, and reporting to me in the autumn.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Encryption (Law Enforcement)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the results of the study recently carried out on Encryption and Law Enforcement by the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office. [85605]

  Mr. Wills
  I am now able to announce the main conclusions from this important study carried out by a joint Government-industry team in the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit.

  The Team's recommendations, which have been agreed by the Government, include the establishment of a new industry/Government forum to take forward discussion on encryption matters which will be chaired by a senior DTI official; a new initiative to create an international forum to discuss encryption and law enforcement issues; and the establishment of a Technical Assistance Centre (under Home Office auspices) to assist the law enforcement agencies to make intelligible legally obtained encrypted information.

  On the Electronic Commerce Bill, the PIU Team concluded that the proposed licensing (or accreditation) regime for cryptography service providers should not include any requirement for mandatory storage of
  196
  encryption keys. The PIU team also welcomed the proposals in the consultation document to allow lawful access to decryption keys and/or plain text under proper authority

  I believe that the recommendations outlined above, coupled with the dialogue that has already taken place with industry on this complex issue, will usher in a new era of co-operation between Government and industry; ensuring that the UK becomes both the best, and the safest, place to conduct electronic business.

  Copies of the PIU report are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Raw Milk
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the selling of raw milk; and if he will make a statement. [85533]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's oral answer on 6 May 1999,Official Report, column 1069, to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 194, on raw cows' milk, if he will list the hon. Members who wrote to him in April regarding the Monopoly and Mergers inquiry. [85360]

  Dr. Howells
  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the hon. Members who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in April regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk.

  Single Vehicle Car Imports
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he will make to ensure that single vehicle car imports are compliant with EU safety requirements.[85611]

  Mr. Battle
  Single vehicle imports are subject to the Single Vehicle Approval test administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. Its purpose is to ensure that imported cars which are not manufactured in the European Union are safe on UK roads. To that end, the proposed revisions to the scheme will enhance the test standards to align broadly with EU safety standards.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he will make to ensure that consumers are kept informed of specification differences between UK-sourced new cars and single vehicle imports. [85612]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has published a booklet "The Single Vehicle Approval scheme" (SVA2) which describes the existing SVA regulations and test regime. Before the proposed revisions to the scheme are implemented, they will update and expand this information to include the main differences between European and non-European standards. The existence of specification differences between cars made for use in the European Union and sold
  197
  through the manufacturers' official networks, and those made for other markets and brought into the UK by independent importers, has also been the subject of extensive coverage in the media. In deciding to remove the limits on imports of cars made for other markets progressively by 2001, the Government have been partly guided by the need to give the independent importers time to establish further their service networks in the UK.

  Electricity
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on(a) the difficulties in the process of introducing full competition in the domestic electricity market two years ago, (b) the undertakings he gave on the timetable for market opening and (c) the actions he took to accelerate the process of market opening.[85609]

  Mr. Battle
  On coming to office, it was clear that the Government would have to give a strong lead to this work in order to see it successfully completed. I commissioned a report from the then DGES on the status of the programme soon after taking office. That report and one from his programme manager was published on 29 May 1997 and provided a sound way forward upon which the industry was prepared to commit to delivery.

  Among the difficulties which have been faced have been the sheer size of the task and the level of technical complexity involved. The task of putting in place the vital IT infrastructure which is required to make the competition process work was one of the largest and most difficult in the world. I have worked hard to ensure that competition was introduced in a sensible, systematic way which ensured that customers were paramount and have conducted a series of meetings with the companies, the Regulator, the Electricity Pool and the programme managers to ensure that any difficulties were ironed out.

  It was intended by the previous Government that supply competition would be introduced from April 1998. However, a realistic programme of work had not been put in place to support delivery by that date. Despite the efforts of the industry during 1998, the April date proved unachievable with fully tested systems. At a meeting I held on 22 January 1998 with the DGES, representatives from the electricity industry agreed to accept a target of rolling out competition between September 1998 and June 1999. The first areas to open to full competition did so on 14 September last year. Competition was introduced in each PES area in three planned stages over six months. A comprehensive testing programme was put in place to establish whether systems could interact effectively. The market was declared fully open on 24 May, a month ahead of schedule, by the DGES. The DGES will be monitoring for some time to come to ensure that the mechanics supporting the change of supplier process are working effectively and that the companies adopt a reasonable approach to doorstep selling. Consumers across the country should now benefit from lower prices and a better level of service.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the decisions announced in section 36 and section 14 consents for gas-fired electricity power plants during 1999 and (b) the factors determining whether such applications were approved or refused. [85610]
  198
  Mr. Battle
  As promised in the Energy Sources White Paper, all decisions have been duly reported to Parliament. Members can also consult the actual decision letters, copies of which have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the Electricity Act 1989 with regard to access for way leaves and compensation to be paid. [85546]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to review the wayleave provisions of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Foresight Programme
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in promoting the involvement of Government departments in the Foresight Programme. [85729]

  Mr. Battle
  The latest Whitehall Foresight progress report was published on 26 May. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report provides examples of what Departments are doing to promote Foresight and to respond to Foresight priorities and recommendations. It also outlines Departments' initial plans for participation in the new round of Foresight which started on 1 April. Overall, it reflects significant forward progress since the last report published in June 1998.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the way in which ECGD assesses risk. [85820]

  Mr. Byers
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I have agreed, in view of recent global economic turmoil and its adverse impact on ECGD's ability to meet its financial objective, to put in train an independent review of ECGD's Risk Management systems and processes.

  The Terms of Reference for the Risk Management Review are:

  To assist Her Majesty's Government in assessing the adequacy of risk management systems and processes of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, within the context of the Department's Mission and Financial objective. Specifically, the Consultants are required:
  To assess the adequacy and robustness of the systems used by ECGD to assess, monitor and manage political and country risk. ECGD uses its Portfolio Management System (PMS) to assess and manage country risk exposure. In conjunction, it operates risk monitoring systems and statistical models to assess the likelihood of longer term break-even. Are there measures which could be taken to improve these systems?
  To assess the adequacy and effectiveness of ECGD's operational controls in relation to its systems for assessment and management of political and country risk, having regard to best commercial practice. ECGD's activities are governed by a set of operational controls, involving delegated authorities from the Treasury as well as internal delegated authorities, coupled with checks and balances to ensure that risk assessments are kept separate from decisions on cover availability and premium for particular markets. Could these operational controls be improved?
  In the light of these assessments to make recommendations for strengthening ECGD's risk management systems and operational controls.
  199
  In undertaking this assignment, the Consultant should have regard for best commercial practice in risk management in the financial services market, in particular banking and insurance practices, in the public and private sectors.

  The systems, controls and procedu res relating to the management of political and country risk to be reviewed will include:
  Within ECGD, the market and portfolio controls represented by the Portfolio Management System and the role of the Market Committee (including the Amber Zone Budget and Amber Zone Delegated Authorities);
  The allocation of roles and responsibilities for risk management and underwriting in ECGD and to consider whether the risk management function has sufficient authority;
  Outside ECGD, the roles of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, the Whitehall Economic Sub Group (ESG), the Export Guarantees Committee (EGC) and of other Departments;
  The adequacy and robustness of management information available to underpin ECGD risk management decisions and actions;
  Whether its systems have enabled ECGD to react quickly enough to material events affecting their risk situation—for example, whether the time frames under which country risk assessments and country cover decisions take place, are appropriate;
  Whether ECGD's exposure management is robust. For example, does it enable ECGD to avoid over-concentration of risk, and monitor and control effectively the changing risk profile of ECGD's exposures?
  Is accountability for risk and risk decisions within ECGD and HMG sufficiently clear and unambiguous?
  Whether the internal financial and operational control regimes, ethos and culture in ECGD adequately provide the emphasis and incentives to deliver the risk-reward balance which Ministers have specified in relation to ECGD; and how these control systems compare to good risk management practice in the private sector.
  Whether the internal operational control regimes, ethos and culture in the relevant parts of the Treasury adequately provide the emphasis and incentives to deliver the risk-reward balance which Ministers have specified in relation to ECGD.

  ECGD and Treasury are jointly inviting bids from suitably qualified consultants to conduct the Review.

  Soya Beans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports his Department has received concerning the efforts of the state Government of Rio Grande do Sol to guarantee non-genetically modified soya bean production throughout their state; and what plans his Department has to give assistance. [84504]

  Mr. Battle
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for Small Firms, received a courtesy call from the Governor of Rio Grande do Sol on 25 September 1997, following a visit she made to Brazil in June 1997. The call focused on general trade relations. The issue of genetically modified soya beans was not raised during this meeting.

  No reports have been received on this issue by DTI Ministers or officials.
  200

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the change in the balance of manufactured trade over the last three years. [82388]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 May 1999]: The manufacturing trade deficit rose between 1996 and 1998 at a time of deteriorating global economic prospects. However, the tough and decisive action this Government have taken will ensure that the UK steers a course of lasting stability, and is well positioned to take advantage of opportunities once world conditions pick-up.

  Petrol Retailers
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to instruct the Office of Fair Trading to enforce fair trading practices in the operation of contracts between oil companies and petrol retailers. [84962]

  Dr. Howells
  Contractual issues are a matter for the individual parties concerned rather than the Director-General of Fair Trading. Insofar as these do raise competition concerns, the Director-General has powers to investigate and take action.

  Strategic Export Controls
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the nature of the aircraft engine spares temporarily exported to Yugoslavia, listed in the first Annual report on Strategic Export Controls. [85119]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 532.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for information he received under the "Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83120]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: Statistics on the handling of applications for information under the "Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" are compiled on an annual, calendar year (rather than parliamentary session) basis for inclusion in the annual Monitoring Report. Although all requests for information are handled in terms of the "Code", the Department of Trade and Industry (excluding Government Offices) received 30 formal, identifiable requests under the "Code" in 1998; information was refused under one or more "Code" exemptions in 15 cases.

  RDX Explosives
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences his Department has issued for RDX explosives since September 1998; and how many applications are pending.[84646]
  201
  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating and most ratings cover a range of goods. RDX in its raw form is controlled under entry ML8 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended, commonly known as the Military List.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results obtained. As of 6 May 1999, 27 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) are recorded as having been issued since 1 September 1998 for the export of goods with the rating ML8. The paper records of these licences have been examined; 2 SIELs covered the export of RDX in its raw form. Since 1 September 1998, no Open Individual Export Licences have been issued for the export of such goods.

  Number of Standard Individual Export Licences covering the export of RDX in its raw form

  Destination

  Number

  Belgium

  1

  Kuwait

  1

  At 6 May 1999, decisions had not yet been taken on 10 applications for SIELs to export goods rated ML8. The paper records for these applications have been examined, and seven covered RDX in its raw form: 4 covering exports to the USA, 1 covering exports to China, 1 covering exports to Japan and 1 covering exports to the Irish Republic. There are no pending applications for OIELs covering goods with the rating ML8.

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

  All applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 are assessed against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, and the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  CityFlyer Express—BA Merger
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he has held with CityFlyer Express to discuss the proposed merger with British Airways. [85221]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no meetings with CityFlyer Express.

  BNFL (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on BNFL's progress in becoming year 2000 compliant. [85216]

  Mr. Battle
  The nuclear industry is judged to have Action 2000 "blue" status, meaning that the assessment has not identified any risk of material disruption.
  202
  The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) is the body responsible for regulating the safety of civil nuclear installations. NII has been active in dealing with the year 2000 issue since 1997 and has directed all nuclear licensees, under a licence condition, to provide safety cases a minimum of six weeks in advance of critical dates. NII will allow continued operation of nuclear plant over the critical dates only if it is satisfied that the operation is safe.

  NII is also carrying out a programme of inspection and assessment of licensees' work in this area as it proceeds. To date, all the licensees, including BNFL, are making satisfactory progress in their programmes of work and this assists NII's confidence that the safety cases will be adequate. Should they not be, NII will use its enforcement powers to see that effective improvements are made or, the plant taken out of operation.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what legal rights tenants in sheltered accommodation have to have access to their individual fuel meters in cases where meters are centralised in a locked location. [85116]

  Mr. Battle
  Regulations made under The Gas Act provide gas customers with a statutory right of access to their meters. The Electricity does not provide the basis for such a right for electricity customers. The Government has made clear:

  its intention to legislate, when Parliamentary time permits, to reform the way in which the public utilities are regulated

  that the regulatory process should be driven by the need to put the interests of customers first.

  The aim is to bring the regulatory regimes for gas and electricity together where it is sensible to do so.

  Inflatable Bouncing Devices (Injuries)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will collect data on accident and injury figures with respect to inflatable bouncing devices. [85503]

  Dr. Howells
  Data on accidents with respect to inflatable bouncing devices are collected under the DTI's Home Accident Surveillance System. This records information on home and leisure accidents resulting in patients attending Accident and Emergency Departments at a representative sample of hospitals throughout the country. The most recent data for these devices are:

  National Estimate

  1997

  Home

  Leisure

  Bouncing castles

  2,326

  5,519

  Other inflatable equipment

  99

  690

  BNFL (KPMG Reports)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means and for what reason reports of the findings by KPMG setting out on the future structure and ownership of BNFL made their way into the public domain before Parliament was informed of them. [85145]
  203
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: I cannot comment on speculative references in the press about the KPMG report. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Documentation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those purposes for which his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment or contracts and (d) other persons. [85317]

  Mr. Byers
  In DTI and some of its agencies a birth certificate is one of a variety of documents which applicants for jobs may choose to offer as proof of identity and of age, for pension services, prior to or at recruitment. It is a mandatory requirement in the Radiocommunications Agency, the Patent Office and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. In the event of the death of a Departmental employee in service, his or her children's full birth certificates are required in order to verify dates of birth for dependants' benefits under the relevant pensions arrangements. Contractors are responsible for establishing proof of the identity of their employees. Birth certificates are not required routinely for any other Departmental purposes; however, they can be offered by claimants under the Enemy Property Compensation Scheme to help establish the validity of such claims in particular lines of inheritance; and they may, in very limited circumstances, be demanded under a number of statutory powers of investigation, for example under Section 434 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Clothing and Textiles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with UK retailers concerning their sourcing policies for clothing and textiles; and if he will make a statement. [85330]

  Mr. Battle
  Sourcing decisions are, of course, for retailers themselves to take, based upon their own commercial judgment. However, my Department is involved in a number of initiatives designed to promote the competitiveness of UK textiles and clothing manufacturers, as well as the efficiency of the UK supply chain. For instance, in February this year I was pleased to announce that the DTI would be providing the secretariat for the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, a joint industry—union initiative to consider how best to ensure the sustainable development of the UK's textile and clothing industry. The retail sector is represented on that Group.

  In addition, the DTI is a co-sponsor of the "Apparel and Textiles Challenge", a joint initiative with retailers and manufacturers to improve relationships in, and management of, the clothing and textile supply chain.
  204
  Developments such as E-Commerce, internet and mail order selling, demand ever shorter delivery times and necessitate a quick response service from manufacturers which UK suppliers are well placed to meet.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 493, on special advisers, if he will give the total travel cost of each occasion when (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82416]

  Mr. Byers
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999, Special Advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on 12 occasions. The total cost of travel and any hotel accommodation is:

  £

  Country

  Total cost

  1997

  25–28 May

  Japan

  6,184.00

  10–11 September

  Washington DC

  5,088.50

  13 October

  Brussels

  301.50

  12–13 November

  Brussels

  390.90

  15–22 November

  India and Australia

  7,142.68

  1998

  11–18 January

  China, Hong Kong

  4,421.70

  3–4 February

  Paris

  381.00

  11 March

  Strasbourg

  542.80

  6–7 May

  Brussels

  295.00

  18–20 May

  Geneva

  598.67

  18–20 June

  Singapore

  5,898.30

  10–16 October

  USA

  7,024.44

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

  Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will announce the membership and terms of reference of the working group he has appointed to report on how insolvency and bankruptcy law can be made more enterprise-friendly. [69847]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: This work was undertaken by government officials and focused on:
  The extend to which insolvency and bankruptcy laws place undue obstacles in the way of entrepreneurs who have failed but want to try again.
  The extent to which the law reinforces the stigma attached to business failure and thereby inhibits enterprise.
  The extent to which it is or would be possible to distinguish between responsible risk-takers and others.

  Officials reported to Ministers at the end of April and that report is under consideration.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Viscount Rothermere Viscount Rothermere—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Cromer The Earl of Cromer—Took the Oath.

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

Scottish Enterprise Act,

Rating (Valuation) Act,

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act.

Organophosphates: Licensing Policy
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What co-operation there is between the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate on licensing policies.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) and the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) regularly keep one another informed and consult where appropriate on policy issues and safety matters. Both these government agencies are represented on the official group on OPs. This high-level group of officials was set up by the Government in 1997 with the primary aim of ensuring effective co-ordination among government departments and agencies.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It would seem that what he says is not entirely what is carried out. Is he aware that when the OP information network became aware that the Pesticides Safety Directorate was looking at particular groups of OPs, it asked whether the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's evidence on diazinon, which is a major constituent of organophosphate sheep dips, cat and dog flea collars and various pesticides used in domestic situations, could be made available and was told that because of commercial confidentiality and Section 118 of the Medicines Act no information held by the VMD could he passed to the PSD? Does not the noble Lord think it extraordinary that in these days of joined-up government, and supposedly joined-up
916
thinking, these two organisations, whose scientific committees are looking at the same organophosphate, cannot talk to each other?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the issue of providing data for the PSD on diazinon did not arise because the pesticide approval holder chose not to support the products in question. The bulk of data on the safety of diazinon held by the VMD is from published sources and there would have been no difficulty in providing it to the PSD. In the event that the PSD had asked for data provided to the VMD on a confidential basis and by a company, which is controlled by Section 118 of the Medicines Act, it would still have been provided if there were a safety concern relating to human health which the data would assist in resolving. As I said, there are regular exchanges of views between the VMD and the PSD on particular issues. Each agency routinely copies to the other reports of meetings and information on safety evaluation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how will the situation be affected by the new transparency under the access to information Bill?
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is already in a sense transparent. The official group on OPs meets regularly. All its reports are published; indeed, its latest report is in the Library. In respect of this matter, there was no need for a freedom of information agenda because the information was already in the public domain. I repeat that if human safety is involved, the information is made available as a matter of course, despite the requirements of the Medicines Act.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not think me in any way offensive when I ask whether he agrees that his original Answer was foggy in the extreme, had the fingerprints of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food all over it, and therefore would stand a great deal of improvement?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not find the noble Lord in the least offensive. What other noble Lords think, I do not know! The situation is as I explained it. It was not foggy; it was quite clear. The product, diazinon, was removed from the approved list by the PSD because the manufacturer had chosen not to support the application. The market for the product was small. It was used for the making of compost and in mushroom production. Obviously, because of the size of the market the manufacturer decided that it was not worth the cost of seeking approval.
The use of diazinon in a sheep dip is completely different and is rigorously controlled. Yes, MAFF drafted the Answer. I read it and approved it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his first Answer to the Question was not in the least foggy? It is the only one I understood!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, now follow that one! The noble Lord said that there was full

917
communication between the two organisations. Could he explain why it was that the OP information network was therefore misinformed? Concern about the matter was expressed to me some 18 months ago and I was waiting for the results of the inquiry before I raised it. Could the noble Lord say when the OP group will report again? It published one report late last year, but will it report again soon?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure of the date of the issue of the next report. The departments involved in that group are the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Department of Health; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the Ministry of Defence; the Health and Safety Executive; the Veterinary Medicines Directorate; the Pesticides Safety Directorate; the Medicines Control Agency and the territorial departments. That is an excellent example of joined-up government.

International Sport: Television Coverage
2.44 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure that major international sports can be seen on television by all those who have paid a licence fee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a number of major sports events are included on the list maintained under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Television coverage of listed events must be offered to the free-to-air channels which are available to all licence-fee payers. The list was reviewed and extended last year. The significance of sports events changes over time and the broadcasting market is evolving rapidly. So the Government will continue to monitor the need for another review.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, which is much appreciated. How would he answer a question put to me by a personal friend? He said that he fought in the war for his country for six years. Although there has been an improvement since last year, he now finds, despite paying the TV licence fee, that there are many games in which the team of his country plays but which he is not able to see. Is the real answer a matter of money; namely, that the Group B events, which are classed as secondary events, are sometimes not available to terrestrial TV and therefore not available to my friend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know in which sports my noble friend's friend is interested. In almost every sport, the amount of free-to-air universal coverage of sport is, as my noble friend acknowledges, increasing. On free-to-air universally available television, there were eight hours of sport per day in 1998 compared with seven hours in 1997. Some people may think that that is excessive, rather than the other way round.
918
It is true that the group B secondary events may have exclusive live coverage on subscription channels provided that adequate arrangements are made for delayed coverage or highlights on free-to-air terrestrial channels. Many people prefer highlights or delayed coverage to live coverage which may sometimes be in the middle of the night.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the list works well for the rights of television viewers? But will he agree also that the very fact that sports bodies are on the list amounts to a diminution of their rights which may lead to a financial penalty if they are not able to attract the largest amount of money available? Does he agree further that to extend the list would affect sports which have been able to benefit from the vast royalties which they have been able to collect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope I heard the noble Viscount right. I hope he referred to the "rights of television viewers" rather than the "right sort of television viewers" which is what I first thought he said. Yes, there is a trade-off between the amount of money available for the sports themselves from selling their broadcasting rights and the opportunities for viewers who do not have access to subscription channels to see them. But even so, the BBC, whose coverage is always free-to-air, spends 10 per cent of its licence fee revenue—£20 million—per year on the rights to sports coverage. That is a great deal of money.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, while we may all agree with the sentiments behind the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is not the reality that for many years the major public service broadcaster in this country—and the same situation prevailed in other countries—had a virtual monopoly and sports bodies were almost having to pay to be on television? The boot is now on the other foot and so we are all to blame—broadcasters and Parliament—for not having the foresight to see that that situation would arise. It will be extremely difficult to return to a position of equity in relation to sports coverage provided by public service broadcasters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree that we are to blame for what is an almost inevitable development, as the noble Viscount acknowledges. It is still the case that the BBC covers 50 sports. In addition to the listed events which it covers, it covers in football the World Cup and the European championships, the Olympic Games, the Grand National, in golf the Open. There is a tremendous amount of free-to-air terrestrial coverage of sport in this country. Clearly people want it and that is why it is so popular.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is not my noble friend concerned that the BBC recently lost the right to show Test match cricket? Also, it is now almost impossible to see live football on BBC. Matters will be worse even for those who have gone over to cable TV because

919
pay-as-you-view is now coming in. In future, people will have to pay not only for a licence, but also a fee to Sky for many of the most important TV sporting events.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend referred to cricket. In the cricket World Cup, which is taking place at the moment, three out of the four England matches are on BBC, three out of the four Scotland matches are on BBC as is one of the two semi-finals and the BBC also has a share in the broadcasting of the final. That is quite a lot of coverage. When my noble friend talks about other sports, I have to remind him that this is the first occasion on which both Rugby Union and Rugby League have been among the listed events.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I can make a plea for the noble Lord to put forward a case for sport for the disabled. When the basketball World Cup for the disabled was being played, there was absolutely no coverage at all. It is extremely good viewing and the players are very brave people. Will the noble Lord put forward a case for at least some disabled sports to be televised in the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a persuasive case, with which I am happy to agree. It is, of course, a matter for the broadcasters to decide what they put on air, but I am sure they will listen to what the noble Baroness says.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in the list of sports outlined by my noble friend there seemed to be very little, if any, coverage of women's sports. Are the Government making representations to ensure that women's sports feature on television?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy with what my noble friend says, as I had with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. One of the features of popular spectator sports is that most of them are for men. With the exception of athletics, tennis and some other sports, it is difficult to find the same enthusiasm for sports played by women. I find that utterly deplorable and would like to see far more sport in which women participate on television.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one way in which television viewers can defend their interests is by not subscribing to Sky TV?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a personal decision for the noble Lord.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understood my noble friend to say how much money was being spent by the BBC in order to secure sport on television. Can he tell the House how that compares with the amount paid by Sky and ITV?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, offhand I cannot. I am not even sure that the figures are available. If they are I shall certainly write to my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a problem arises when there is a great deal of international cricket taking place and simultaneously a great deal of interesting football? It would be much better, as digital television develops, for those of us who are keen on cricket to be able to watch as much cricket as possible all the time and not have our viewing disturbed by football, which does not interest us quite so much. Therefore, will the noble Lord prevail upon the broadcasting authorities to develop digital television in a specialised sporting way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not feel that I should intervene in a debate on preferences for individual sports. I see the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, is amused by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In fact there has been a huge amount of coverage recently of sporting events; for example, European Champions' League football, Formula One, the US Masters golf, the Davis Cup, as well as all the listed events. I seem to remember that both last summer and the summer before the media were talking as though it were an entire summer of sport. If that is to be the case, there has to be some sort of balance between cricket and other sports. Those who, like me, prefer music on Radio 3 have been offended to find it supplanted by cricket.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I was a little concerned to hear that the majority of the sports mentioned by the Minister are on ITV, which is funded by advertising, rather than the BBC. Is the Minister aware that a sport in which I am particularly interested—equestrianism—is very much female oriented, I am glad to say? Will the Minister therefore encourage more equestrian sports in which we are world leaders?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the original Question referred to sports being seen on television by all those who paid a licence fee. That applies equally to ITV as to the BBC and I do not believe there is any distinction in availability between them. The fact that one is supported by advertising does not affect the situation very much. I am glad to add equestrianism to the list of sports advocated so powerfully by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, how do the Government decide whether or not a sport is a major sport? Are they not likely to offend many people just to please a few?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with great difficulty. The announcement of the new listed events in June of last year was achieved only after many months of negotiation between sports bodies and broadcasting organisations and having taken account of the substantial public debate which took place on the subject. There is no one good answer to listing events

921
for free-to-air terrestrial television. It will always be a compromise and some people will always be dissatisfied.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, is it not the case that many of our fellow citizens will only be able to watch tonight's important game in which Manchester United will win the European Cup because sensitive legislation interfered with market forces? Should we not rejoice, therefore, that the Government are keeping this developing situation under very close review?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into speculation about anything that may be happening this evening, particularly as I shall be on duty at this Dispatch Box throughout the period when it takes place—to my great relief, as my noble friend Lady Hollis reminds me.
There is and always has been a case for intervention by the Government in the interests of those who are not able, for many reasons, to have access to any television other than free-to-air terrestrial television.

Incapacity Benefit
2.58 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent representations they have had about their proposal to change the rules of entitlement to incapacity benefit, and what action they are taking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Government received a number of representations about the proposals to restore incapacity benefit to its proper role as a benefit for people who have had to cease work because of illness or disability and to extend it to those severely disabled young people who have never been able to work. We responded positively to a number of points made to us and will continue to listen to representations.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend is aware that my interest in this benefit derives from much involvement in creating it. Did not the Benefit Integrity Project, now abandoned after finding not one case of proven fraud, explode the myth that disabled people are benefit cheats as a crude and cruel insult? Is not the truth that £5 billion to £6 billion goes unclaimed in disability living allowance alone? When will improving the take-up of disability benefits be prioritised? And are Ministers publicising the Government Actuary's highly expert advice to them that, due to relatively low benefits here:
"future costs of social security in the UK look much more manageable than in other European countries"?
922
Would it not be wise now to think more deeply, to distinguish between reform and retreat, and to do so in consultation, not conflict, with disabled people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely agree with most of what my noble friend said. Like others in your Lordships' House, he has a very long experience of disability issues. Indeed, he has devoted his life to disability issues. He was obviously responsible for the major stepping stone of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that what BIP showed was, as we have always said, that disabled people do not seek to cheat the system. Although a handful of people were referred for prosecution, no established cases of fraud have been determined.
BIP showed that there was something like a 15 per cent level of error—for the most part overpayment—because people became better, which is good. Alas, sometimes they became worse, and their benefit did not always adjust to reflect what was happening to them. So it is right and proper to check entitlement. But, as my noble friend said, we also have the problem that within DLA and attendance allowance something like 50 per cent of those who are entitled to the benefit are not claiming. We are certainly working with the disability organisations, as my noble friend suggests, to seek to ensure that those who are entitled to the benefit do claim it.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is it not the case that, under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, those with incomes of over £10,000 per annum will lose their incapacity benefit, while the Tax Credits Bill will make payments to those with incomes of over £25,000 per annum with no means test? Is that not absurdly inconsistent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that I would agree with the noble Lord's description of either of those Bills. First, in terms of the proposals for incapacity benefit, if, for example, an individual was on long-term incapacity benefit and had dependent children and, therefore, a dependent partner, that person would have to have an income of nearly £16,000 a year through an occupational pension before losing any entitlement to the benefit.
Secondly, as regards the comparison with DPTC and the noble Lord's suggestion that someone would not lose money until he was earning £25,000 a year with no means test, I should point out that DPTC has a double test. I refer to the disabled persons' tax credit which will be replacing the disability working allowance from October. It has a double test, both of disability and of low income. Therefore, there is indeed a means test. It is an income-related benefit and only where there are children and the disabled person is claiming a children's tax credit for them, together with child care allowance, will it take people up into the kind of figures mentioned by the noble Lord. We believe that these changes are right and proper. We believe that the changes in the working families' tax credit are right and proper.

923
They do what disabled people ask us to do; namely, to encourage and help them to return to work. I am sure that that is what your Lordships would wish.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that my postbag and my many contacts with disabled people clearly indicate to me that there is alarm, anger and fear about the Government's proposals on incapacity benefits? I have with me today 21 letters which came in just one post this morning. Every single one of them indicates passionate opposition to the Government's proposals. Will Ministers accept that it is totally unacceptable to break a moral contract between the Government and people who have paid their national insurance contributions in good faith? Is it not also unacceptable to begin to means test disabled people who have incomes as low as £5,000 a year?
Does my noble friend agree that what is happening is as follows? This Government are a generous government, but they are being widely perceived as a mean government because of these two proposals. Surely the only way to stop this nonsense is for the Government to withdraw them and begin again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend referred to "alarm, anger and fear". I should point out to him that, as he knows—and, indeed, as noble Lords know—these proposals will not affect any existing claimants. Any existing holders of these benefits will be unaffected by the proposals.
My noble friend also referred to a moral contract. Yes, that is right. However, incapacity benefit is presently designed to be an earnings replacement for someone who becomes disabled in work. It was meant to replace the wages. However, over the past 20 years, it has become an unemployment benefit for many people. In fact, four in 10 of those who receive IB have been previously unemployed. Alternatively, it has become a pension top-up for those taking early retirement. We are saying that the contributory contract—the moral contract—to which my noble friend referred is the contract which establishes the entitlement to benefit, based on recent work. That is what our Bill will do.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while reform is necessary, would not the way forward for this benefit be an efficient and effective change or adjustment to the gateway, rather than means testing being introduced in this case? Did the Government listen carefully to those disability organisations which recently felt obliged to resign from the Government's advisory group; or did they listen to the former Minister for welfare reform, Mr. Frank Field?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we certainly listened to the Disability Benefits Forum. I was the Minister who was responsible at the time for establishing it. We found its advice, views and information to be invaluable, and continue to do so. Although the forum has wound up, and was due to do so at any rate during the month of May, we are continuing the working parties with the forum. We value that expertise.
924
The noble Lord also asked why we are not concentrating on gateways rather than income. We are looking at gateways. That is why we shall also propose in the Bill a personal capacity test to ensure that disabled people who wish to return to work are helped to do so by the adviser. The noble Lord is absolutely right to suggest that we do that, and we shall be doing so as a way of helping disabled people back to work.
However, there is a point about incomes. Disability benefits were introduced immediately after the Second World War. They were then revised in 1971 by way of the invalidity benefit and ultimately replaced by incapacity benefit. When they were introduced very few people had occupational pensions. Those benefits were going to people who were injured or who became disabled at work. Now something like 80 per cent of men and 70 per cent of women have occupational pensions. Our proposals will not affect four people in five who will become eligible for an incapacity benefit on financial grounds. But, of that one-fifth, half have occupational pensions which take them into the top 40 per cent of the earnings hand. Therefore, is it reasonable that one should be paying quite high pensions to people who already have high pensions, while other disability needs are not being met?
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the arguments and the discussions that we are having today point to the fact that people feel that, at the very least, we are moving away from an entitlement derived from an insurance-based system towards a means-tested system? Further, does the Minister agree that that means that the Government have failed to communicate, if that is not indeed their intention?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take any criticism about communication; indeed, that may well be right. However, let us take, for example, the case of someone in their early 20s who works for six months only and then is unemployed for 20 years. He develops stress and seeks incapacity benefit on the grounds of a moral contract. Is that reasonable? I think not.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister mentioned them once or twice in her remarks, can she tell us what the implications of the Government's reform will be for disabled children?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, one of the groups of people for which the Government are most anxious to strengthen support is indeed that comprising disabled children. As noble Lords may well know, we are not only improving disability living allowance and bringing it down for younger children; we are not only ensuring that young people who have never had the opportunity to work get higher rates of benefit—indeed, in future, they will now receive another £30 a week—but, also, as of about a month ago, I am delighted to report that my honourable friend the Paymaster General announced that disabled children in low-earning families, which presently receive a tax credit of £15 a week or £20 a week, will receive double that premium in future if they are disabled. So another £25 million

925
will go to disabled children from low-earning families. We think it is right to support children, particularly children from poor and vulnerable families. We are delighted to do that.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Greater London Authority Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 17,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 18 to 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 31 to 72,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 73 to 83,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 84 to 118,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 119 to 133,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 134 to 136,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 137 to 176,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 177 to 194,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 195 to 197,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 198 and 199,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 200 to 202,

Schedule 15,

Clause 203,

Schedule 16,

Clause 204,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 205 to 228,

Schedule 18,

Clause 229,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 230 to 242,

Schedule 20,

926

Clause 243,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 244 to 257,

Schedule 22,

Clause 258,

Schedules 23 and 24,

Clauses 259 to 300,

Schedule 25,

Clauses 301 to 320,

Schedule 26,

Clauses 321 to 328,

Schedule 27,

Clauses 329 and 330. —(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 5 to 9,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 10 to 14,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 15 to 25,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 26 and 27,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 28 to 35,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 36 to 38. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Middle East
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to call attention to the developments in the greater Middle East; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, our attention has concentrated for the past couple of months on the north-western edge of what one can usefully think of as the greater Middle East. For this reason, all of us—media, people and Parliament—have been losing the bigger picture. That is why I put down this Motion for discussion today on which I speak with some trepidation in the usual knowledge that in this House there are people present who know a great deal more about it than I do.
In the greater Middle East we see today's policies interacting with hugely powerful historical forces, several world religions among them, and the detritus of several empires; with the facts of geography—oil, growing water shortages; with an accumulation of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, for which we ourselves are responsible; and with the vast and perennial fabric of lies, ranging from "forgivable" exaggerations to carefully crafted and many-layered misinformation uttered by governments.
The Middle East is where monotheism was—if you ignore the Pharaoh Akhnaton—first invented, and then twice more re-invented, and whence it was exported. A distinguishing mark of monotheism was, and often still is, intolerance, and the intolerance was exported too. The imperial polytheism of the West, Rome, drove the Jews out of their own land of Palestine. Islam then invaded and conquered not only the Levant and Arabia but north Africa, Sicily and southern Italy, Spain, and France as far as Tours. Roman Christendom responded, driving Islam out of Europe, and with the Crusades carried the war with pillage and dominion into the Levant, sacking Orthodox Christian Constantinople on the way.
Then the newly Moslemised Turkic peoples burst out of central Asia and conquered and sacked Constantinople, and Christianity split again. Turkey was the long-term gainer, settling and ruling the whole of south east Europe. No people which was ever in the Balkans does not have descendants there now. We think of the inherited hatreds of Ireland. In the Balkans, the history is longer. There are more peoples, and more religions. We have a government chief scientist and a government medical adviser. I think it is time we had a government historian, and perhaps also a government geographer, if only to remind Ministers where the North Atlantic occurs—not on the slopes of the Caucasus, not in central Asia where, in the name of NATO, the US is now sounding out the possibilities.
So much for the setting. In the heart of the Middle East we have another war still pounding along, the exploitation of superior technology in the almost nightly bombing and strafing of Iraq by two Protestant Christian powers from the further edge of the western world, against the judgment of the rest of the world. Here in Iraq we see, added to unresolved religious torments, the effects of our becoming—above all the United States becoming—addicted to the oil long hidden and unvalued beneath Moslem sand and sea. Thus a practical, bread-and-butter interest has joined the palaeo-endemic religious and imperial rivalries, the forceful incursions of foreign would-be exploiters of indigenous resources. The interest is an American one; their consumption of oil per head is many times ours. They even contemplate the break-up of Iraq, which they appear to be planning in London.
Now we, the West, are trying to get our hands on another oil province, the Caspian. Of all things, we—or rather the United States—are trying to use our good old defensive North Atlantic Treaty to do so. The ex-Soviet republics of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and even Kyrgystan, are all being given the once over and the glad eye, garnished with plenteous
928
carrots, by a succession of American officials and generals. Sometimes it is the government being courted, sometimes the opposition. All have plans of their own. They want their own oil wealth, and, if they can, control of the pipelines through which their neighbours' oil wealth is exported.
In all this, the Americans give the impression that they are out to "do down" the Russians. And that is how the Russians see it. How could they not? These are destabilisations which can only seem directly engineered to furnish reasons for a later NATO presence. Azerbaijan is asking for a NATO base and accusing Armenia of obtaining missiles from China—today's fashionable demon in the US.
The whole Moslem world is watching Kosovo: the western Christians of NATO protecting Albanian Moslems against the eastern Christians of Serbia, and vowing to return them to their homes. No wonder Ariel Sharon deplored what he saw. Might NATO riot think to return the Palestinians from the refugee camps to the homes from which they have been expelled? Israeli governments—we have to face this fact—have behaved precisely like the "rogue states" we claim to deplore: weapons of mass destruction, unlawful occupation of neighbours' territory; ill treatment of minorities, including "ethnic cleansing", and the removal of personal documents, state terrorism abroad, torture licensed by the supreme court, and multiple breaches of international law and conventions.
We all know that these things have been excused because there is no provision in US law or constitution to protect the Congress from lobbyists whose prepotency is hard for us in Europe to credit. Along with the tobacco lobby and the guns and arms lobbies, the Jewish lobby is hugely powerful, as President Bush discovered when he tried to stand up to it. Thus it is good news indeed today—if it is true—that AIPAC has decided to drop its opposition to a Palestinian state. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give us some reliable news on that.
It is quite understandable that Israel should have decided to develop nuclear weapons. Milosevic must be wishing he had some, and others will read the lesson. Of course Israel's neighbours study how to balance Israel's nuclear weapons and establish "stable deterrence." How could they not? Proliferation may be deplorable in general, but in detail, as we ourselves found in 1945 and still believe, it may be a highly responsible national reaction to the threats others' nuclear weapons pose. That is not a mystery. But if we—the international community—want to curb proliferation in the Middle East we must deal with Israel's nuclear weapons, or we must get Israel to deal with her own nuclear weapons, and soon.
Everything will depend in this, as in general relations between Jews and Arabs, on Mr. Barak. On his election he used the words,
"not the victory of One Israel as a movement, but of One. Israel as an idea".
In those words there is much hope. But he also said:
"We will move quickly towards separation from the Palestinians: a united Jerusalem under our sovereignty. Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for ever, period: under no circumstances will we return to

929
the 1967 borders. No foreign army west of the Jordan River, and most of the settlers in Judea and Samaria will live in settlement blocks under our sovereignty".
Government maps have been showing plain "apartheid" plans: great bypass roads linking settlements and industrial estates, all on confiscated lands. The Palestinian state is to be a platter of little Bantustans.
Should not we, Europe, be taking an altogether more definite line towards those aspects of Israeli policy which cannot succeed? The European Union could do a great deal more, and, in the light of United States incapacity in the run-up to presidential and other elections, I am sure we should.
I come now to something that is a mystery. Why do Her Majesty's Government claim to know nothing about Israel's nuclear weapons? The Middle East disarmament body set up after Madrid died, and more recently the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference nearly came apart, with the effective refusal of the US to make any effort to deal with Israel's nuclear weapons. Her Majesty's Government must be alone in doubting their existence. Here are double standards with a vengeance.
Today the Arab world sees us bombing Iraq for doing what we have not objected to Israel's doing. As to Iran. the United States stopped short only at an actual attack to prevent its developing a lawful, NPT-guaranteed, International Atomic Energy Agency-certified civil nuclear programme.
In all of this we come upon the hand-washing of our Government. Her Majesty's Government have no clear peer-reviewed evidence of the damage we are, by our sanctions, allowing Saddam Hussein to inflict on a generation of Iraqi children. "Peer review" is the language of peaceful laboratories. Who ever heard of a peer review of the effects of bombing during an armed conflict? Was there peer review of the evidence concerning the A1 Shifa factory in Khartoum?
What is the news of the continuing low-level war in Iraq? How often have American British forces now flown? The doctrine under which these dubiously lawful attacks go on and on is the one recently introduced to the world by NATO: "averting overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe". Her Majesty's Government claim that the Gulf Arabs are not against our bombing Iraq. They have regularly stated that they are, most recently on 18th May, when the Arab League called on the US and the UK to stop all military operations.
Our Government claim also not to know that UNSCOM was penetrated by US and Israeli intelligence. The damage to international verification as an institution everywhere has been done. How can we deal with that inconvenient fact if we deny its existence? And the Government claimed not to know about the powerfully attractive US enticements offered to the KLA at Rambouillet. So much that is true thus becomes undiscussable, and that is a loss. For the future, we must try to achieve greater truth-telling all round. I mean truth-telling as opposed to silence, or ignorance, which must sometimes be faked.
Much will depend on Mr. Barak, though his first remarks were a mixture of good and bad: much peace, but more hard-nosed determination to keep the
930
Palestinians in their place. The very next day, incidentally, the army was back in Har Homa, and was elsewhere destroying some rain-catching reservoirs that the Palestinians were building without planning permission against the current drought. But there is good news from the United States in that apparently AIPAC is now reconciled to a Palestinian state.
Even more will depend on the United States, which should learn, and we may pray will learn, to have one single foreign policy, and that a good one. And much will fall on us, too, as usual, because we can speak to the United States without interpreters.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, or should be, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this subject for debate. It seems to me a particularly apt moment for it, because we seem to see the beginnings of what might be called a changing of the guard in the Middle East.
First, there was the death, after 44 years of considerable ups and downs, of King Hussein. The end of his reign showed Jordan in a comparatively "up" position as compared with the state it had been in quite often during his tenure of the kingship. Anyone who travels from Jordan to Syria sees the merits of the Jordanian Government's way of going about things, as contrasted with the rigid police state of President Assad.
Then just recently there was the replacement of Mr. Netanyahu by Mr. Barak, which was alluded to by the noble Lord. That was the result, of course, of a free, open, fair, democratic election, a unique institutional occurrence in the Middle East, not found in any other part of that difficult area of the world. This is obviously some ground for optimism, as the noble Lord suggested, though I am not sure that my optimism would be couched in quite the same terms.
It seems to me that Mr. Netanyahu had a problem. only in a slightly different form, that he shared with many other Middle Eastern rulers. He was in some way under pressure from—in fact, he was seriously beholden to—religious fanatics, fundamentalists. His hold on power depended on the support of ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset. It may be that he was not anyway very willing to be non-provocative, but he was encouraged to be more than usually provocative by the fact of that dependence.
Mr. Barak has no such dependence, and we may hope that on the whole and in the long run he will prove to be less provocative, to be a little more emollient, to the Arab population within Israel and surrounding it.
But there are two other people whom we ought to take into account: the President of Syria and the President of Egypt. These, curiously enough when one reflects on what they both look like, are the same age: they are both 71. That is quite a normal age for the handing on of power to a successor, even if natural causes do not bring it about so that a successor has to be found in a hurry.
President Assad does not look very strong. It was alleged some time ago that he was seriously ill, and his plans for his succession by his son were defeated by the

931
death of that son. Exactly what will happen in Syria when he goes is a puzzle. It could be a disturbing one. At the moment he seems to be making relatively pacific noises in the direction of the new government of Israel.
In the case of Egypt, the figure of President Mubarak is of course enormously robust. He looks like nothing so much as a back-row rugby forward at the summit of his career. I rather wondered whether he might be induced to replace the hapless Dallaglio on the England team. In other words, he does not look like fading away from physical causes. He would appear to be in greater danger from a possible fundamentalist assassin than President Assad would. Those, at any rate, would seem to be the most likely, but by no means certain in that part of the world or perhaps anywhere else, changes that will occur there.
Fundamentalism is a menace all over the Middle East, but it is also a menace in Israel, where the ultra-Orthodox refuse to perform military service, do not pay taxes and, I think I am right in supposing, do not really recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel—that is, they are anti-Zionist. This huge lump of people, afforced by excited and zealous students from the United States, are a serious danger. They led Prime Minister Netanyahu into all kinds of provocative action. It is to be hoped that the Jewish communities of the United States—the main ones to pick up the bill—and also of this country will exercise some pressure towards rendering Israeli policy towards Arabs more emollient. It is a serious problem. The decision of the people of Israel in the recent election gives grounds for reasonable hope in this field.
My time is nearly up but I wish to make one final point. In former Yugoslavia we see NATO efforts—not perhaps very successful ones—being made to protect Moslem populations from the brutal atrocities of that militant and zealous orthodox Christian, President Milosevic. I have not noticed, on the part of the Moslem communities of the rest of the world, any great enthusiasm for that. There has been not a squeak of moral support or a parcel of material support for what, if Moslem cohesion and sense of fraternity mean anything, must surely appeal to them. They do not do so. One wonders whether their indurated anti-Westernism is not so great that it applies even to the Moslems of former Yugoslavia, because they are, after all, Western.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Kennet both on securing the debate and on his comprehensive and succinct review of the problems of the Middle East. Fifteen minutes is a brief time to offer solutions to so many long standing problems; five minutes, of course, is even briefer. I propose to confine myself to one topic. Like the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, I believe that the new Government of Israel, pledged to renewing the peace process, which I believe is urgently desired by the vast majority of the peoples of the Middle East, have brought renewed hope where previously there were so many repeated disappointments.
932
How, then, can we help? Not, I believe, by judgmental strictures and not by seeking to dictate to the parties the terms of the final peace accord. It is they who have everything to gain from a peaceful future. It is each of them who must make concessions if there is to be a meeting of minds. The whole purpose of entering into negotiations is frustrated if anyone seeks to prescribe in advance what the outcome should be. I believe that that applies to the parties, too, and that if, as we can now reasonably hope, they bring the interim process to an early conclusion, neither side should impose constraints on the final negotiations before they begin.
It will not be easy. The new government clearly appreciate that any agreement must be one which the people of Israel in general, and the Jewish part of the population in particular, are prepared to accept. That is part of the price for democracy. The other part we have already seen. In order to secure election, they have had to indicate something of what they have in mind as a bottom line. A democratic government have, perforce, to play much of their hand with their cards facing upwards. But the good news is that each side knows the value of peace, for security, for economic prosperity and for the quality of life.
I share with my noble friend Lord Kennet the hope that Israel will in time feel able to renounce its nuclear capability. He and I have long looked forward to a time when there will be an end to nuclear proliferation and when the world may turn to general nuclear disarmament. But we need to be realistic and begin the journey from where we are. At the moment there are those whom Israel is justified in perceiving as its potential enemies, with populations far larger than its own. Unless and until it can be satisfied that none of them seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction, it would be fanciful to suggest that Israel should renounce the weapons which it already has. In this situation, peace must precede disarmament. While Syria and Iraq lend support to Hezbollah rocket launchers, the confidence building process which might lead to peace is bound to be frustrated.
I believe that Europe can encourage the process by the role which the EU is playing with its very substantial contribution to the development of the Palestinian territories. Seven hundred million ecus is a fair amount of money to put where your mouth is. It is to be hoped that the new government will show greater enthusiasm for the opportunities of peaceful co-operation which those resources offer. The Britech Scheme shows how much Britain and Israel can contribute to each other's prosperity.
History dealt a rough hand to both sides in the Middle East. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian nations were born of tragedy. The irony is that each side has behaved precisely as we might have behaved in their place. I suspect that what we here have to say will count for less than their own recognition that they have more to gain from co-operation than from conflict. But if we cannot mend the divisions, at least we can ensure that nothing we say will make them wider. May the message which goes out from this Chamber today be that we wish the process well.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, this is a significant moment to have a debate on the Middle East. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing it. I must here declare an interest. I have been a strong, almost virulent supporter of Israel since its foundation in 1948. Nevertheless, I believe that there have been very good arguments on two sides for the past few years and I shall try to give my own balanced assessment of the situation.
Most of the countries in the Middle East have inter-related problems connected with Israel. These include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinians themselves. Following the Wye agreement, progress was rather slow. In my opinion that owes more to the internal difficulties with Israel than the problems posed by the other Middle Eastern countries. Indeed, for the Palestinians and for Chairman Arafat, the Wye agreement was a great success and they gained immense self-respect from it. Chairman Arafat also accepted the absolute necessity for him to control the internal security of his country. Everyone recognised that if Hamas continued as before, no peace agreement in the Middle East would be possible.
Prime Minister Ehud Barak has achieved a mandate of landslide proportions. But, faced with a window of power, he must not delay the peace negotiations for as we all know, in politics, windows fade very quickly. Fortunately, the attitude of the Israeli people themselves towards the peace process has undergone a significant change. Two recent polls are most illuminating. First, 65 per cent of the population said they believe that one day there will be an independent Palestinian state. What is surprising, however, is that the second poll showed that 55 per cent believe that there should be an independent Palestinian state. That is an increase from 30 per cent in the past three years. I think we can now hope that the Israeli people as a whole are firmly behind the peace process.
Today the difficulties within Israel are much more inward looking and relate to the divide between the religious orthodox Jewry and those who believe that Israel should be a secular state. The chances for peace in the Middle East have never been greater but many commentators greatly under-estimate the difficulties. Prime Minister Barak has already stated that he wants to withdraw his troops from Lebanon within 12 months, which is a simple and clear statement. To achieve that, he must have the agreement of President Assad of Syria, so that President Assad will be able to ensure that Hezbollah, who frequently launch Katyusha rockets across the northern borders of Israel, have their power curbed. President Assad will in turn insist on an agreement about the Golan Heights, which in practical terms means Israel giving up the entire Golan Heights, removing Israeli settlements and perhaps having a small demilitarised zone. I strongly support that principle, and the overwhelming majority of Israelis support that agreement.
I am sure none of your Lordships doubts that any agreement with the Palestinians must include full recognition of and full agreement to an independent Palestinian state. I have been led to believe that before
934
the death of Yitzak Rabin, there was an informal outline agreement that would have enabled 80 per cent of Israeli settlers to remain on the West Bank, with the Palestinians giving up land to Israel on the West Bank in exchange for the addition of a significant amount of land—at least of equal amount—by Israel to Gaza.
The most critical issue would be Jerusalem. I do not see any possibility of Israel agreeing to give up part of Jerusalem unless perhaps to create something like the Vatican City within the city of Jerusalem. The reality is that if the new peace-minded government of Israel were to divide Jerusalem, the government would be brought down quickly and we would all be back to square one.
Can we be optimistic of the outcome of all the negotiations? Is it easier to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians than between the IRA and the Ulster Protestants? The answer must surely be yes, for at least there can be a physical exchange of land and statehood in return for peace. Both sides have something to trade. Israel needs peace with security and the Palestinians need and deserve statehood.
The peace bonus for all those countries in the Middle East would be significant investment and economic development in all those countries surrounding Israel. Growing prosperity is undoubtedly the greatest guarantee of continued peace in the Middle East.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in five minutes it is sensible to concentrate on one point. In my case, it will be the humanitarian situation in Iraq. But first, I will break this principle and ask my noble friend the Minister two questions, of which I have given notice, relating to Turkey—the south-east corner of which at least forms part of the Middle East.
The trial of Abdullah Ocalan, the captured PKK leader, is shortly to begin. The Turkish authorities are only allowing a limited number of observers to attend the trial. Can my noble friend say whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been successful in its efforts, through our ambassador, to have a presence at the trial? If not, have suitably strong representations been made? An international presence at that trial is the only hope that it will at least have the semblance of justice as we know it.
On a different topic, can my noble friend the Minister say whether Export Credits Guarantee Department support will be given to British firms involved in the design and construction of the proposed dam and hydroelectric scheme at Ilisu on the River Tigris in Eastern Anatolia? That is mainly a Swiss-financed project. The criticism has been made that the criteria adopted for the design and construction of that dam have not met World Bank standards. The 20,000 or more mainly Kurdish people who will be displaced by the reservoir have not been consulted. Neither has attention been paid to the historic towns that will be inundated. There is strong opposition to the dam from Syria and Jordan, which are downstream and whose economy could be held to ransom by Turkey.

935
Turning to my main topic, my noble friend the Minister will be aware of the report of the Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council, No. S/1999/356, which was published on 30th March. Among the many points that it makes is this:
"The gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated … Data from different sources, as well as qualitative assessments by many bona fide observers and analysis of economic variables, converge and corroborate this evaluation".
Gross domestic product per capita in Iraq has fallen from 3,416 dollars in 1984 to 1,500 dollars in 1991 and only 1,036 dollars in 1998. Infant mortality rates have trebled since 1990 and now are among the highest in the world. Chronic malnutrition affects every fourth child. Only 41 per cent of the population have access to clean water. The catalogue goes on. I could quote more disastrous figures.
It is possible to blame the Iraqi Government for at least part of that disastrous situation but the destruction brought about by the Gulf War followed by the sanctions are the main causes. It is clear that more is needed than lifting the cap on oil sales for the oil-for-food programme, as the Anglo-Dutch proposal in the Security Council has suggested. The whole infrastructure needs to be repaired and restored. A large programme of inward investment is required, especially to allow the oil industry to generate the funds that could support economic recovery.
The humanitarian panel report makes a number of constructive proposals—too many to go through as my time is nearly at an end—that would help to alleviate the current disastrous situation while retaining some of the sanctions. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are studying those proposals closely and will respond positively? We already have plans for postwar reconstruction in the Balkans while the war there is still going on. The war in the Gulf has been over for more than nine years. Surely it is time that the suffering people of Iraq got a little attention.
I will conclude by quoting the final paragraph of the humanitarian report:
"In presenting the above recommendations to the Security Council, the Panel reiterates its understanding that the humanitarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy, which in turn cannot be achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts".
3.47 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, for more than 25 years I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on diverse issues and regions. It seems to me that when the noble Lord speaks on the Middle East, his remarks have a slight flavour of redemptionist oratory, with the sermon on hell reserved for the state of Israel.
There is little doubt that the election of General Barak, who has a freer hand and a clearer mandate than any of his predecessors, ushers in a definite change in tone, new vigour and a genuine reaffirmation of a will for peacemaking. However, it is not only his own public that he must gather around him for peace. General Barak must be able to count on a greater willingness among
936
his Arab neighbours to take his overtures seriously and meet him at least part of the way. He needs the compassionate understanding of third parties—especially the European Union—who have an important role to play if their willingness to help is matched by tact and sensitivity.
There are still some grim realities in the Middle East. Fear and hate are still rampant. Twice in the past 12 months an Israeli Cabinet had to meet in an emergency session to review possible doomsday scenarios in the event of Saddam Hussein, reacting to American air strikes, launching missiles with conventional or even unconventional warheads against the conurbation of Tel Aviv. Now that UNSCOM no longer functions in Iraq, that country's unpredictable dictator could still wreak unimaginable havoc.
A wall of hate still exists not only in the rogue states of the Arab world but even in those countries that are at peace and whose political establishment avowedly and sincerely wishes to co-operate with the Jewish State. Not so long ago, when attending a conference sponsored by the Jordanian authorities in Amman, I went into a leading bookshop next door to my hotel and looked at the main counter of current books. I saw brand new editions of Hitler's Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and rows of books on current affairs displayed with garish and ghoulish covers depicting caricatures of perceived Jewish archetypes, of a stridency and odiousness which took me back to Julius Streicher's racist rag, Der Sturmer, in Hitler's Nuremberg. And that was in Amman.. in Jordan, a country which has been the friendliest of Israel's neighbours with by far the longest and safest of all her frontiers.
It is said that Iran sincerely wishes to mend fences with the West. President Khatami stands for a policy of a "thaw". Is he the Kruschev or the Gorbachev of the Islamic revolution? If he were the fonner let us not forget that Kruschev's idea of "thaw" also included the dispatch of tanks to Hungary and missiles to Cuba. A few days ago, President Khatami was in Damascus addressing leaders of Hezbollah and 12 other terrorist organisations which have their headquarters in the Syrian capital. We do not know what he told them.
It must be acknowledged that Chairman Yasser Arafat has greatly improved control of terrorism and security arrangements in his territory. That should augur well for Mr. Barak's new initiatives.
There is a tacit consensus that eventually the Palestinians will have their state. But the limits of its defence capabilities as well as its borders must be contractually agreed upon first. The right of the Palestinians to such a state is indisputable, but it must not become a base for other hostile powers and drastically impede and subvert Israel's security. It must not become, as Lebanon did, a staging post for terrorist organisations. Opponents of statehood in the past have claimed that if Israel were to retaliate against transgressions originating on Palestinian soil any operation would instantly become an act of aggression under international law. But that can all be sorted out contractually with goodwill. There are many precedents.

937
Let us take, for instance, the Federal Republic of Germany after the Second World War: its limitations in the field of defence did not prevent it from evolving, sanely, successfully, economically and politically into a major power.
The question of Syria is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, mentioned President Assad and also the inevitable probable dynastic successions in various parts of the Gulf and the Middle East. The degree and pace of the return of the Golan Heights is clearly linked to the degree and depth of the peaceful intentions of Syria's leaders. For President Assad that decision is extremely difficult, and especially so for domestic reasons. It is not merely a question of coming to terms with a hated opponent but of opening a closed window, letting fresh air into a country that is tightly controlled. The future of his regime and his succession are at stake. It will be interesting to see what happens if, as Mr. Barak promises, Israeli troops withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Would Syria continue to be the occupying power of a country that, once the security issues seemed resolved, would yearn for the recovery of independence?
The most important and difficult problem relates to Jerusalem, and should be left to the last in negotiations. For nowhere else is imaginative vision and goodwill more needed than in a city which Palestinians claim as their capital and Jews the world over regard, in the words of a distinguished Protestant theologian, not just as a holy shrine of Judaism but as Judaism itself. Moreover, the modern city of Jerusalem has three-quarters of a million souls, over 70 per cent of them Jews. Thus, on purely statistical grounds, Israel considers it to be the undivided capital of the state. There are many imaginative models for a solution. There have been unofficial negotiations between members of Likud, members of the Israeli labour party as it was then called, and important Arab leaders. There have been denials about the agreements that might have been reached, but there are working models. Paradoxical as it may sound, I believe that the problem is capable of solution if there is good will, and an assured atmosphere of surrounding peace.
Perhaps I may briefly mention the important, heightened role of Turkey in the region. Turkey is destined to play a very important part. Secular and western in outlook, it stands for stability and is a solid counterpoise against adventurist policies from the rogue states in the region. It firmly supports the independence of Jordan—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I apologise, but I really must draw attention to the fact that there is a five-minute limit for speakers.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, perhaps I may say in conclusion that I hope that we shall not repeat the lesson of Yugoslavia so far as concerns the wider Middle East. We must not only address ourselves to the crisis in hand but also deal with the wider problems.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, 13 months ago I had the honour of visiting Israel and Gaza. During that visit I had the great privilege of meeting business communities of both areas. Notwithstanding some mutuality of suspicion, there was an overwhelming desire on the part of both to be able to get on with the job of promoting business opportunities, often in partnership. That has been taking place, notwithstanding the discomfiture they felt at the hands of the outgoing Israeli government. That is important; but it needs to be built on. In the light of recent developments there are certainly grounds for optimism.
There can be no doubt that in order to build up the Gaza Strip and other areas it is necessary to attract a good deal of foreign investment, notably from the European Union. That requires a much more pacific situation in order that the necessary confidence is derived for the building that must go on. An enormous amount is at stake. There are now great opportunities, with the new Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ehud Barak, taking office. Notwithstanding all the problems that he faces internally, he is a courageous man. He has served with great distinction in the Israeli army, and he is now promoting in his speeches a clear movement towards a comprehensive peace settlement.
I view the outcome of the election with great satisfaction. However, I do not underestimate the problems that will confront the new government. First, who will be in it? There are some who are so strongly at variance that they rule themselves out—most, if not all, of Likud, and indeed the Shas party which has to show a good deal more goodwill towards the promotion of peace and building Israel in a comprehensive way.
The new Prime Minister is buttressed by great personal success and courage. Of that there can be no doubt. He is widely read. He has been educated at university in the United States. But he faces huge internal problems in Israel. We ought not to underrate that fact. There are problems of how to reconcile the secular and ultra-orthodox communities. That may be beyond him. I do not know. I wish him well. Certainly, he enjoys huge personal renown as a result of the election campaign that he undertook. I suppose that Mr. Netanyahu, whose leaving has not caused much regret in Israel and elsewhere, did at least leave with a certain amount of personal dignity given the statement that he made. That is about all he left behind.
Israel today is undoubtedly in a stronger position to pursue peace initiatives. I am convinced that it will try. There is no question that in relation to Syria the new Prime Minister has held out the opportunities for a comprehensive peace settlement. Egypt and Syria have expressed some measured optimism about that prospect. In calling for an exchange of ambassadors with Syria, for full trade relations, for free movement of tourists, to be monitored, it is true, by Israeli and Syrian military forces holding key points on the Golan Heights, he has provided a first-class initiative at the very beginning of his government.

939
Of course, Syria would be expected to join the fight against terrorism and in consideration of certain Israeli withdrawals the military wing of Hezbollah would have to be dismantled and Lebanon and Syria would have to play their part in suppressing terrorist activity.
But who could have said, just a few weeks ago, maybe even a few days ago, that the prospects for peace are now moving, I believe inexorably, in favour of a permanent settlement? There will be huge problems internally and externally facing the new government. But in Mr. Barak, born and bred in a kibbutz, Israel has an outstanding political leader, a general of great distinction, perhaps the most outstanding of his generation. He was not only a brilliant soldier; he was a student of great competence. He has faced internal problems, unjustified allegations of perfidy, to which he has stood up bravely, as one might expect of this man. Yes, I view the prospects with some degree of optimism which I did not think possible just a month ago.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in his thoughtful review of the Middle East by adding one tribute. Surely this House would wish to salute the efforts of the late King Hussein in the peace which we all hope is coming in the Middle East. We wish his son, King Abdullah, the best of good fortune in continuing that effort. I once heard King Hussein use an Arab term. If any of my noble friends wish to have a problem, I suggest they try to learn the Arabic language—even in the cause of peace it is difficult. There is a marvellous proverb: one hand alone cannot clap. Both sides must want peace, both must clap.
On the one hand I have believed for some time that there has to be a Palestinian state. On the other hand, it can only survive and be accepted if it accepts the fears of its Israeli neighbours and their wish to live in security and without danger. On the one hand, Barak is of course quite right in expressing the view of the vast majority of his people in wanting to get Israeli troops out of Lebanon. On the other hand, whatever his wishes, they can only do it if the other side is prepared to leave the border in peace and not create war because troops are moved out.
On the one hand, Jerusalem is the great centre of all the mighty religions of this world and all wish it to be a peaceful and good place. On the other hand, I had the honour of seeing President Sadat shortly before he was murdered. He told me that it should be left till last. That is the most difficult of all issues: settle the rest and then turn to Jerusalem and you may succeed; otherwise you will not. If you want to succeed, if both sides wish to, if both hands are prepared to clap, there are ways of organising it so that the right flags fly over the right buildings. In his view it is possible to come to some arrangement if, and only if, both sides want it and both sides are clapping.
When considering this clapping process I was reminded of one of the classic jokes of my late father, who came from Wales and whom many noble Lords knew. It was about the fellow who went to a firm of
940
solicitors in Cardiff and asked for a one-armed lawyer. When asked why, he said, "I'm sick of lawyers saying 'On the one hand this, and on the other hand that'".
If you are going to make peace, you must have two hands and they both have to clap. If you do not, you will not get it. I believe, as every noble Lord has said, that hope comes with the election of Barak. It would be wrong for the House not to recognise the vibrant, difficult, vociferous democracy which is the state of Israel. Yes, there are internal problems; yes, they are the problems of a new state. They are in many ways more difficult than our own but some of us learnt to live for 18 years with a government whom we did not care for but with whom we had to combine. The Israelis now have a new government, which we must all hope will produce a coalition which will work for peace together. The best contribution we in this country can make is by helping both sides to clap, by working with both sides to help them come to terms.
I have had the pleasure of visiting most of the Arab countries, which are prepared to accept me as a Zionist Jew, and I have been received with great kindness and courtesy everywhere from the Yemen, Tunisia and Morocco to Jordan, Syria and Saudi. I know that the vast majority of the peoples of those countries wish to live in peace. They do not want war, they do not want their troops to go to the borders, they do not want their sons, and often daughters, to be armed and suffering. Therefore, if the governments can bring them together, there will be peace. I never forget that I learnt that when serving in the British Army in Germany as a war crimes investigator. I learnt from my visits each weekend to the displaced persons camp at Bergen-Belsen of the honors that people were suffering because they had nowhere to go and because Ernest Bevin and the Attlee Government were refusing them the right to go to a Jewish state, because no country wished to accept them and because they were left to rot. Well, that will not happen again.
The gathering in of the exiles is at the heart of Israel's approach to every problem. Its Jewish Agency and other organisations work to bring in people who are suffering, even today, from anti-Semitism. It is a great democracy; it wishes to live in peace; it has a new leader. I am sure that in this House we would all wish to do what we can to make both hands clap.
4.6 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, last Tuesday I missed the rebuke which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor administered to these Benches because, far from being bussed to Westminster, I was in a bus between Amman and Baghdad. I spent the latter half of last week in Iraq and saw at first hand some of the effects of sanctions on that country.
At the outset I must declare an interest. I work in the oil industry and most of that industry would today like to see UK sanctions withdrawn. That was not always the case as it has actually suited the world's oil industry to see Iraq's oil bottled up in that country for some time.
But the message which any visitor to Baghdad quickly learns is that sanctioned countries always learn to live with sanctions. As a relatively regular visitor—

941
once a year—I have noticed that this year the shops in Baghdad are better supplied and that virtually anything is obtainable at a price. Unfortunately, it is only those with access to foreign exchange who can afford the prices. The official classes, which are presumably the intended target of sanctions suffer least; the middle classes struggle; and the poor suffer real deprivation. In effect, sanctions bite hardest on those we least want to hurt.
If the argument runs that sanctions will persuade the masses to rise up against the government, then at least in Iraq that is a very flawed argument. Iraq has totally controlled media and an efficient security apparatus. Government propaganda blames the UN and the Western alliance for all the country's ills and the masses have no opinion of their own and hear no other opinion. They are not organised and cannot organise. Revolutions in any case are usually started by the middle classes—and in Iraq the middle classes are too busy trying to survive.
There is another old Arab proverb which says, "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I, my brother and my cousin against the world". In a society where it is unsafe to trust your cousin and certainly not your father-in-law, resistance is a seed difficult to germinate. It is my belief that there is more to be achieved by trying to integrate Iraq into the 21st century, to bring it back into the world, than by continuing sanctions. I have said time and time again to any Iraqi and anyone else who will listen to me that Iraq's problem has been its own policy of isolationism. If all the usual suspects, the big multinational companies, had had investments in plant, machinery, distribution, retailing and agriculture—not just in the oil industry but in other fields—it would have been almost impossible for the world, as it has done, simply to close the door on Iraq and lock it for eight years. As it is, no one has significant frozen and non-performing assets in that country, and no one really cares.
The message of the future must be for Iraq to embrace interdependence, to privatise business and commerce and to sell, say, 30 per cent of its industry to foreigners. Such a policy would revolutionise outside perception of the country and greatly increase its economic activity and security. The saddest aspect of sanctions is that a very large proportion of educated Iraqis—those over 30—have received at least a portion of their education in this country and look to Britain almost as a second home. That still represents an enormous store of good will, but if sanctions remain in place much longer a younger, more hardline generation who see Britain only as an enemy will take over. British companies lost out to US business in the rebuilding of Kuwait, the very country that Iraq destroyed. Perversely, we British could still get the lion's share of rebuilding the now weakened Iraq if we pursued the right policies.
Britain must carefully consider whether unstinting support for the Albright line on Iraq is in its best interests. After eight years with no concrete results, surely sanctions are a failed policy. Baghdad is full of Russians, Chinese, French, Canadians and others whose
942
governments take a more liberal, and ultimately more realistic, view. They are poised to act and grab the plums the day that sanctions end.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, noted, there is an Anglo-Dutch initiative to vary the sanctions regime to allow the limited development of new or refurbished oil fields so that Iraq can produce sufficient oil to meet its UN permitted export quota. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will tell the House about this and say what steps are to be taken to ensure that British companies get their fair share of any such work either if that initiative is successful or sanctions are withdrawn in the future.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for having secured this debate. I must also declare an interest. I work with Safer World, an independent charitable think tank which has just published a paper by Valerie Yorke that advocates a stronger lead by the European Union in pursuing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. That lasting peace is central to a stable future for the greater Middle East.
We all wish Ehud Barak well as he assumes his immense responsibilities as Prime Minister. He will have no greater challenge than peace. His candid, no nonsense commitment, coupled with his integrity, auger well for the future negotiations, even if some of his opening language has been tough. The European Union was clearly right at the Berlin summit on 25th March to declare its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian state. Such a state is essential if there is to be any hope of removing the festering sore which has for so long threatened the Israeli people.
Some have argued that the Oslo peace process has been discredited. I do not share that view. It is significant that independent agencies on the ground, for example World Vision, hold that important achievements have been secured. These include political dialogue; greater international recognition of the Palestinian cause; withdrawal of Israeli troops from some land at least; the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority and civil service, even if public administration not least on human rights leaves a great deal to be desired; control by the Palestinians of their own education, health, tourism, culture and direct taxation; and the attraction of aid and investment to the West Bank and Gaza, although, unforgivably, too much of this has not been well administered or effectively monitored.
Despite all this the past three years of Likud rule have seen a lamentable deterioration in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has referred to the huge problems. It is undeniable that the deliberate flexibility of the Oslo agreement provided Benyamin Netanyahu with the opportunity cynically to frustrate the return of Palestinian land while creating facts on the ground by the acceleration of new settlement building and the construction of roads and infrastructure which amounted to de facto annexation of disputed territory.

943
There are still the political prisoners—some suggest as many as 2,500—and the allegations of torture. World Vision, with its field experience, has produced a report which puts it well. While the Palestinian community as a body may have gained new political rights, rights for the individual have seen a serious decline as a result of continued divisions of land, encroachment by settlers—there have been 19 new settlements since last October alone—and draconian security provisions. The Palestinian community has been weakened economically, socially and politically by the restriction of communication between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israeli non-compliance with trade agreements, which has denied Palestinian business direct access to its own domestic market, let alone external markets, house demolitions, land confiscation—too often without proper compensation—withdrawal of identity cards, under-employment, unemployment and the acute stress involved in necessary daily travel.
In addition, the new Government of Israel inherit explosive issues such as the lack of equity in access to water resources and the systematic removal of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem. There are, no less importantly, the grave weaknesses in the Palestinian National Authority itself: corruption, human rights abuses and inefficiency. All of these will have to be addressed if the peace process is to be regenerated. Peace cannot be imposed from outside. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer reminded us, peace must be built and owned by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
But the outside world, not least our own Government and the European Union, can encourage both the new Israeli Government and the Palestinians in their peace endeavours by ensuring that all trade, aid and other relationships are geared towards furthering social justice and the action which is needed. The new Government in Israel and the public good will that they enjoy provide an exciting opportunity.
Palestinian statehood is vital for a lasting solution, but such statehood must not be merely symbolic. That would prove dangerously counter-productive. It will require defined borders and also freedom of movement and action both for those who govern Palestine and those they govern.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing this debate with his global view of the history of the causes of conflict there. Noble Lords will be aware that I also have interests in the Middle East. I first visited that region 40 years ago and since then have spent time there every year. I lived there for a period and have done business continually across the region in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian entity, Jordan, Turkey and the Gulf. In the Middle East I have watched ethnic conflicts, religious intolerance and nationalism leading to war.
I am pleased that I have only five minutes because I shall suggest something briefly that I would not presume to propose in a longer speech. For decades
944
some of us have attempted in the Middle East through dialogue across borders and the use of trade and commerce as a common language to deepen understanding and to find practical win-win solutions. Our aim is to appeal to the moderate peoples on all sides to gather sufficient consensus with determination to oppose destructive extremists.
Through that interest in the Middle East and North Africa I have been alerted to conflicts around the world: in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Kashmir and Central America. It appears to me that a new pattern and pace of events that erupt into violence, murder and war are occurring. There is a view that ethnicity will supersede ideology as the single most important source of conflict in the next century. This has to do with a new internationalism, the formation of huge trading blocs, and the scale, speed and growth of electronic communication. As a reaction, while smaller nations and republics demand the right to self-determination, people's passionate sense of their own ethnicity resurges and ferments to the point of conflict. Ethnic groups develop hatred for one another.
We can all see this happening at present. The only international action we take to resolve these disputes is to wait until the killing is at a level which justifies sending in the riot squad: radical violent surgery to effect a remission; killing to stop the killing. That is akin to invasive medical surgery and amputation as a cure of last resort. In the same way as in medicine we have developed more holistic and preventive approaches, I am convinced that earlier detection and more palliative intervention could be utilised if the world community could agree on international conventions to address racial hatred.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has embarked upon an ambitious global project to deal with financial turbulence before a crisis develops. Can we develop something similar for dealing with this global ethnic turbulence?
I return to the Middle East as an example. The peace process, however difficult, slow, imperfect and infuriating, seems to be making an important contribution to the subject of resolving ethnic conflict. If Barak and Arafat can be encouraged and helped to set a paradigm for settling these deep rifts (which for generations were considered too complex and too entrenched for resolution) we must look to them to learn lessons. I believe that there could be devised intervention, with legislation, designed to deal more with the governance issues of the conflict at art economic and human level before the police force and the military are used. Perhaps we could encourage the United Nations, or the new European Commission to consider a bold initiative.
I realise that the scale and complexity of the suggestion is huge, but where else can I make it but in this place? First, international models for resolving ethnic conflict should be adopted. Secondly, to inform this, extensive pragmatic research into the causes and consequences of ethnic conflict is needed. Thirdly, internationally accepted protocols for dealing with ethnic conflicts should be devised, with a policy of

945
earlier intervention. I shall be pleased to hear what the Minister believes. Does she feel that stronger international structures to deal earlier in the gestation of these conflicts could be put in place? Is it timely for a debate on these issues? Would it be worthwhile?
Finally, I should like to note that it is pleasing that after only three years of understandable traumatic reaction to Yitzhak Rabin's murder, the Israeli electorate has returned a Prime Minister in Ehud Barak who, like Rabin, links three policy issues in sequence: economic health; internal equal opportunity and religious tolerance; and, externally, peace with her neighbours. I know that he has the support already of the business community for this task; and I hope that the Israeli community leaders and the international bodies will play a positive role.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all rightly starting on an optimistic note because of the election victory of Ehud Barak. We all hope for an end to the diplomatic impasse and renewed commitment to the peace process. But the Palestinians displayed incredible endurance during Likud and right up to the elections. Their leadership wisely postponed declaration of a Palestinian state on 4th May, which had been a highly symbolic date under the Oslo agreement. Now they know they will have to wait again. We could easily spend time berating the former Prime Minister for hideous pre-election gambits such as last minute illegal settlements or the macho attack on the Palestinian headquarters. But that chapter is closed. It is now for Barak to fulfil his promises. He owes it—Israel owes it—to the memory of Yitzhak Rabin.
But it is also for European governments to show their cards. Are we giving adequate support to President Clinton, King Abdullah and President Mubarak, who have been quick to coax Mr. Barak back into the peace process while recognising the difficulties he still has in establishing his political position. Any delay now will fuel the resentment of both Palestinians and the growing numbers within Israel who favour the peace process. Barak needs to take immediate steps to make good what Netanyahu has undone. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, reminded us last year, it does not matter who is in power: it is Israel which needs to fulfil its obligations.
As a board member of Christian Aid, I have seen numerous reports from church and voluntary sources which testify to the continuing illegal and discriminatory policies of the Israeli Government on basic human rights such as land, water and agriculture. As I said in our last debate in January 1998, if we could not tolerate this inequality and oppression in South Africa, why should we tolerate it in Israel?
We hear that Har Homa will be stopped, but what will really change? The Palestinians in Jerusalem are being gradually squeezed out by Jewish expansion and new housing settlements. In 1993–97 there were twice as many demolitions of houses in the Palestinian sector even though Palestinians comprise only 30 per cent of the population and suffer twice the housing density.
946
The confiscation or expropriation of land for bypass roads linking Jewish settlements in the West Bank has been stepped up since the signing of the Wye accord. I have seen the details of structural plans of new roads and tunnels around Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron and Nablus. I have horrifying accounts of land grabbing, the uprooting of trees and the arbitrary building of new hilltop settlements, sometimes with the full support of the Israeli army.
For individual families in the path of bulldozers, it is a nightmare on the scale of an apocalypse and yet because of Kosovo, or because it is Israel, the world manages to let it happen. It contravenes UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and is in clear breach of the Wye accord which states that,
"neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank".
Indeed, Ministers such as Ariel Sharon have even incited settlers to flout international law and agreements signed by his government. The issue of residency in Jerusalem is and remains critical. Over 2,000 Palestinians were evicted in 1996–98 after their IDs had been confiscated. Children brought up in Jerusalem on their parents' IDs have lost their right to residency overnight. Last month the Israeli High Court postponed a decision on residency until September, so the case is still pending.
There is the case of closures—restrictions so inhuman that even ambulances with patients from Gaza have to wait four hours at the border on their way to hospital. Human rights and legal aid organisations are pointing out that for all these reasons Israel is ignoring the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. They are calling on the high contracting parties to this convention to adopt concrete and specific measures to implement it.
Our Foreign Office has reasserted under the Dublin declaration that an interstate duty to enforce the convention exists. But the Minister may like to confirm that Article 1 establishes a "right to take specific action" and leaves open a way for the parties to act in common.
It is not enough for Her Majesty's Government to join the call for a special conference. There is an imperative to respond to the escalation of violations against the rights of Palestinians and to protect them from any further illegal settlements and attacks on personal property. Now that they have shown such political restraint, they surely deserve a new international initiative to require Israel to end its discrimination and re-enter the peace process as soon as possible.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for this opportunity to speak about the greater Middle East. If there had been more time I should have liked to deal with the problem of religious persecution, in particular that of Christian minorities which was recently highlighted by the US State Department report on religious freedom. The Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Human Rights, John Shattuck, stated:
"The issue of persecution is a serious one, affecting many religions. The issue has not previously received much attention with respect to Christians".

947
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, recently raised yet again in the House the problems of slavery, and there are instances of that in this area. But I wish to concentrate on one aspect in view of the shortage of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was a little hard on the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because it was a full six minutes before he got on to the subject of Israel. So we must acknowledge the noble Lord's tour d'horizon before that. If we debate Israel and security, we have to remind ourselves each time of the behaviour of the Germans before and during the war, and even now the behaviour of the French. The recent trial of Maurice Papon has exposed a very sordid and grubby story about the behaviour of a large number of French during the last war. Those are the very countries which now try and read us penny lectures on human rights.
We must always bear the background in mind. When Menachem Begin came here as Prime Minister, he said, "Never again". We have to respect that and the influence it has on Israeli thinking. Mention has been made of the possibility of nuclear weapons. If the Israelis had not attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor installation, goodness knows what might have happened during the course of the Gulf War. That has not been properly recognised.
The hopes raised by the recent election of Mr. Barak have already been mentioned substantially, and it is to be hoped that the start of the political process will lead to solutions emerging. We ought to begin to think about the stage after that.
The early Fabians were known as the "gas and water" socialists. They did not declaim in Hyde Park, like people such as H. M. Hyndman, but they got their name because they realised that until people had heat and light in their homes, were able to cook their food and to have clean water which they could drink without going down with appalling diseases, nothing much mattered to them.
If we look at this region, we know that the Middle East has very substantial oil resources—some 40 per cent of the world's known reserves. It also has very substantial natural gas resources—some 30 to 40 per cent. However, there is a great problem with water and the problem is such that it really has to be solved by international co-operation between states.
Given this background, we know that the Israelis have a very great amount of technical knowledge, and I believe that if we can make progress on the political problems of the area there will be a real peace dividend and the whole area will benefit from inter-state co-operation on these very fundamental problems of everyday living. That was a concept which was very dear to the heart of Shimon Peres, arid I think that his contribution to the process and those ideas should not be overlooked. I believe that this is the way forward for the Middle East now. We have to appreciate just what can be done. Perhaps I may recall the words of the Prime Minister on the 15th January 1998, when he said:
"The Israeli people have proven their dedication, their abilities, their ingenuity. Those assets in the service of peace could transform the whole region…nothing would entrench peace more firmly."
948
The peace dividend will be international co-operation to solve the region's problem of resources. We all know the saying about giving a man a fish and you will feed him for a day but if you give him a fishing rod he can feed himself for life.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too would like to speak about the recent Israeli election, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for giving us the opportunity. Surprisingly, one thing Israelis may miss now the election is over is the fun of the party "commercials" on television. All the parties had their television commercials in a 30-minute slot each evening. According to many Israelis, it was the funniest 30 minutes on television for some years. One particularly good computer-generated cartoon showed a party's opponents dancing to the music of their disreputable supporters. The Green Leaf Party had a dreamy commercial, which I can only describe as reflecting the lifestyle of legalised cannabis. The Pernina Rosenbloom Party had all the right rhetoric, but the commercials tended to concentrate on her cosmetics and fashion business. One commercial of interest to my noble friend Lord Kennet was the image of a very pregnant Chairman Arafat lying on the floor ready to give birth at any moment to the Palestinian state. Surrounding him were politicians in medical gowns, urging him to hold on until after the election.
So on television the election was fun. But what was it about? The peace process? I am not sure that it really was about the peace process. Suddenly there were differences in rhetoric and tone about peace, but there is a consensus in Israel that Oslo and Wye are the only way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, spoke about the polls and said that 65 per cent of Israelis recognised that there would be a Palestinian state. At the same time another poll showed that 80 per cent of Israelis were ready to give up land for peace. Those figures indicate that most Israelis think there is no other game in town. The difference is speed and strategy.
So if the election was not about peace, what was it about? I think it was about identity. Israelis take their politics very seriously. Many were dismayed to find that they are living in a seriously divided country. They are particularly disturbed by the secular and religious divide. The excessive power of the ultra-Orthodox, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, causes both disgust and disquiet. But that is not the only division. There are divisions between the immigrant groups: the Russians and the north Africans, the Sephardi and Ashkanazi, the east Europeans and the west Europeans—and this in spite of the wonderful job that Israel does in absorbing immigrants. What Israelis have learnt is that absorbing immigrants is not enough: they have to be integrated.
This was pointed out a couple of years ago in an important study of Ethiopian immigrants into Israel. The study was carried out by Jewish Policy Research, which is a Jewish think-tank based here in London. I have to declare an interest as the deputy chairman of that body.

949
The study showed that while a tremendous national effort was made to bring the Ethiopian immigrants into Israel and absorb them, there were problems about integrating them into Israeli society.
According to the study, the difficulty of integration was caused by classic race relations problems. There is something quite shocking about a people who have suffered from anti-Semitism for many, many generations showing racial bigotry in their own country. This disturbed many Israelis. So ending these divisions is not just a matter of reining back the power of the ultra-Orthodox religious groups. It is also a matter of integrating into Israeli society the different ethical and cultural groups through education and employment, together with building the legal, social and institutional framework which is necessary for achieving that.
We in Britain have much to contribute. We have faced up to these problems, and we have experience of how to deal with them. I believe that Israel is anxious to benefit from Britain's and Europe's experience and understanding of the problem. Indeed, Jewish Policy Research has already been approached by the Democracy Institute in Jerusalem to frame some ideas about how to develop Israel's democratic institutions so as to avoid problems of polarisation and division.
I think it is important that the Minister should be aware of what is going on. In his election speech, Mr. Barak said:
"The time has come to end divisions".
Those of us with good will towards Israel all share that vision, and I have tried to show how we can perhaps help to achieve it.
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I wish first to touch on humanitarian needs. Throughout the Middle East there is a great need for economic development. I endorse the work of the European Union and of the Arab states in contributing a great deal. I hope that the Government will continue to support European Union economic development there.
Secondly, I wish to mention Iraq where, as my noble friend Lord Torrington, said, perhaps the greatest humanitarian need in the greater Middle East exists. I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Minister for having put the UN panel reports in the Library. I found them very interesting reading.
The extent of malnutrition in Iraq has stabilised in the south and central areas and has improved in the north, but the problem is still great. Is food actually being distributed to those most in need? I wonder if the monitors are satisfied.
At col. 292 of Hansard of 13th May, the noble Baroness referred to the 275 million dollars-worth of medical supplies languishing in warehouses. Why is it languishing there? Is it the Iraqi Government's lack of vehicles which does not enable them to distribute the supplies? Is any action being proposed by our Government?
950
The "oil for food" scheme uses up all the available Iraqi oil, but that is insufficient to feed the nation. Should oil industry spare parts and equipment, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Torrington, be authorised to improve the supply of oil? Secondly, should frozen Iraqi assets be released to provide additional funds for the purchase of food and medicine? Thirdly, because it seems that agriculture and the local economy suffer from the effect of imports, is there any way in which the humanitarian monitors can be permitted to buy food locally?
Leaving humanitarian needs, I wish to say a few words on government and democracy in the Middle East. I shall not mention the Israeli democracy; that is clear democracy. Turkey and Iran have elections, although perhaps it is arguable that in Turkey the army is more powerful than the government and can dispose of the government if it so wishes.
Of course, other countries have elections. The Syrian president was re-elected by 99.9 per cent of the vote, which tells us something about the Syrian election. But it is worth noting that the Syrian president permits the Orthodox Patriarch in Damascus to criticise the government and he does so. So there is good in all these different countries.
I turn to religious and ethnic persecution. I believe that religion and ethnicity are totally inseparable in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about the Crusades. It is worth reminding noble Lords that reconciliation work has been going on for three years, apologising for the evil of the Crusades. It reaches its zenith in Jerusalem this year, a thousand years after the Crusade arrived in 999. Many countries have good inter-faith relations. Syria does with the Christians but not with Jews. In some countries there is murder and abduction.
Finally, I wish to touch on one particular aspect and ask the noble Baroness about the plight of the Syrian orthodox in south-east Turkey, in Tur Abdin. The FCO has received a memorandum about that in the past few months and British diplomats visited the area recently. These Syrian orthodox Christians are squeezed between Turks and Kurds and are harassed by both, as Christians in Israel are harassed by both Moslems and Jews. The governor of this part of Turkey has forbidden any education to take place in the monasteries, particularly of the Christian faith and the Syrian language; has forbidden the receiving of visitors; and has forbidden building work on the monasteries. The situation is very difficult. It appears that an attempt is being made completely to remove the Syrian orthodox in that area of Tur Abdin. What steps are the Government taking to enable those people to enjoy basic human rights?
4.43 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing the debate. I am also grateful for his historical résumé of the conflicts over the ages in the greater Middle East.
The title of the debate refers to the greater Middle East, but it is not surprising that the debate has largely focused on Israeli and Arab relationships, particularly

951
the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Little can be said in a two-and-a-half-hour debate on the complex problems involved in the extremely difficult negotiations required in the search for peaceful and harmonious solutions between Israel and its neighbours.
Furthermore, it is not surprising that there will be considerable tension in Israel. There are 6 million people in the state of Israel, in a region of 100 million Arabs. Therefore, I suggest that understanding and tolerance must be displayed by all those interested in peace. We must all do what we can to encourage greater trust and confidence to try to remove, or reduce as far as possible, the fear and insecurity which exists. Only in that way will the negotiations for a peaceful settlement succeed.
The objective must be peace in the Middle East—not revenge or reprisal, but peace—to secure a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. That must be encouraged and helped by everyone. Israelis living in peace in Israel and the Palestinians living in peace in their old state of Palestine must eventually take place.
I have mentioned trust and confidence. I believe that Mr. Rabin did so much to encourage that. Regrettably, during the past four years Mr. Netanyahu did much to reverse the process. The election of Mr. Barak renews much hope for continuing peaceful negotiations. It is important to see that the recent election result was welcomed by Mr. Arafat and, perhaps more importantly, by Syria which now wishes to re-open the peace negotiations suspended when Mr. Netanyahu was elected four years ago.
Peaceful negotiations are never easy, as we all know too well from the discussions in Northern Ireland. With Israel's ultra-democratic structure, the Labour Party there does not have an overall majority, and obvious difficulties will arise in the Knesset. Nevertheless, I believe that the election result reflects a genuine wish on the part of the Israeli people to achieve a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours throughout the Middle East. I know that the British Government will do all in their power to assist—not interfere, which often breeds unnecessary suspicion—in every way possible to bring about a lasting peace and settlement in the Middle East.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennet on giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today. Any discussion of the Middle East peace process usually reflects American domination of the peace process and in brokering agreements such as the Wye River memorandum. In almost inverse proportion to that knowledge of the American role is any proper appreciation of the role of the European Union; and yet the European Union is the largest single donor and its budgetary contributions are the linchpin of the Middle East peace process strategy, providing some 52 cents in the dollar of external financial assistance to underpin the peace process.
However, the diversity of the EU's financial instrument prevents its programmes having the visibility that their volume deserves. That is especially
952
unfortunate when the ground is now being prepared for the next stage of the peace process, Palestinian statehood. I believe that that stage has been greatly assisted by the election result in Israel, referred to by so many noble Lords. Following the election, it is imperative that the European Union continues its three main objectives for regional help and regional action in the context of the peace process.
First, the European Union must continue to help the people-to-people networks between the civil societies of Israel and its neighbours as an essential foundation for creating both a climate for peace and for future economic and social co-operation.
Secondly, the European Union process must develop and promote cross-border infrastructure projects serving both to foster regional economic development and to integrate the physical infrastructure on all sides. Thirdly, and very important, the European Union must help to facilitate the continuation and development of back-channels of communication between the parties to help prepare the ground for efficient negotiations, which will undoubtedly have to take place, on permanent status.
To focus effectively on those three objectives and to ensure a more cohesive approach requires several immediate steps to be undertaken in relation to European Union financial assistance. There must be an immediate increase in the size of the people-to-people budget as an essential confidence-building measure in the region. But, additionally, the various European Union programmes need to be more specifically and explicitly allocated to Mashraq Israel issues, whether the micro actions already there in the spirit of the Barcelona declaration to encourage such actions as inter-faith dialogue or the Med programmes for decentralised co-operation which exist currently, creating regional networks between the Israelis, their Middle East peace process neighbours and European Union partners.
Other programmes, such as the Meda democracy programme, a human rights programme with a specific budget line, need to be increased and need to be able to assist in a number of specific ways; for example, policies to deal with infringements of human rights, whether by Israelis or Palestinians, and a fuller integration in Israel of Israeli Arabs.
But perhaps the most important part of the programme is in relation to the Meda regional budget. There are already in the pipeline specific allocations for projects which have been identified and studied. It is the bringing of such programmes to fruition which could have a very significant effect in the region—the Jenin-Haifa cross-border programme, which involves Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Jordan Valley water projects, which involve Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, or the economic development on the south-eastern coast of the Mediterranean or the northern coast of the Red Sea, involving Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Such programmes will make a distinctive contribution.
For those whose European vision goes no further than incantations about whether they can have their money back, the European Union record in the Middle East is

953
valued and valuable. The EP and national governments must join hands in ensuring that the objectives remain; that the resources remain available and are used effectively; and that our citizens know of our collective pivotal role through our membership of the European Union.
4.53 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the title of this debate as well as the introductory remarks of my noble friend Lord Kennet have given us the latitude, which has barely been exploited, to range over a wide geographical area. Today, I should like to draw attention to the region of the Transcaucasus and the countries which surround the great inland ocean which is the Caspian Sea.
That is the region which supplied most of the world's oil at the end of the last century, at a time when Arabia's major export was palm dates. If some recent predictions are to be believed, the region is set to regain some of its former importance to the West. It has never ceased to produce oil in large quantities but until the early 1990s, the oil was wholly pre-empted by the Soviet Union.
Now, instead of flowing northwards, the oil is set to flow westwards through a newly constructed pipeline which will pass through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea port of Suspa. A further pipeline is mooted which would carry the oil through Turkey to the eastern Mediterranean where it would be shipped from the small port of Ceyhan, not far from Cyprus and the Turkish border with Syria.
The West seems intent on gathering the spoils from the defeat of the Russian empire, but there are other motives driving that enterprise. Just when the demise of the Soviet Union made Caspian oil accessible to the West, Iraqi oil was embargoed during the Gulf crisis of 1990. Simultaneously, the US sought to restrain the development of Iranian oil exports to punish that nation for its involvement in anti-western terrorism. Therefore, it seemed logical to seek to replace the lost production of Iraq and Iran by Caspian oil.
At present, the global demand for oil is no longer pushing against the limits of productive capacity and some of the initial enthusiasm of the western oil companies has been dissipated. Nevertheless, it seems certain that the Caspian is set to play a major role in the petro-politics of the 21st century. Therefore, at this juncture, we should reflect upon the woeful history of western oil exploitation in the Middle East. We should recognise the dangers of a short-sighted pursuit of our own economic and commercial interests.
We might ask ourselves how we have reached a position where some of the major oilfields in the Middle East are inaccessible to us and where we are constrained to look for alternative supplies. We should also question the wisdom of seeking wholly to divert to the West the oil which was once a Russian monopoly.
To illustrate the nature of the exploitation of Caspian oil by western companies, I should like to describe the oilfield installations at Tengis on the north-eastern shore
954
of the Caspian in Kazakhstan. That represents a joint venture by Chevron, Mobil and the Government of Kazakhstan.
Situated in the midst of the debris of a previous Soviet oil exploitation, the installation looks neat and clean. The western expatriates and their Kazakh partners work in prefabricated metal buildings which were shipped in when the installation was under construction. The plant relies upon the surrounding area for almost nothing. Even the food for the thousands of employees is trucked in by suppliers based in western Europe.
Admittedly, a good proportion of the profit from that joint enterprise will flow into the state treasury of Kazakhstan, but whether any of that will give rise to local economic development or will percolate down to the local population is, seemingly, a matter of no concern to the western partners in the joint enterprise.
To illustrate the political dangers which so often attend the exploitation of oil reserves in the Middle East, we might try to answer the question as to why the West no longer has access to the plentiful oilfields in Iran. The story is too long to recount in detail but we might begin by going back 50 years to a time when the Anglo-Iranian oil company was threatened with expropriation by the nationalist President Muhammad Mossadek. That man had a history of opposing foreign interests. For example, he had resisted the granting of an oil concession to the USSR in northern Iran. In 1953, he was deposed by a coup mounted by the Royalist Pahlavi faction with the considerable assistance of the CIA and British intelligence services. The rest, as they say, is history.
Western governments no longer intervene in that manner, so we believe. Usually they seek to minimise their engagement in middle-eastern politics. Nowadays they prefer to leave oil exploitation to international companies. However, it seems clear that such a policy of disengagement is equally hazardous. We have the Gulf War and all its consequences to substantiate that fact.
I wish to propose that the exploitation of oil, wherever it be found, should be governed by international pacts compelling the exploiting countries to invest in the local economies in support of their economic development. Such a compulsion might reduce the direct profits of the oil companies but, to the extent that it would avert the trouble and turmoil which has attended exploitation in the past, it would pay handsome economic dividends.
The hidden costs of the West's exploitation of oil in the past 50 years, which are attributable to political instability and warfare, are incalculable. It is surely in the interests of the exploiting nations to do all that is practical to ensure the economic development and the political stability of the countries in which they find the resources.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing the debate. I add something more than just a conventional set of thanks. The noble Lord,

955
Lord Kennet, has a way of making us all think, sometimes even about the unthinkable. For that, we should be extremely grateful.
In the course of our remarks, I would like to say also that I am delighted to see that the Minister has recovered from what I understand was a rather disagreeable bout of food poisoning. It is delightful to see her, phoenix-like, already on the Front Benches.
Finally, in these preliminary remarks, I wish to add to the excellent and well-chosen remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on the subject of King Hussein. Many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to the new phase which is opening in the Middle East as a moment of great opportunity. Many of us recognise that it would have been a moment upon which King Hussein would have seized, and we all hope that his successor will also find it a great opportunity for Jordan. Unquestionably, time and again, Jordan has been a zone of stability in a deeply unstable region and it is right and proper for us to pay tribute to what it has done to try to maintain peace in the region now over many stormy years.
Let me, too, start with the subject of Israel, because it is the elections in that country that make this a great opportunity. It was wonderful to hear the new Prime Minister, Mr. Barak, talk of the possibility of withdrawal from southern Lebanon in the relatively short period of a year, and also about the possibility of a partial withdrawal from the Golan Heights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Jacobs, pointed out that those things were related to one another; that Israel could not concede one without the certainty of security that might be offered to it from another part of what is likely to be a complicated and difficult deal.
It is also important to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others did, that there is still some way to go before the new prime minister can establish a stable coalition committed to peace in the Middle East. I understand that in the past couple of days there have been literally tens of thousands of e-mails reaching the One Israel Party from its own supporters, begging it not to make a coalition with Shas, because Shas is seen by some as too orthodox and too committed to orthodox religion to be an appropriate partner for the One Israel Party. On the other side there are those who says that a coalition that includes Likud after its recent history would not be able to carry conviction in pursuing peace in the Middle East.
I say that because all of us in this House wish the prime minister well. We respect and admire him and hope very much that he is able to proceed. But we would be foolish not to recognise the extreme difficulty he is up against in carrying his own complicated and diverse public opinion with him. That is why a number of noble Lords pointed out that the one function we can perform is to help in every possible way we can. In that respect what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said about some of the programmes for regional development which have been financed by and are now proposed by the European Union, could he of great importance.
956
Let me say one other word about the Israeli situation. It is clear that beyond southern Lebanon and beyond the Golan Heights lie the difficult issues of resettlement and Jerusalem. It may be possible, as noble Lords suggested, for the settlements to be dealt with by some exchange of land, but one should be very clear that further settlements will put a great strain on the possibilities of a lasting peace. In relation to Jerusalem. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Jacobs for what he said in passing about the possibility of what he called a "Vatican solution", which we did not further discuss. Last year I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Arafat and he himself said at that point that possibly a Vatican solution might be the answer to a problem not just of a city, but a city that is, for many of the religions of the world and above all for Judaism, a symbol and a vision arid therefore very much more than simply a piece of territory. That may be one area where there could be some movement forward. I accept what many noble Lords said; that is, that it must be the end of the process and not the beginning.
I want to say something about the wider Middle Eastern situation, for what can be done by Israel depends upon the stability of the region as a whole. In that context I want to say a word or two about Iran and a word or two about Iraq. On 19th May—I am delighted that the Foreign Office agreed to this—there was an exchange of full diplomatic representation with Iran. We have for the first time in many years a full Ambassador here and not just a chargé d'affaires.
Iran is slowly beginning to make progress. There have been relatively democratic elections to Islamic councils throughout the country. This weekend 107,000 councillors will be either assembled or approached and reached by other means of communication to help them in establishing democratic structures at the lowest level, which is where democracy has to start. Even more unusual and interesting is that the Government of Iran recently approached the Government of Saudi Arabia with a view to establishing more close and friendly relations. We would be well repaid in encouraging President Khamenei and those around him to feel that he would get a response from the West if he continued to pursue the admittedly difficult and painful road towards some degree of greater accountability, openness and democracy in Iran.
It is appropriate and right that we should remember that this is a state that has lived through some of the most traumatic events of the 20th century in respect of the nationalism to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred, followed by the so-called "white revolution", which for many peasants meant their disowning, followed by the Khomeini return and, not least at the end of the day, by the problems and huge losses of the desperate war with Iraq.
That brings me to Iraq. We may have to ask ourselves whether, after nine years, the policy of sanctions is not reaching the point of futility. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, both referred to the humanitarian crisis, which is undoubted—it is one of the most serious in the world—and to the gradual deterioration of the infrastructure of the oil industry in that country. I understand that the United States is now

957
talking about raising the cap of 10.5 million dollars on the permitted production of oil by Iraq. Of course, the fall in the oil price has meant that Iraq is even less able than she was before to ensure that her people are fed.
The most desperate news in the past 24 hours is that there is an extremely serious drought in Iraq which has brought with it as much as a two-thirds drop in the barley crop and a one-third drop in the wheat crop. I do not suggest that we take a sentimental approach to Iraq. But we should consider carefully whether some new trade-off between the gradual lifting of sanctions in return only for UNSCOM in a new and stronger form coming back might at least be considered after what appears to have been an increasingly futile policy.
Finally, let me refer to the imaginative contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, who talked a little bit about the wider issues that now arise in the globalised world. He said that it looked as though ethnicity and ethnic hatreds were beginning to replace ideology as the source of war. He is right. Also as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, the growing sense among many of the losers in a globalised world that they wish to assert their belonging to a religion, a community or a social group is one of the most difficult issues that the world now confronts. We know it ourselves in a small form from Quebec, for example, in a highly developed and well governed state. But in a poor, desperate and relatively hopeless state, belonging becomes the only thing onto which human beings can hold.
I therefore conclude these short remarks on my part by saying that we need to look at how to create some hope for the marginalised countries in the globalised world; for some kind of future that will make them feel that peace and the conclusion of conflict is the way forward and not simply, as we have seen, alas, in the Balkans, Africa and elsewhere, the destruction by one people of another which can only bring us destruction and despair.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on securing this debate. It is timely to have this opportunity to discuss developments in the greater Middle East, so soon after the stalled Middle East peace process has, as other noble Lords have mentioned, been imbued with fresh hope and optimism in the wake of last week's elections in Israel.
The untimely death of King Hussein of Jordan, truly the father of his nation, has emphasised the fact that the winds of change and of uncertainty are blowing through the region. A process of succession is now under way after decades of unchanging rule in most of the Arab countries of the Middle East. To date, the transitions in Jordan and Bahrain have been encouragingly smooth, but only the days ahead will tell whether these are the exceptions rather than the rule. In formulating its policies towards the Middle East, the international community must take into account that, over the next decade, regional leaders who have built up credibility and legitimacy over many years will be replaced by a
958
younger generation. We must be prepared for a potential power vacuum as these leaders take time to establish themselves; but, equally, the new rulers may be freer from the ideological chains of the past that shackled their predecessors.
The rulers of the Middle East, both new and established, must make a choice of direction. One choice of direction leads backwards, to a continuation of the region's turbulent, conflict-ridden past, a path of poverty, inequality and hostility to near neighbours. That, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, is the path where extremist movements will find fertile ground to nurture the seeds of discontent and to exploit religion for their own political ends.
The other choice of direction leads ahead to a future of peace, a future of greater stability, a future of prosperity and of democratic participation. That choice of direction has still to be made. The international community has a critical role to play in influencing it, with all to gain and much to lose. Many speakers this afternoon have agreed that the indicators for the future are mixed. There are hopeful signs that the next century will see the countries of the Middle East committed to the path of peace, prosperity, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Life may be about to be breathed back into the Arab-Israeli peace process, stalled on all tracks over the past two and a half years.
Indeed, after years of bloody confrontation, other optimistic signs can be found. Islamic extremism has increasingly retreated in Algeria and Egypt, and across the Arab world a gradual process of political liberalisation and economic reform, referred to by a number of noble Lords as being so important—and rightly so—is taking place.
In Morocco, the opposition have become the government; in Qatar, women have voted for the first time in a Gulf Co-operation Council state, while last week, the Emir Sheikh Jaber in Kuwait announced the enfranchisement of women in elections. The Palestinian Authority is being held to account by an elected Palestinian legislative council and in Yemen and Kuwait democratic, multi-party elections have been held. Moreover, North Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco have all implemented significant and far-reaching economic reforms.
A number of noble Lords also referred to developments in Iran. I believe that there is guarded optimism that President Khatami's election and the recent local elections will continue to usher in a new era of political liberalisation and much hope for tolerance. There is hope that Iran will increasingly play a constructive role in regional and international affairs. However, as some noble Lords have pointed out, other indicators in the region are not positive. Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the UN Security Council threatens to destabilise the Gulf, while exacting a very heavy price from the Iraqi people. The region cannot take its rightful place in the international community and fully realise its global aspirations while such pariah regimes operate within it; while certain of its governments turn a blind eye to terrorism or, in some cases, actively support it and provide havens for

959
terrorists; and while the single-minded pursuit of the acquisition and development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iran still offers the spectre of the region's backsliding into another era of extremism and conflict, marked by a new arms race in WMDs and the ballistic missiles necessary to deliver them. As alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the Middle East would be a region of vital interest to this country and to Europe, if for no other reason than it continues to account for 35 per cent of the world's oil production and nearly 70 per cent of its proven reserves.
On the question of the Middle East peace process, we on these Benches join other noble Lords in congratulating Prime Minister-elect Barak on his election victory and on the strong mandate that he has won from the Israeli electorate. We welcome his stated desire to seek a broad-based coalition government. We look forward to the emergence of such a government, willing to play its full part in realising the historic goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting Arab-Israeli peace, on the basis of security for the Israelis and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people, with statehood as an option. The people of Israel have spoken and they have made their wishes very clear indeed. While, as always, I deeply respect the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I believe from my position that it was also possible to read their vote as a wish to break the stalemate on the peace process.
As this House is well aware, there has long been consensus in British policy on the route to the goal of peace—a route based on respect for the principles of international law. These principles enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions held the key to unlocking peace first between Egypt and Israel and then between Jordan and Israel. They will ultimately unlock peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The stalling of the Arab-Israeli peace process on all tracks over the past two and a half years has, in my view, obscured the fact that, in the six years since the historic signing of the Oslo peace accords, much has been achieved.
Despite the renewed hope, this is certainly not a time for euphoria. The road to peace is only half travelled. Some of those treading its path have lost their way before, and may do so again. The obstacles are formidable and have been alluded to by noble Lords throughout the debate, ranging from hurdles which are placed by those who would use the tactics of terror to seek their own extreme goals to the simple truth that without prosperity peace cannot take root, and without peace prosperity cannot grow.
The international community has always sought to help the region to nurture the shoots of peace and to move the region away from open warfare, intractable hostility and suffering towards the fruits of peace and prosperity. In this environment, and having listened most carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, had to say, it is critical that neither side establishes hard-line conditions which might make a settlement—for example, including one on Jerusalem—not just more difficult but impossible. We have a real opportunity at
960
the moment. That is an important point and one upon which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will agree with me.
Finally, I have a few words to say about Jordan. Successive British governments have had long-standing and close relationships with Jordan. One of Israel's key Arab partners in the peace process and a voice of calm in a turbulent region, Jordan, nevertheless, faces daunting economic challenges and has yet to receive the peace dividend due to it. Therefore, it is all the more incumbent on the Government—and, indeed, on this House—to send a strong signal of support for King Abdullah in the transition period following the death of King Hussein, as he follows in the footsteps of his father and continues Jordan's critically important role as mediator through this period of ongoing regional tension, especially in Iraq. I hope that the Minister will send such a signal when she concludes the debate in a few moments.
Standing as we do in the shadow of the 21st century, from these Benches we will support the Government in the action that they take to encourage the creation of momentum towards positive change and a comprehensive peace, so that the new millennium ushers in a new era of co-existence and regional co-operation for Israel and its Arab neighbours.
5.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for bringing forward the debate this evening. My noble friend is right to draw our attention to this region at a time when such important changes are taking place, as many noble Lords have remarked during the course of our debate. My noble friend introduced the debate in his characteristic forthright way. I am sure that many noble Lords were interested in the points that he made. This is a time of real opportunity. It is a time for us to look at the developing links we have with some of the new governments in the area and it is a time for strengthening our links with our friends of old.
Most of your Lordships have concentrated on Israel and Iraq, although other countries and other parts of the area have attracted some attention. In summing up the debate I shall concentrate on the areas on which your Lordships have concentrated. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, in congratulating Mr. Barak on his victory in Israel's recent general election. I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in forming his new government. We look forward to working with Mr. Barak both on the peace process and on strengthening the strong ties that exist between our two countries.
On the peace process, noble Lords will be familiar with the problems that have held up progress over the past two years, and most recently the protracted negotiations leading up to Wye; the frustration as Israel ceased implementing Wye; and the stalemate on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the peace process. Like many noble Lords—notably the noble Lords,

961
Lord Quinton and Lord Weidenfeld—Her Majesty's Government believe that Mr. Barak's victory in the Israeli elections brings a new opportunity for progress in the Middle East peace process. We hope that all parties to the process will seize this opportunity. Once the new government are in place, we hope to see engagement on all tracks of the peace process. In particular, we expect the new government to press ahead with implementation of the Wye River Memorandum and to resume final status talks on an accelerated basis.
Real final status talks on Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security, borders and water—on all these matters—are essential if we are to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement in the region. The United States, whose involvement is essential, has made clear that it is willing to relaunch the negotiations soon and to call a summit later this year. That is a welcome development. But, of course, the United Kingdom and the European Union also have important roles to play. We have helped to bring the parties this far through diplomatic contacts and pressure on both sides, substantial aid for the Palestinian Authority, and most recently through the Berlin European Council Declaration which helped provide the Palestinians with the reassurance they needed not to declare unilateral independence.
We are concerned that tensions remain high in south Lebanon after recent violent exchanges between Israel and Hezbullah. We urge restraint on all sides and respect for the April 1996 understanding. We are heartened by the reaffirmation by Ehud Barak of his pre-election pledge to withdraw Israeli troops from Lebanon within a year of taking office. We greatly welcomed Mr. Barak saying that after the election.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked why the European Union does not do more. I hope that he felt that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson gave a fairly comprehensive description of what the European Union has done so far. I remind my noble friend that the Berlin European Council Declaration calls for an early resumption of negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, leading to the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 425. We support efforts to revive activity on these tracks as the best way to achieve a truly comprehensive peace settlement. We shall certainly do all we can to support progress towards that. Like my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Davies of Coity, Her Majesty's Government believe that we must now renew our efforts on this front and that we are justified in feeling a renewed hope for peace. Of course we recognise that there is much hard work ahead too.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, talked about the preferential trade agreements of the EU/Israel Association Agreement. The United Kingdom ratified the agreement in April 1998—France and Belgium still have to do so—and once the ratification procedures have been completed in all European member states, the Council of Ministers will need to take a decision to conclude on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. This is an important
962
matter. This decision must be considered carefully in the light of progress on the peace process. It is important that we consider these preferential trade arrangements. I remind your Lordships that the United Kingdom supported the donor ministerial conference in Washington on 30th November 1998 and that we announced a bilateral three-year package of aid which will provide £50 million worth of assistance to bring the United Kingdom's total contribution, including through the European Union and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to over £100 million.
My noble friend Lord Judd drew our attention to the allegations about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Of course we are concerned about those allegations and we continue to monitor the issue closely. However, we are satisfied that the United Kingdom bilateral aid is not affected. At the donors' conference the United Kingdom urged the Palestinian Authority to improve transparency and effective financial control. I hope that that gives my noble friend some assurances on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was understandably concerned about the illegal settlements. We continue to regard the settlements as illegal under international law and as an obstacle to peace. I have said that to the noble Earl before and I reiterate that assurance now. The Berlin Declaration urges all parties to refrain from all unilateral acts, including unilateral settlement activity. The Prime Minister included a recommendation for a freeze on settlement activity in his message of congratulation to Mr. Barak at the time of the election.
The noble Earl also drew our attention to the problems regarding water in the area. Through the European Union we are playing an active role in the multilateral Water Resources Working Group. The Department for International Development also continues to assist the Palestinians on water issues. My honourable friend George Foulkes in the DfID pledged £7 million in November 1998 for water and sanitation projects which will be aimed at improving supplies and also, of course, environmental health.
My noble friend Lord Kennet reiterated a view that he has expressed to your Lordships before; namely, that of double standards as between Israel and Iraq. I genuinely believe that he is wrong on that issue. We insist that each country should comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions in accordance with their obligations under the United Nations Charter. Beyond that, the situations are entirely different. As regards Israel, despite the difficulties, the Security Council resolutions provide the basis for negotiations which we believe offer the best prospect of realising the interests of the people of the region in securing the comprehensive peace which we all hope for. However, in the case of Iraq, there are no such negotiations.
I thank my noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath for his ideas. I will pass them on to my colleagues with frontline responsibilities for our relationship with Israel. These are issues that fall within the remit of the United Nations Security Council, but they are important in looking at ways, imaginative and innovative ways, in which we can try to rebuild the confidence that will be so badly needed if peace is to settle in the Middle East.

963
I too would like to say something, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did, about our relationship with Jordan and to associate Her Majesty's Government with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Janner in everything that he said about King Hussein and King Abdullah.
We were delighted to receive King Abdullah and Queen Rania when they visited the UK from 11th to 12th May. During their successful visit the King had talks with Her Majesty the Queen and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister among others. We have an excellent, long-standing relationship with Jordan, which remains a key player in regional matters ranging from the peace process to the situation over Iraq. We welcome King Abdullah's assurances of continuing Jordanian commitment to the peace process. That commitment on the part of Jordan has been extremely important in the past.
Perhaps I may also say a few words about Iran, where we have seen some very positive developments in the recent past. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, the Iranian Government under President Khatami have undertaken a programme of significant change: proper enforcement of the rule of law; full facilitation of freedom of expression; and a more open and co-operative foreign policy aimed at enhancing regional stability. We too have been very pleased to see the improving relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi defence and foreign Ministers have visited Tehran, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, and President Khatami has just completed an equally successful visit to Saudi Arabia. There has been very successful co-operation between the two countries within OPEC.
We believe that these are developments much to be welcomed, as is our improving relationship, which the noble Baroness also mentioned, with our exchange of ambassadors, which we believe will be a boost to the relationship. Not everything is right; we still have our concerns, as the House will know from our previous discussions on these issues, on the human rights front, but we believe that it is a relationship that is moving in the right way.
I must now turn to the issue of Iraq. No one suffers more at the hands of Saddam Hussein than the Iraqi people themselves. Your Lordships will know his methods well. Recent weeks have seen brutal repression of the Shia communities in Baghdad and in the south of Iraq in the wake of the murder of a leading Shia cleric, presumably a murder which had the sanction of the Iraqi Government. Sadly, such brutality in Iraq is all too commonplace because the regime simply does not care about its people. If it did, it would meet its international obligations. Then sanctions could be lifted. Iraq's record of aggression under Saddam Hussein's leadership—eight years of war against Iran, the brutal invasion of Kuwait, the savage repression of his own people—suggests that his priorities remain elsewhere.
I would have felt more reassured about the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kennet if he had mentioned any of those points. The regime's brutality and its insensitivity to the needs of its own people cannot be an
964
excuse for the rest of us to turn a blind eye. We have consistently been at the forefront of efforts both nationally and through the EU and the UN to improve the position. Since the end of the Gulf War we have donated £100 million in bilateral and multilateral aid, making us one of the largest donors to that country. We have also used our permanent membership of the Security Council to devise—we have been one of the authors—push through and improve the oil-for-food programme.
My noble friend mentioned none of that in asking your Lordships to look at the effect that sanctions were having. Of course, we would be glad to see sanctions lifted provided the requirements laid down by the international community were met. Given the political will in Baghdad, that could happen, and it could happen quickly. But while the Iraqi regime pursues its present course we must continue to contain its aggressive instincts and to do all that we can for the Iraqi people through the humanitarian provisions of Security Council resolutions.
It was in that spirit that we put forward a new draft resolution at the United Nations, drawing on the results of the three expert panels to which the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, referred, dealing with disarmament, humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. We hope that these will provide the basis for a resolution for the Security Council to re-engage with Iraq and, if Iraq chooses, as it should in its own interests, to find a way out of the present stalemate.
Our suggestions include the possibility of teams of experts looking further at how Iraq's available oil infrastructure can best be rehabilitated. That picks up particularly the points made by the noble Viscounts, Lord Brentford and Lord Torrington. This is an important matter because we want specifically to look at the option of the involvement of foreign oil companies and increasing the number of outlets—of course, with proper controls and proper monitoring. Both noble Viscounts made a point of directing our attention to the oil issue. I assure them that this is covered by what we are trying to negotiate in the United Nations.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the UK-Dutch proposal before the Security Council deal with the issue of how we can bring pressure to bear on Iraq soon to reconsider its rejection of UNSCOM and perhaps to accept a newly created UNSCOM?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It is a matter of negotiation, my Lords. I cannot give the noble Baroness any assurances on what will be the final outcome of the Security Council draft resolution. She will understand that. But of course we wish to see such provisions in the matters we are discussing at present. It is a comprehensive draft Security Council resolution which picks up points from all three panels. It deals not only with weapons of mass destruction and the humanitarian issues but also with the issue of the Kuwaiti "disappeared".
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before we leave Iraq, can my noble friend provide any answer to the questions

965
I asked about the pattern of the American and British military flights—how often they happen, how much bombing and so on?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I have not yet left Iraq. I have a great deal more to say and shall try to do so in the short time available. If I do not cover all his points I shall write to him.
I was asked specifically about how food was getting through. I assure your Lordships that where the Iraqi Government want food to get through it gets through. Where the Iraqi Government are much less keen on food getting to the Iraqi people it does not get through. Your Lordships have to concentrate on some of the points we have made in the House before about the food and the medicines that are held up and about the fact that Iraq is trying to sell food to some of its neighbours while its own people starve. It is selling food to Syria; it would sell food to Jordan if it could.
My noble friend asked me particularly about no-fly zones. As he knows, they were established in 1991 and 1992. The coalition initiative was in support of Security Council Resolution 688. I remind my noble friend of what it is there for. It is to end the brutal repression of the Kurds and the Shias. We are trying under international law to protect those people, who have been persecuted by the Government of Iraq. There have been some engagements recently, as my noble friend will know. I was able to assure the House the other day that such engagements take place only when our aircraft are challenged. I shall be happy to write to my noble friend on this specific issue if that will be of any help to him.
I must now turn to some of the other countries in the Middle East. I want to say a few words about the Gulf. It is natural that we focus on Israel and Iraq, given recent events. But it would be wrong to ignore our allies in the Gulf and the wider perspective. It would also be wrong, as the noble Baroness said, to see one part of the region in isolation from another.
Nobody can realistically deny the significance of the region to the global economy. The region contains over 50 per cent of the world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves. Production of oil and gas from the Gulf will make an increasing contribution to meeting world demand as production elsewhere declines. But that is not the complete contemporary picture. The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, have developed a political importance and capacity in their own right, and, of course, we respect that. We have been encouraged by recent moves towards more representative government in the Gulf. I mention in particular Qatar, with its first ever municipal elections in March in which women participated both as candidates and as voters. We are also pleased at Oman's efforts to introduce political reform and a new "basic law". We are particularly pleased that the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have also provided welcome political support for NATO's actions in Kosovo and material assistance to the humanitarian efforts going on there.
966
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked questions on Turkey. We have asked that embassy officials be allowed to attend the proceedings concerning Mr. Ocalan. We have made clear as well—I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased with this—our opposition to the death penalty. We have still to gain access to the trial. I shall write to the noble Lord on the points that he raised about the Ilisu dam project.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Syria. I shall write to him on that. My noble friend Lord Hanworth made an interesting contribution on the historic and continuing importance of the oil industry in this part of the world. I shall write to him on the points he raised.
Recent developments in the wider Middle East are of course significant but they are also encouraging. We look forward to working even more closely with the governments of the Gulf states and of Israel, Jordan and Iran. We look forward to working with them to establish strong foundations for security and stability in the region and we look forward to the day when they can all take their rightful place in the international community. I trust that your Lordships will agree that the people deserve nothing less than our strongest efforts to help them achieve those goals.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Kosovo
5.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement recently made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Two months into NATO's campaign, I think that it is appropriate that I should report to the House before it rises on the Kosovo crisis. Before I do so, I should like to place on record the huge debt that we owe to all the men and women of all three services and their civilian support for their bravery, commitment and sheer hard work in support of NATO's efforts to help the refugees from Kosovo and to end the horror being inflicted by the Belgrade regime in Kosovo. The men and women of our Armed Forces have seen with their own eyes the results of the horrific ethnic cleansing carried out by Milosevic's troops, special police and paramilitaries; the torture, the systematic rape, the murders and the eviction of more than 1 million people. They know

967
that they are engaged in pursuit of a just cause—the return of the evicted people of Kosovo to their homes in safety and security.
"At the Washington Summit at the end of April, NATO's political leaders took two important decisions for the future direction of the alliance's military strategy in Kosovo. First, they agreed to step up and intensify the air campaign. The results of that decision are daily becoming more evident as NATO planes steadily weaken and progressively destroy the capability of Milosevic's forces and increase the pressure on him to accept a peace settlement based on NATO's conditions. NATO's air campaign is working.
"During last week's debate I gave some statistics about the amount of damage which we have already done to Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. Each day we add more to the tally. Yesterday alone, in one day, NATO aircraft destroyed at least 15 artillery pieces, five tanks, a surface-to-air missile launcher and several artillery and mortar positions. On 22nd May the tally included at least 12 tanks and 11 armoured vehicles.
"The overall losses inflicted on the Yugoslav forces are now estimated to include more than 110 combat aircraft. NATO estimates that this includes about 70 per cent of the MiG-29s and about a quarter of the MiG-21s. These are the most combat-effective of the Yugoslav aircraft and they represent a very significant loss.
"We have struck around 600 individual pieces of military equipment, more than half of them tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers. That constitutes about one-third of the Serb heavy forces inside Kosovo. We have destroyed 75 per cent of Serbia's fixed surface-to-air missile sites and more than 12 per cent of the mobile systems. We have struck more than a dozen command posts.
"Those are the effects of the air campaign on the forces on the ground, which present the most challenging targets. The strategic targets include most of the primary road and rail bridges over which supplies must pass. We have attacked more than a third of all the fixed telecommunications sites, we have repeatedly attacked airfields and hangars and numerous ammunition and fuel storage sites and barracks.
"All of this represents a very effective air campaign which is achieving the military objectives which we set at the outset of the campaign. The demonstrations, desertions and dissent we have witnessed in recent days are evidence that ordinary Serbs are now questioning the policies of Milosevic and the damaging and unwinnable conflict with NATO into which he has led them.
"The second Washington Summit decision was to update NATO's plans for the deployment of ground forces. Air and ground options are sometimes described as if they are separate and different. This has never been the case. NATO has always planned for a ground force to ensure the safe return home of the refugees once the air campaign had achieved its objective. We have already assembled a Kosovo
968
Force of about 14,000 in Macedonia, including substantial contributions from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
"However, the massive destruction wrought by Milosevic's forces in Kosovo means that the original planned total of 28,000 will no longer be adequate. On top of the task of creating a secure environment for the returning refugees, it is now necessary to plan on a much increased scale to assist with the re-establishment of the civil infrastructure, with the provision of humanitarian aid and with the clearance of landmines laid by Milosevic's forces. We are working with our partners to ensure that civil structures are in place to take on these tasks, but inevitably much of the early burden will fall to military forces.
"The North Atlantic Council yesterday took note of a revised plan drawn up by NATO's military authorities which, subject to more detailed planning, identifies a requirement for a force of around 45.000 to deal with the full range of tasks now envisaged. This figure excludes any additional forces which may be needed to provide essential national logistic support, which may raise the overall number to nearer 55,000 to 60,000. Further work to develop this military planning is going ahead within NATO.
"The Kosovo Force plans will still need to be adapted as the situation on the ground changes and to take account of wider developments in the context of a political settlement. Discussions are taking place about the contributions which allies can make to such a force.
"The British Government have made it clear that, as in Bosnia, we are keen to work with other nations which are prepared to provide military forces for KFOR. Given the need for NATO to be ready to react quickly to deploy into Kosovo in support of a peace settlement, the United Kingdom is today taking a number of steps on a national basis to ensure that we can move as soon as it is possible to get the refugees back home.
"We have decided that the United Kingdom will make a substantial contribution to the planned force. This is consistent with the role we have taken so far in the campaign and with our determination to see it brought to a quick and successful conclusion. We are determined that as many refugees as possible can return home before the winter closes in.
"The United Kingdom, because of the capability and deployability of its forces, is well-placed to contribute to that operation. Moreover, as the framework nation for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, our initial contribution will inevitably be high. However, we envisage that the UK contribution to the force will reduce markedly after an initial deployment period of six months.
"I am now reducing the notice to move of the three infantry battalion groups that, as previously announced, are undergoing training for possible operations in Kosovo. The units concerned are 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment, 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment and Battalion Royal Gurkha

969
Rifles. In addition, we are reducing the notice of 3 Commando Brigade and the Amphibious Ready Group, a number of combat support units, two brigade headquarters, elements of a divisional headquarters and a number of RAF support helicopters and support units. I am placing a full list of the units involved in the Library.
"Precisely how many of those earmarked forces will be needed by NATO will depend on a number of factors—most importantly, what forces other allies are able to provide in the time required. Given the importance that NATO attaches to the early identification, training, commitment and deployment of additional forces, we judge it prudent to take those steps now to keep options open and be ready to respond once firm requests are received from NATO. The geographical distance of the United Kingdom from the theatre of operations means that deployment times are inevitably longer for us than for most other allies.
"In all, we are reducing the notice to move of more than 12,000 personnel, in addition to the 5,400 already deployed in Macedonia as part of the Kosovo implementation force and 1,600 others committed to Kosovo operations. We are also taking steps to provide the equipment and material needed to support a force of that size and are making preparations to deploy the heavy equipment of the three infantry battalion groups and some combat support to the region next month.
"Those are serious steps and they will place great demands upon all three services, individual service men and their families. But they are steps that measure up to the seriousness of the situation that confronts us in Kosovo. Let us remember that 1.4 million people—more than three-quarters of the population of Kosovo—have been driven in terror from their homes. Our objective is to allow them to return home and to rebuild their shattered lives in conditions that are secure and civilised; and in doing so, to show that the cruelty and brutality that we have seen in Kosovo over the last year will not be tolerated. That is a major and momentous undertaking which in the coming months and years will require a major investment of diplomatic, financial, humanitarian and military effort. The measures that I have announced today are a further demonstration of this Government's determination to play a full part in that historic effort."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before anything else, I am sure that I should emphasise the tribute paid by the Minister to the work that our armed forces are doing in the area and to that which they may be expected to do. They have been faultless in their performance and I have little doubt that they will continue to be faultless.
The House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement by his right honourable friend in another place. The noble Lord was kind enough to
970
warn me on Monday that the Statement would be made today. I surmised from that distant early warning that there would probably not be anything sensational in it. I do not think that there is, although we are most grateful for the news that the Minister has given the House as to the speeding of the preparation of units and the units that are to be sent. The noble Lord has made an important contribution to our knowledge, which is particularly important before Parliament breaks for the Whitsun Recess.
I am most interested in the news that the Minister has given the House on the effect of air bombardment on Serbian armed forces. I hope that I am not being cynical, but the figures remind me just a fraction of the figures for the number of German aircraft that the Royal Air Force claimed to have shot down in September 1940. The Statement talks about destroying 75 per cent of fixed surface-to-air missiles and 12 per cent of mobile systems. That seems impressive, except that the mobile systems are the modern ones and the fixed weapons are outdated. I totally accept that it is difficult to make an accurate statement of the scale of destruction, but is there any tangible evidence of that scale of destruction of Serbian armed forces and their equipment?
The Minister gave a list of the battalions being sent to Macedonia. It has been clear from what we have seen recently that a number of the units—specifically 1 Para—can only be brought up to strength by borrowing from their fellows. That has ever been the case when the Army goes to war. But it is increasingly serious when the Army's total strength is so depleted. What will happen if 3 Para is required to go into action? Has it got any men?
The Statement makes it clear also that the original figure of 28,000 for the Kosovo Force will not be adequate and refers to a figure of 60,000. It also makes it clear that the United Kingdom is the framework nation for the Rapid Reaction Corps, so that it may be expected that this country will help to provide a sizeable proportion of the forces required. Where will they come from?
In passing, the Minister spoke about 3 Commando Brigade. It has not been made clear of what that will consist.
Where will the forces come from? We may be confident that in this country politicians see the campaign through the eyes of their professional military advisers. Is the same true of the other NATO countries? Will political and military advisers be able to play their part? Have even now adequate plans been made for the future six months, year and years?
The Statement confirms that the UK contribution to the land force will reduce markedly after an initial deployment period of six months. I do not expect the Minister to comment on plans for the future, but from all we know of the Serbians, Kosovars and Albanians, that statement seems somewhat unrealistic. However, I accept that that is the Government's policy and it is one of which we totally approve—but one to which we will hold the Government.

971
The Statement refers to the United Kingdom working with its partners to put the "civil structures" in place. It is riot primarily civil structures that are needed but houses and homes. What underpinning will NATO forces give the Kosovars when they return to their homes because they are said to be safe and they then find them razed to the ground? Will NATO not only hell: them to rebuild but have the power and influence to ensure that the Serbs do not come back and raze those homes to the ground all over again?
In the context of preparations being made for refugees outside Kosovo's borders, it is reported that UNHCR was forbidden to prepare for more than a certain number. I accept the danger that being too ready would have given comfort to Milosevic, but can the Minister enlighten the House on that policy?
I hope that my remarks do not appear too condemnatory of the Government's actions. We on these Benches entirely support what has been going on. It is in no way my intention to be hyper-critical. But the noble Lord and the Secretary of State must accept the major concern that exists throughout the country about the way the war is going. Grateful as we are to receive this Statement today, those who read the serious newspapers get a great deal more than the noble Lord has been able to give. That is in no way intended as a criticism of the noble Lord; it is a feature of the time and space that have been available.
The trouble with what we read in the newspapers is that: it cannot all be true. Without a vestige of sarcasm I say that I would rather listen to what the Government tell us than what I read in the newspapers. The trouble is that, even then, we have to read between the lines.
In conclusion, perhaps I may again emphasise the debt that this country owes to all members of the Armed Forces for their current work and for the work that they may be expected to do in the future. Will the Government remember that they have homes and families? In this modern age we should not expect them to be separated for too long—we can, of course: they have enlisted, and it is their duty to go where and do what their political and military masters tell them. But the Army is seriously depleted in numbers already, and such treatment is desperately bad for recruitment and retention.
I have talked about the Minister's statement that the British effort will be downscaled. Given the confidence that one way or another Milosevic can be totally defeated, can the Government now say what will happen then: to the Serbians, the Kosovars, the refugees and, not least, to our own Armed Forces?
6.1 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's announcement. We had indeed been pressing for some weeks for the sending of further troops to the region. It seemed to us entirely correct in these very difficult circumstances to provide more troops in Macedonia arid Albania, either for use if a semi-permissive environment has to be taken, or for help in occupying, after an agreement, for what will now have to be a major process of reconstruction.
972
We also appreciate that what the Government have announced is a force that may have to be used under different circumstances which we cannot yet foresee. There is therefore a short-term immediate need for this action. However, we also emphasise that, in everything that is done, we must think about the long term. How far are plans now moving ahead in terms of thinking beyond next winter? An international protectorate for Kosovo clearly has to be the next stage, whatever happens to the Serbian government, and assistance for rebuilding and consideration in regard to rebuilding the region as a whole. In one of his speeches, the Prime Minister referred to a Marshall Plan for south-eastern Europe beyond the immediate needs of this summer. That is the kind of thinking that now needs to be under way.
As regards the announcement, we note that on the current projections of figures potentially some 20,000 out of the 60,000 troops committed to the region may be British. Is that the scale of contribution that we think may be necessary? Does it imply that the British are likely to be the largest single contingent—larger than the American as well as the French? If that is necessary, so be it. However, it would be helpful to have further information as to what scale of contribution the other major contributors are likely to provide.
With regard to 3 Commando Brigade, will the. Dutch contingent, as part of the British-Dutch amphibious group, be part of 3 Commando Brigade? Are we therefore sending a combined force as part of our contribution?
In terms of links between the parallel discussions on European defence co-operation, now well under way, and this immediate initiative, will the Minister tell the House how he sees the two relating? Will he say whether so far there have had to be national contributions under a NATO element; or are the moves, with which the Government are also concerned, to promote closer European defence co-operation taking place on the ground as we move forward in Kosovo? Are the costs likely to be borne by each contributing nation, or has there yet been any consideration about how the immediate, as well as the long-term, costs might be shared out?
We are conscious that this will require a heavy commitment of British troops. It is likely that it will mean some recall of reserves. We welcome the statement that after the first six months it is likely drat the British contribution will be scaled down in comparison to others. But, as I said, we welcome the statement that Britain is prepared to take action now to make a major contribution to what is needed in these very difficult circumstances.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the tributes that they have paid to Her Majesty's forces in Macedonia and Albania and those operating in the Adriatic and out of bases in Italy and Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that there was nothing sensational in the Statement. Nothing was intended to be sensational. It was intended to be a

973
demonstration of a series of prudent precautionary steps that Her Majesty's Government are taking in order to be properly placed should the situation in Kosovo develop rapidly.
The noble Lord talked about the effects of the air bombardment. I must confess that I am not enthusiastic about shopping lists of pieces of equipment that have been knocked out. I am far more interested in the state of morale of the forces to whom we are opposed. From time to time we receive highly sensitive reports on the state of morale in the bunkers of Belgrade. There is no question that some hairline cracks are showing. Equally important are the reports that we receive regarding publicly reported cracks in the morale of civilians and armed forces in Yugoslavia. Those are even more encouraging than the effects of the air bombardment.
The noble Lord asked whether there was tangible evidence of the lists of items that I gave being hit. Yes, there is, in the sense that there are photo images of almost all of them. We also receive reports from various sources on the ground.
The noble Lord asked about 1 Para. He was gracious enough to acknowledge that they would always have been back-filled and that was a perfectly normal state of affairs. He asked some hypothetical questions about 3 Para. I do not want to be seduced into answering questions of that kind; they are thoroughly hypothetical at this time. I understand that 3 Commando Brigade will be coming from Taunton, Chivenor and Arbroath.
As regards reductions after six months, which were welcomed by both noble Lords, one of the reasons that we expect that to be possible is that eventually we hope to involve more and more non-NATO forces in any occupation force in Kosovo. NATO has always been open on that matter. We should, for example, be happy to have Russian forces there if Russia wanted to send some. But we are insisting that any force that goes into Kosovo will have NATO as its core, not least for the reason that NATO is the only organisation that can provide proper logistics and a proper command function.
With regard to over-stretch of the Armed Forces, which we all acknowledge, the noble Lords may like to know that we have already begun roulement with respect to the land forces in Macedonia. To take up another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, we are extremely concerned about the importance of family support to the forces engaged in these operations. It may be of interest to the House to know that there has been a round of ministerial visits to the families of the units serving abroad. I have been to Royal Air Force units in Lincolnshire and also to Portsmouth. My ministerial colleagues have visited several other groups of families. I found their morale quite high.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked me a series of impossible questions, as he often does. He asked what will happen when Milosevic is finally defeated. My first question is: who knows whether Mr. Milosevic will still be alive? Secondly, who knows who will be running Serbia? Will Serbia convert itself into a democratic state? Will it be run by a military oligarchy?
974
The noble Lord asked what will happen to the refugees. We hope they will all go home. One of the interesting points about the present situation is the tenacity with which the refugees have so far clung to remaining as close to the border of Kosovo as they possibly can. They are showing a great reluctance to be moved to often safer, more hygienic camps away from the immediate border. There are reasons for that. They feel that they will lose the chance of finding members of their family whom they have not seen for some time. They feel that it will reduce their chances of getting back to their land. They may even have come across in tractors and feel that they are losing their own agricultural equipment. For whatever reason, they show a quite remarkable intensity of desire to go back, knowing full well that the villages to which they will return have been ransacked, looted and often burnt almost to the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked how far plans were looking ahead beyond next winter. First, I ought to tell your Lordships that we are looking ahead to next winter and trying to make our contribution towards ensuring that there will be adequate warm shelter for any refugees who are still outside Kosovo when the winter snows come, which is usually about October in that part of the world.
The noble Lord was good enough to mention the Prime Minister's reference to a Marshall Plan for the region as a whole. There is a general feeling throughout Europe that we must do something for the region as a whole. We have made it clear that we wish to accelerate the admission to the European Union and NATO of the various frontline states that might want to join those institutions. But membership is not within the gift of this country. Discussions on the matter are not at the top of the list of priorities because we have more urgent matters to discuss with our allies at the moment.
The noble Lord speculated about what proportion of an eventual KFOR might be British. He suggested possibly 20,000 out of 60,000. There is no point in my playing with figures at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, if noble Lords will forgive me. It depends very much on the contributions of our allies. I remind noble Lords that there are about 3,500 German troops in Macedonia at the moment. There are over 2,000 Italian troops in Macedonia and Albania and over 2,000 French troops also in Macedonia. No fewer than 13 air forces have been involved in flying NATO missions in current operations. It is a remarkable state of affairs.
The noble Lord asked me about the Dutch element in 3 Commando Brigade. Off the top of my head I cannot give the answer, but I will certainly write to him with it. The Dutch are present in Macedonia and have 155 mm guns with them as part of their heavy equipment, if I am correctly informed.
Nothing going on in Macedonia is impeding moves towards future European co-ordination in defence matters, and in the Ministry of Defence we are engaged from day to day in discussing various European procurement matters which I am sure the noble Lord would applaud.
That has probably answered all the points noble Lords have asked so far.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend shares my feeling of anger and frustration that despite deploying the full might of NATO and inflicting that great list of damage on the Serbian armed forces and, in addition, the Serbian economy, nevertheless we have been unable to give any practical assistance to prevent the expulsion of the people of Kosovo from their own land. The figure of three-quarters of the population expelled gives clear evidence of the magnitude of the catastrophe and the tragedy in which we are inevitably now a player. Along with others, we must try to extricate ourselves from it.
I have no doubt that we will prevail. Even with bombing from 15,000 feet, there will come a point when the Serbs give up and we shall be able to deploy the troops. But I must say to my noble friend that, as he is well aware, the timescale must now be uncertain. The Serbs have survived two months and in a few months' time it will be winter. The preparations in two months' time will have to take full account of the approach of winter. With that in mind we must now make substantial provision for refugees who will remain, even though many will desire to go back, when they will have no homes to go to and no communities to connect with. Many will have to be looked after in Macedonia. I hope that preparations on a serious scale are now being made.
My last question to my noble friend is this. I was glad to hear what he said about bringing the Russians into an occupying force. That is important. I wish to know whether he has anything further to say about the progress of diplomacy, which must surely still be that we have a two-pronged approach. It must help to bring this ghastly tragedy to an end.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is true that air power has not succeeded in bringing an end to some of the cruelty and expulsions from Kosovo. That is obvious. On the other hand, I can tell my noble friend that we have noted a distinct reduction in the activity of the Serbian armed forces and MUP in the last couple of weeks. It is clear that the KLA have benefited from NATO air attacks and have not been eliminated, as many people thought they would be within the first couple of weeks of the campaign.
I am sure my noble friend will forgive me when I take him up on his use of the word, he said that it is necessary for us to "extricate" ourselves from the situation. We will find ourselves carrying a share of responsibility for that part of the world for many months and possibly years to come. I am sure my noble friend's meaning was that we must bring an end to the cruelty and bloodshed as soon as we can. That is NATO's objective and one of the reasons we are stepping up the air campaign.
The number of missions flown every day produces a new record number—I think I am right in saying it is of the order of 700—missions every 24 hours. The proportion of strike missions in that 700 is increasing, and as the weather inexorably improves so the accuracy of the bombing and the ability of our planes to attack targets rather than fly home with munitions undelivered increases.
976
In two months' time it will be not even the end of July and I should be surprised if we were facing the same situation with respect to Kosovo and Serbia as we face today. I can assure my noble friend that great preparations are being made because we recognise that many of the refugees cannot possibly be re-housed before winter comes. We are making preparations now through DFID, through UNHCR and non-governmental organisations to ensure that they get through the winter in as good shape as we can manage.
As for the operation of diplomacy, again I can assure my noble friend that a great deal of activity is going on which is concealed from the public view. It gives me hope that these problems will not be with us much longer.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many of us who supported and still support the need for NATO action against Milosevic are now worried that we are in danger of losing the propaganda war and failing to win the military war? Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that, after two months of all-out air assault, on his figures we have only succeeded in removing one-third of Serbia's heavy forces in Kosovo and destroying only 12 per cent of the mobile surface-to-air missile systems?
The Minister has announced that Britain is to make a contribution of 19,000 troops—I added up the figures—out of a possible maximum of 60,000. As one country among 18 why are we expected to provide one third of the entire force? Who is to pay the disproportionate cost of this? Finally, does the noble Lord accept that what we really need are clear aims, one of which must be an independent Kosovo and the other is a peace-keeping force that may have to be there for 50 years?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, in the first place the noble Lord's fundamental assumption is misplaced. NATO has not been waging an all-out air war for the past two months. It has been very fastidious in its choice of targets and weapons. Its airmen have exercised great professionalism in returning to base time after time without releasing their munitions. We have not been waging all-out war in Yugoslavia, and I hope that the noble Lord recognises that. I am satisfied with the effects of the campaign so far and that we shall see great changes in the weeks ahead as the weather improves.
The noble Lord said that we were in danger of losing both the propaganda war and the military war. It is up to him to judge the propaganda war. I say to his face that I do not believe his remarks to be very helpful. As to the military war, I am quite sure that Mr. Milosevic is not winning it, even if he believes that we are not winning it. As to whether NATO has clear aims, I and my noble friend have said from this Dispatch l3ox several times—it has been said by the Prime Minister and every other Minister—that the aim is quite simple: his troops out, our troops in and the refugees back.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, can the Minister say whether any steps have been taken to ensure that Macedonia and Albanian, both of which are under very heavy strain, will be compensated for the

977
inevitable extra costs of housing a substantially increased military force? Secondly, can the Minister say anything—I appreciate that it may be too soon—about the necessity to ensure that in relation to any non-NATO involvement in the ground force that moves into Kosovo a distinction will not be made that puts Russian and related troops into Serbian areas and NATO core troops into Albanian areas, thereby making it easier to suggest a partition of Kosovo as part of the negotiation?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, to deal first with the final question, I do not recall having seen any piece of paper on which any such suggestion is made. I would be very surprised if, when all this is over, there was a Serb area of Kosovo. Speaking personally, I have a strong suspicion that in the end Mr. Milosevic's policy on ethnic cleansing will be very successful except that Kosovo will be ethnically cleansed of Serbs. I tell the House that, frankly, I would not want to be a Serb living in Kosovo when all this is over.
As to compensation, the noble Baroness is probably aware—I do not carry the exact figures in my head—that the EU has already made a contribution to Macedonia. I believe I am right in saying that the Prime Minister has announced two tranches of £10 million each separately from this country. We are going out of our way to procure support for British troops in Macedonia from Macedonian suppliers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my question is based on press reports this morning, notably in the Guardian, to the effect that NATO has plans and proposals that are intended to bring this tragic war to an end. I therefore found the Statement deeply disappointing in that it appeared to be concerned with digging ourselves further in rather than extracting ourselves. Of course, we can extract ourselves only on honourable and satisfactory terms. But is it not time that we thought more seriously about how to bring this wretched business to an end rather than concentrate on digging ourselves in further?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am aware that he does not agree with me on many aspects of our policy with respect to Kosovo. But I am grateful to him for acknowledging that we must bring this matter to an end on honourable terms, which is what we are determined to do. It will come to an end just as soon as Mr Milosevic submits to the opinion of decent people in the civilised world. There are 19 countries now lined up against him. They include all the frontline states that are his neighbours, a good number of whom are not members of NATO. It is up to Mr. Milosevic to bring this to an end. He can do it tomorrow if he wants to; it is perfectly simple. In my view, his actions have passed all rationality.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the Minister referred to civilian reconstruction. Will it not be an enormous task given the scale of destruction and the number of refugees? I note his comment about the desire of refugees to return as soon as possible, but before any
978
more than a small number can return will it not be necessary to create a new and impartial police force, massive new housing developments, hospitals, schools, water supplies and electricity, not to mention a system of local government? Can we be optimistic about the time that must elapse before it is possible for the refugees to return in significant numbers?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on some extremely important points. The realisation of the scale of these tasks is one of the factors that underpins the Statement made today by my right honourable friend. That is also one of the reasons for the North Atlantic Council's realisation that more ground troops will be needed to take part in the implementation force very early on, because inevitably that task will initially—I emphasise "initially"—fall to service personnel. I very much agree with what the noble Lord said.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether, following reports over the past few days of substantial disaffection among Serb forces, that is becoming an increasing or diminishing factor? What steps have been taken by the NATO alliance to take advantage of that situation?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I do not wish to give the House an exaggerated view that the discipline of the Serbian armed forces will collapse in the next few days. But we have seen men returning to their villages, which was something that we did not witness four, five or six weeks ago. There are perceptible shifts in the morale of Serbian armed forces at squaddie level (if I may put it like that). There is nothing that NATO can do to encourage it. We do what we can by dropping leaflets, broadcasts and other methods to try to encourage developments of this kind, which can only be in our favour.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the obvious great success of high-level bombing and the accuracy achieved, despite mistakes, can the Minister say whether it is possible at this stage at reasonable risk to our forces to back up the KLA and attack the forces in Kosovo from a low level, which is always more effective? Have we reached a stage of superiority when we can do that?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. I am afraid that I am not prepared to discuss operational matters of that kind in your Lordships' House.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has it not always been the case that any ground force engagement of whatever character within Kosovo is bound to take substantial time to mount? Is it not clear from the Statement that there has been a very substantial diminution and weakening of the ability of Serbia to resist any such ground force initiative, if and when it comes, to say nothing of its ability to go into Macedonia and Albania? Further, is it not the case that there is absolutely no

979
means apart from bombing of achieving that diminution, weakening and softening up? Is that not the answer to those who have, very damagingly in my opinion, sniped at the policy of aerial bombardment? Surely, it would be self-defeating folly for NATO to lose its nerve now.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I do not think that I can say anything other than that I totally agree with him.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows our reserves are much involved in theatre. Does he wish to pay tribute to the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force which have significant numbers there? In view of their high standards of efficiency and enthusiasm, is it likely that more will be sent to theatre in the future?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the reserves, in particular the Royal Air Force Reserves. While not discriminating in their favour, I know the noble Lord's longstanding interest in them.
Yes, it is possible that more will be asked to be sent to theatre, but I would not wish to specify at this stage whether individuals or formed-up units.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before we conclude questions to the Minister, may I remind my noble friend of the substantial support from these Benches given to the Government and to the men and women of our Armed Forces in the current policies? It was heartening to hear the support of the Opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Regrettably, I was unable to hear such support when I heard the Statement a few moments ago in another place.
I turn to the situation in Yugoslavia. Can my noble friend help us about steps being taken to isolate Milosevic politically in his own country? Coupled with that, what is the level of information that we are currently able to supply to the people of Yugoslavia over the atrocities being committed in Kosovo and the rightness of the NATO campaign?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. There has been a great increase in the amount of broadcasting out of this country directed at Serbia. I do not have the figures at my fingertips. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on the number of hours a week which are being broadcast in the different languages. We are not the only people broadcasting into that unhappy country. We are pointing out to the citizens that Mr. Milosevic's family still live in some comfort; that the sons of the privileged classes are evading the draft very successfully; and that is a matter which I think lay behind some of the recent civil disturbances which we saw.
My noble friend alluded to public support. The issue arose when the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was on his feet. He said that there was concern throughout the country about the way the war was going. I should point
980
out to the noble Lord that all opinion polls show that support in the country is higher now, I am glad to say, than it was when the bombing started.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his noble friend's Written Answer which I have received today. It confirms that we are strengthening the UNHCR very considerably with convoys of vehicles in Albania. However, does he think that we have given too little credit to the UNHCR, perhaps because of its past performance, and that our own Armed Forces are reinforcing what is becoming a United Nations humanitarian effort?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the UNHCR and to the work of many NGOs which have been extremely active and very brave in taking aid on the ground into Kosovo, in addition to the work of our own forces.
If present plans come to fruition, there will shortly be some aid flights over Kosovo by arrangement with NATO. However, to keep your Lordships fully informed, I should point out that some of those aid convoys can be of considerable embarrassment to the conduct of air operations. I am told that there are some 15 or so convoys operating in Kosovo at the moment. They do not always give notice of where and when they are going. When they do, they do not always follow their initial indications. The result is that it becomes extremely difficult for NATO at present to conduct air activities against any major highway, and sometimes off highways.

Regional Museums and Galleries
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of Clancartyrose to call attention to the role of the regional museums and galleries (particularly local authority museums) within the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am that we have a chance to debate the role of regional museums and galleries today. I look forward to the contributions of those noble Lords who are taking part in the debate.
The Motion suggests a focus on local authority museums, but it is important that the role of other kinds of museums, including university-owned collections and the independent museums, is discussed, and the national museums in terms of their relationship to the regions including their own.
We are a fairly select band this evening. There are clearly always many people willing to speak in debates specifically on the national museums and galleries, and not just because of a London bias. But a discussion of regional museums and galleries is also a discussion of individuals whose work in the field of culture is connected to or bound by particular localities or regions within the UK, and perhaps there need to be more people in this House who can or are willing to talk of that experience.

981
This is a large and complex subject and I shall not pretend to give a comprehensive overview. I shall look at the importance of good statistics, certain funding problems and connections between regions.
One of the first and perhaps most important factors one discovers in researching for a debate of this type is the scarcity of meaningful statistics on museums. That view is backed up by many museum professionals and experts including Stuart Davies and Sara Selwood in their recent comprehensive report for Cultural Trends. David Fleming, director at Tyne and Wear, complained in last month's Museums Journal of what he called a knowledge deficit. It is far too easy, for instance, to take an approach which gives only examples of what we might perceive as best practice. The Government give 10 such examples in their new access standards document, Museums for the Many. They tell us clearly what they think the museums should be doing—and all the examples are deserving of citation—but what that approach does not give us is a sense of the whole picture including, importantly, I think, the historical context for particular implementations by museums which is absolutely necessary if there is to be a coherent national museums policy.
We need to know in what direction things are moving. I believe that this should be one of the main concerns of the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, MLAC. Urgently required are detailed data, which are as complete as possible, in order, for instance, to elicit long-term regional and nationwide trends, and geographic distributions. Those have to be properly analysed and wedded to policy. The Digest of Museum Statistics (DOMUS), volunteered annually from registered museums, is the obvious basis for that. The information contained in last year's document, Museums in Focus, produced by the Museums and Galleries Commission, is no more than a start. Only about 80 per cent of respondents returned the questionnaire this year. The figure needs to be 100 per cent.
I suggest to the Government that the annual provision of statistics to MLAC by individual museums should be a condition of registration and/or funding agreements. I think also that it would not be too difficult a project for such a survey to be extended back much further in time, perhaps to the 19th century, so that real long-term trends can be deduced. Many museums will have detailed records which go back many years. It is important, too, that such a project is not tendered out, for instance, as an academic project. It should be conducted by an inhouse team, including museum experts and statisticians, since its implementation needs to be closely aligned to the policy making of the new body. There should be a wider consultation on the content of the questionnaire than exists currently. For instance, small local museums may have their own ideas about what characteristics need to be drawn out of such a survey.
The Government, being in the best position to do so, should be carrying out what they are currently asking various groups to do separately, thereby—without spurning those contributions—making the whole undertaking more efficient.
982
It is clear that the cultural map, like the political map, is beginning to shift rapidly. The changes that are taking place mean that this is in many ways an exciting time for regional museums. There are, for example, across the United Kingdom numerous large-scale capital projects such as the New Art Gallery in Walsall, which is due to open in February next year.
Certain initiatives at local authority museums are clearly due not just to strong individual curatorship, which is important in itself, but also to the right level of support from the relavent local authorities. Bristol Museums and Art Gallery was able last September to drop the admission charge which it had had for six years. Its attendance rose by 72 per cent for the last financial year. Its current major exhibition on slavery is winning considerable praise from national newspapers, all of this being achieved on public money with very little sponsorship.
Specific initiatives include the schools loan service at Reading, which is rightly applauded, although here the Government should consider the fact that the widest coverage in the United Kingdom of such services, including the nationwide service by the National Museum of Wales, probably existed in the early 1970s. Central government too have directly signalled their interest in certain of the regional museums with 15 million spread over three years for the 43 designated museums' services. This is a modest amount but a precedent in terms of its commitment to non-national museums with significant collections.
Yet with all the examples of specific funding and "good practice" that can be given, it is clear that the particular situation of regional and local museums varies tremendously throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State should be fully aware that the over-riding situation of local authority museums is one of uncertainty and of diminishing funds from the local authorities themselves. The Government need to look at the issue closely and, I reiterate, demonstrate not only that they are aware of the more detailed picture but that they are able to map it out and formulate a national policy to deal with it.
Ceredigion Museum in Aberystwyth, which I understand puts on a significant programme of contemporary Welsh art, is symptomatic of the position of many museums, particularly in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, which are suffering from the reorganisation of local authorities. Ceredigion was formerly part of Dyfed. For the past 10 years the museum has had an average of 35,000 visitors but, through no fault of its own, recent cuts in funding have meant the introduction of charges, effecting an immediate drop in visitor numbers of 66 per cent. Ceredigion is unable to employ an education officer and, most frustratingly, is unable to take up grant opportunities, including lottery funding.
Another reason for poor funding is the low priority which museums and galleries are often given by local authorities in the wake of government policy concerning education and social exclusion. For example. MGC's new visitor survey shows that museums score more highly than most other so-called "leisure activities".

983
Thirty-five per cent of the population have visited a museum in the last 12 months. Only the cinema, at 59 per cent, and parks and gardens score more. There is, for instance, considerable concern about the effect the new scheme, Fair Funding, will have on education in museums, which of course includes the effective access which schools will have. The MGC stops short of criticising the delegation of funds to schools per se but is clearly worried about the loss of the central education advisory services. I understand that its report is due out in the summer. One can also add the fear that education posts will be lost, as well as the more general concern over the loss of economies of scale; in other words, the dispersal of expertise. I understand that DfEE and DCMS are currently holding discussions on this, and I would welcome a report from the Minister as to how matters are proceeding.
Over three-quarters of the museums which are open today have been founded since 1970. Many of these independent museums now call for a level playing field for all museums. However, there is something quite unique about local authority museums; for instance, the way they have developed their own catchment areas—some areas, it has to be said, better covered than others. Everyone in the country deserves their own good free local museum. I believe an idea of public space as might exist in these museums provides a key to our thinking about the meaning of "access", something that needs to be much more widely discussed.
The Government's use of the term in a qualitative abstract sense—for example, in the sense of widening access—ignores the significance of the public space of which the collections are the focal point where access is something that may happen—access as a concrete contemporary event. If the Government are to protect local authority museums with their special unique qualities, as they should pledge to do, in part through a promise to introduce a statutory requirement, then they need to protect that public space as well. That public space is not just the physical space. It includes, or should include, scholarship, conservation, education and IT, management, and much else and, of course, the visitors: everything that is held in orbit around the collection itself.
The problem with tendering out any parts of this space—the Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust has been considering this in relation to conservation—is that the space is reduced and becomes closed off. The Government wish museums to be "user-friendly", but there is nothing quite so opaque or unaccountable in a direct sense to the public as private business. A public collection without a public space in which to show it is not a public collection.
Access that is about public space has to be about a living culture. It is in that spirit that the Heritage Lottery Access Fund should, I think, be flexible about the guideline which excludes art of the last 20 years. The HLF ought to be overlapping with the Arts Council of England. What is needed, I think, is greater dialogue between past and present. Perhaps the HLF should consider employing one or two people on their access fund steering group with an interest in contemporary art.
984
One might say that beyond the problems which devolution and regional autonomy will initially bring, many regional museums are beginning to talk to each other and exchange ideas on a different scale than previously. For example, partly for lobbying reasons but also to exchange information, a new group of 21 of the local authority city museums, Group for Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM), has been set up. The Tate Gallery is currently considering extending a scheme of creative partnerships beyond the pilot scheme it has been running with Norwich Castle Museum. The regional museums now have a strongly-held view that such relationships have to be two-way. Also, so that less well-financed and perhaps more isolated museums can benefit from such schemes, the Heritage Lottery Fund may be an appropriate source of such funding. And it is for such reasons—to allow the necessary context of the nationals within the nationwide picture—that it is crucial that all the national museums are included in the remit of MLAC.
For a coherent museums policy, the nationals cannot be perceived as being independent of the rest of the museums sector. Last year an exhibition called artranspennine98, which I did not actually see, was organised by the Tate Gallery Liverpool, stretching between Liverpool, Leeds and Hull, predicated on a view that we need to be sensitive about the connections that may or may not exist between one region and another.
As important, at a more grass-roots level, is the need for all individuals entering the cultural field of a museum, particularly those resident within the museum's own region, to have an opportunity of exploring beyond the museum itself. The museum should not be the final stop but should be there also to act as a conduit, a facilitator for people, including artists and others on low incomes, within their regions to interact with cultures outside them, including abroad and vice versa. For example, regional museums could have much closer links with the British Council. I understand that in Scotland some close associations between institutions have been forged over a long period. Perhaps the rest of the United Kingdom could learn from these developments.
Within this context I would also seriously suggest that Visiting Arts, an efficient organisation, deserves dramatically increased funding to help to properly finance a much greater array of exchange projects.
I want to say a word about the relationship between access and the principle of "best value", and conclude with an irony directed to both the Government and the regional museums. Best value is now being forcibly applied in the museum sector so that one tends to hear the phrase, "jumping through hoops". For the Government, access in the abstract sense is always access to something—the "hidden treasures", so called:, of the collections perhaps, as in the recent DCMS press release. I believe that the Government tend to "blackbox" art. On the other hand they have a very definite idea (much more than I do) of what culture—pop culture, football culture and so forth—is. But if one believes, as I do, that the public space which museums set up is the space where cultural discussion is to take

985
place, the irony becomes that in order to sustain that space museums have to fulfil the criteria of a known funding policy, which itself should be critiqued within that space. Perhaps the Minister may have something to say about that in relation to local, regional and future national strategies. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling this Motion. The noble Earl is assiduous in raising matters concerning the arts in your Lordships' House, and long may he be enabled to do so.
There is a wealth of art treasures in many of the regional museums throughout the United Kingdom. The exhibition entitled "Art Treasures of England" last year at Burlington House will have come as a revelation to many people. It certainly came as a revelation to me.
The question is: are we doing enough to help these institutions to preserve and increase access to the works of art in their keeping? The Government are doing a great deal to encourage access, as their recent paper, Museums for the Many, makes clear and as mentioned by the noble Earl. But, as he also mentioned, finance remains a problem.
Much help is given by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Art Collections Fund, supported by the subscriptions of its members. But the financial pressure continues to increase. I understand that the HLF received more than 4,500 applications last year, requesting in total four times the available funding. The policy appears to have changed as the bulk of the large grants go to urban parks and historic city areas, as well as to wildlife and nature conservation, rather than to the purchase of works of art. The sum allocated to museums for acquisitions is just £5 million. As the Financial Times put it, "Wetlands before Watteaus".
On the other hand, this policy seems to me to be the right one as once a heritage site, or historic building, has gone it has gone for ever. But the painting or sculpture goes to other owners or institutions, usually in the United States, where it is just as fully appreciated, well preserved and seen probably by even more people.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund was established as a memorial to those who have given their lives for the United Kingdom and as a fund of last resort to save important art treasures for the nation. During recent years, its funds have been whittled away from £12 million in 1993–94 to only £2 million last year. I am glad that the present Government have agreed to increase the grant in aid over the next three years to a level of £5 million. This is most welcome. I hope that it will not be considered a ceiling and that the original level will be restored.
I trust that the Government will continue to bear in mind the importance of a regional museum to the people of the locality. They cannot always travel to London, nor should they be obliged to do so. The regional and university museums, which are often of national importance, are a lifeline for many people who depend
986
on them for their study, continuing appreciation and pleasure. The Government were obliged to finance and to be responsible for Liverpool's five museums during the local government reorganisation. Those museums have become the National Museums on Merseyside and are, as we know, a great success story, showing the difference between museums funded by central government and those, unhappily, which are not.
Non-formula funding for some 21 university museums from the DCMS is of course some help and I believe that one day central government will have to take on more financial responsibility for many of our regional museums rather than leaving them to hard-pressed local authorities.
Cheltenham Borough Council has been obliged to close two local museums; a costume museum and that devoted to the composer, Gustav Holst, who was born there. The splendid Bowes Museum is in difficulties, despite the good intentions of Durham County Council. I believe that there should be a more equal funding relationship between the regional and the national museums so that the regions get more of the funds available and local people, including our young people, are not deprived of their cultural heritage.
We need an integrated national policy for all our museums, as the noble Earl mentioned. The Government have already given much support to the arts in general and I hope that they will consider what can be done to give more help and encouragement to this hard-pressed sector.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I too, congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this timely debate. Having spent almost a lifetime in the museum world, I must declare an interest as former president of the Museums Association, patron of the Association of Independent Museums and, of course, founder and chairman of the National Motor Museum at Beaulieu.
Inevitably, over the years I have taken part in many museum debates in your Lordships' House, but in the circumstances of the Bill going through the House, this will probably be my last intervention. Perhaps in another debate on this subject your Lordships will not be able to discuss Scotland and Wales. We shall see. However, I have never known a time when such unfortunate paradoxes faced our museums. As we near the end of the 20th century, there is a transformation in the museum world. Thanks to the National Lottery, and not to governments more money has been allocated to new museums and the refurbishment of old ones than in the past 100 years. Undreamed of clouds of new money have been showered on places such as the British Museum, the new Tate, new millennium museums up and down the country—for instance, the New Hampshire Transport Museum at Basingstoke—not forgetting major refurbishment and renewals. So noble Lords can be forgiven for wondering why there is so much concern about the future.
The fact is that new buildings are fine, but eventually they have to be administered expertly and viably, and a very large percentage have to earn their keep or be

987
subsidised by local council tax payers. For most museums, the main source of income is visitors and the sad fact is that at the moment they are in diminishing supply. There are reports from all over the country of diminishing admissions.
The overall number of visitors to museums is static at about 80 million, but the number of new museums sharing that cake is increasing year by year. Therefore, each individual museum is getting a smaller part of the cake. The decrease, or lack of increase, is an unfortunate result of Sunday shopping, which had a major effect on attendance figures all over the country. Sunday shopping is now a major recreational activity for the family and, quite frankly, museums cannot compete with major shopping centres such as Bluewater, Lakeside, Tesco and Sainsbury's. Every new museum will be in competition not only with established museums and galleries but also with other tourist attractions.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will not agree with me, but I can tell them that as regards regional museums the situation has not been helped by the Governments announcements on free entry to national museums and providing money to them, which the directors would much prefer to spend on new acquisitions, to compensate them for lack of admission money and VAT offset. Since all the national museums already catered for free entry for children and old-age pensioners and other needy people, the only beneficiaries are the millions of overseas visitors who are more than willing to pay and are accustomed to do so; for example, at the Louvre and the Hermitage where the queues are often longer than we see at our own museums. There is no evidence whatever that the British people think that we should provide free access to our national museums for overseas visitors who, when surveyed a few years ago, stated that they were more than delighted to pay.
After all, there is much experience in museums where there are admission charges enabling children, old-age pensioners and other deserving people to enter free. But in the new century, surely those who can afford to pay should pay and contribute to the future of the museum.
The fact is that most regional and independent museums have no choice other than to adopt a charging policy or close down. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave examples of those national museums which are in trouble. Basically, I feel that the Government have confused their very laudable desire for greater access with that of admission fees. The Museums Association tells me that the general query now from people in the provinces is about that very subject. They assume that entry to all museums is now free of charge.
The other great uncertainty in the regions is how the new body being set up as a result of the merger between the Museums and Galleries Commission and the libraries is going to work. Incidentally, that merger was opposed by almost all concerned. For years the Museums and Galleries Commission has admirably administered the funds allocated through the Museums Area Services. No such funds existed for libraries. If one assumes that, as usual, no new money will be
988
available, does that mean that museum funds will be robbed to finance library projects? An explanation of how the Government see the future in that area is eagerly awaited.
I must point out that there are also nearly 1,000 independent museums which play a considerable part in conserving and displaying our heritage. Some may he lucky, and have been lucky, in receiving lottery support but they cannot expect any government or local government funding. Nevertheless, regionally, they have a very important role to play in relation to the social infrastructure of our local communities. That is not solely educating children but also giving local people a sense of belonging to an area the roots of which go back in history.
Therefore, we all agree that regional museums play a vital part in the life of the nation. The regional district authorities and the Cultural Council have a major task in laying down standards and evolving a policy for the next two years. Otherwise, I foresee more and more museums, both large and small, closing down, It will be difficult to rehouse those artefacts in our already crowded museums so inevitably they will be sold and lost overseas.
However, I pay tribute to the Government and I thank the Secretary of State for finding the money over a three-year period for designated museums. That will be of great assistance, especially in the field of conservation.
The future stability of regional museums is dependent on well-structured partnerships by all concerned. I appreciate that it will be some time before the new regional structures are working as the Government propose. At the moment, the lack of information is breeding worry and uncertainty. The more the Government can do in future months to assure the regional museums of their support and confidence in their future, the better.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate. Museums are a very important part of our cultural heritage. Indeed, they should be at the very centre of all forms of local activity for the simple reason that everything about us, everything we do, has a history. Every locality has an individual history. Museums are probably the easiest way to get people interested in that history.
I was attracted to this debate because as a child I grew up in Norwich, which is a city well served by its museums. It has one major advantage—it has a castle in the middle of the city which has a museum inside it. It is probably about as good a building as there can be for housing a museum. There is a main medieval hall and keep and you are told about its history when you go in there. Another museum was one of the old town houses which was reconstructed and preserved in a historically pristine style. The rooms were decorated in the style of certain periods. As a child I remember looking at the strange toys and wondering how I could obtain a set of the lead soldiers there. I was told that they would rather exceed my pocket money. It was many years before I believed what my mother told me about that.

989
There was a museum which dealt with local industry, and in East Anglia that meant agriculture. Hayricks and farm implements were on display. They were usually accompanied by descriptions of the gruesome injuries they caused. The Roald Dahl theory about how to get children interested in such matters holds good. Tell them how a threshing machine can take your arm off and then tell them that it was used to gather in crops. That usually works quite well.
Those museums attracted the interest of the local people, and at that time, I believe, entry was free. If people visit such institutions they will become interested in the history involved. As I said, there is a history to everything we deal with. There is an historical aspect to every subject in education. This Government said—which I believe they borrowed from us from a previous election campaign—"education, education, education". Museums must surely be a part of that. Education is not just about textbooks and statistics and so on. It is about trying to engage people and get them involved. Museums and galleries are probably the best way to engage the interest of the population. If they can be made more relevant to the population through local connections, that is even better. They are a vital part of our society.
The political side is a question of money and funding. As has been said, you can construct a building or repair its roof, but you also have to run it. The National Lottery has helped with repairs and even new buildings on occasion, but the real problem facing those museums is the running costs. Anyone involved with voluntary sector work will know that it is fairly easy to construct something but very difficult to get it running. Unless prohibitive charges are imposed, which undoubtedly keeps down the numbers—there are no two ways about that—funding must be found from somewhere.
If I suggested that local authorities should fund those buildings willy-nilly and put money into them I should probably be ripped limb from limb as I signed on in the foyer at my next party conference. But the Government could take a step forward to give those educational units a chance; that is, by making sure that all local authorities which have responsibility for museums must publish a clear statement of what they are spending. We all know that in any organisation, there is a competition for funds. If you have some information, you can start to build an argument. Surely that would be a way forward.
We must also try to achieve more co-ordination in relation to our local museums and galleries. At lunch-time, I was speaking to some people from, I believe, the University of Newcastle who said, "Oh yes, we run a local museum from the university. We have a local remit. Unfortunately, the local authority does not include us in its tourist guide". It was not regarded as being part of that set-up. There must be integration of education and tourism policies. If people do not know that those places exist they will not visit them. It is as simple as that. Those aspects must be brought together.
That is a challenge for joined-up government. At a very low political temperature, it typifies much of what the Government have said they want to do. Education,
990
culture and tourism are all involved. Are we making a case for bringing culture, media and sport into the remit of the Department for Education? Most of those have been part of it at some time. Most of those aspects have been part of its remit at some time. Unless we take a coherent, across-the-board view, we will have trouble. At local level we must try and make sure that at least the educational service for the very young is provided on a free entry basis and make sure that people know about this. If people are being educated and deriving cultural benefit, it does not matter if the museum was founded by a local magnate 30 years ago.
Ultimately, unless we invest time and effort as well as cash in letting people know what is going on, we will, first, under-utilise the museum facilities and, secondly, lose them. We must keep public interest high and that will only come about if we involve people in every phase of the process. I believe the Government can do that without annoying the Treasury too much.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I too welcome this debate and thank the noble Earl for introducing it.
I am glad that there has been a remarkable change in the role of museums, especially in the regions, both in the way that they are being run and, above all, in the way that they relate to their local communities—a point just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that this has been a universal museum renaissance, though I speak for the West Midlands and especially for Hereford and Shropshire. This is part of a large area in which there are 150 museums linked together with other organisations in an informal "cultural consortium". Those bodies are not simply the obvious partners like the library and archive services, but West Midlands Arts, the Heart of England Tourist Board, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage and sports interests.
Certainly in the West Midlands there is a warm appreciation for this co-operative approach. While the museum service quite clearly wishes to remain autonomous and is differently structured from some of its partner bodies, it welcomes these increasing links and better channels of communication.
I could sing the praises of the wonderful new building we have in Hereford by the cathedral, designed by Sir William Whitfield, to house our uniquely important chained library and Mappa Mundi, and the interpretative exhibition that goes with it. Or I could speak about the Avoncroft Museum of Buildings at Bromsgrove, a wonderful collection of local buildings from many different periods—a smaller version of the magnificent folk museum at St. Fagans on the outskirts of Cardiff.
But I want to speak particularly and very appreciatively of three extremely modest initiatives of which I am aware and which form part of this museum revolution. Alongside the museum's traditional role of guardianship, we have seen growing up a remarkable increase in interpretation. Objects are preserved but they are also explained in ways which are interactive and user-friendly, and draw in the public in new ways. That

991
includes people who would previously have found it impossible to use or to enjoy the museum services and who would never have darkened the door of a museum building.
Hereford City Museum recently won the Gulbenkian Award taking first prize in the section for work with the disabled with its "Get in Touch" exhibition for the visually handicapped. It was a hands-on exhibition which ran for a year in Hereford and has now been dispersed to three smaller local museums, enabling blind and visually impaired people to enjoy the museum in a totally new way.
The second important local initiative in involving the public—the "stakeholders" in the current, unlovely jargon—has been in the encouragement of collectors. An amazing number of people are collectors of an extraordinary range of objects, only a tiny fraction of which could be included in a modest museum's own collection. Under the theme, "Carry on Collecting" Hereford museum has been encouraging individuals to share information and knowledge about their collections, whatever they are of, and people are passionate and expert collectors. The museum's role is to co-ordinate, advise and stimulate, and from time to time to gather together and display some of the private collections; to keep records of who has what and to set up networks of enthusiasts.
Let me give one specific example. I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House will be familiar with the remarkable private collection now displayed in a former warehouse in Gloucester Docks—the Opie Museum of Packaging. When I first heard about it my reaction, I am ashamed to say, was one of incredulity; it sounded terminally tedious—"A museum of packaging? You must be joking!" In reality, of course, it is one of the most enjoyable and instructive museums I have ever visited. It is an astonishing, three-dimensional textbook of social history—what we have eaten, what we have drunk, the clothes we have worn, the furniture we have lived with, and the advertising to which we have been subjected over the past 60 years or so. Practically every exhibit brings back memories, many of them for me intensely nostalgic. What transformations of public taste there have been. How simply we lived in those austere post-war years, and so on.
This museum started life as the collection of one enthusiast. It now serves the public with distinction giving pleasure and instruction to vast numbers of people. If museums regionally and locally can stimulate, catalogue and make use of similar collections, I believe they will be performing a worthwhile service alongside their traditional task of guardianship of mainstream archaeological, historical, scientific and cultural collections.
Let me mention one final important innovation: the mobile museum sponsored jointly by Hereford, Shropshire and Worcestershire. It is simply a large van, appropriately fitted out, which can take a changing, thematic collection of artefacts and interpretative material to local schools, agricultural shows, public events and into the furthest corners of these three rural
992
counties. This is an excellent, imaginative, co-operative venture which is adding again to the number of people who can be involved with the work of the regional museums, enjoy their collections, be informed and stimulated by them alongside the increasing numbers who actually visit them—a 40 per cent increase last year in Hereford city alone.
Despite the funding problems to which many noble Lords referred, regional museums are in very good heart. I should like to recognise the enthusiasm and hard work of curators and museum staff, and urge the Government also to be appreciative of this and generous in their funding of this important part of our cultural life.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I too should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate.
When I was a child I thought museums were for children, designed for children like a bigger or more exciting school. The adults were only there to accompany the children, not for their own pleasure or edification. It would be no bad thing if we were to bear that illusion of mine in mind when considering the function, role and future of museums. Their principal function must be to educate and to do so whether their visitors are 10 years old or 60. We go to them to look, to appreciate and to learn.
Yet there are people who find our big museums formidable, most of their exhibits being housed in vast buildings designed in the 19th century to look like palaces, temples or seats of government,. In the case of the Victoria and Albert Museum, it is spread over 11 acres with over seven miles of corridors and contains 4 million exhibits. In later life people are often intimidated by the scale of such buildings and fear being "shown up" for their ignorance of where to go and what to look for.
The "24-hour Museum" on the Internet should be of help here, as a new website will give information on around 3,000 museums and galleries as well as giving access to 150 museum websites. The project, "Museums for the Many", as mentioned by the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, should open up many of the country's collections and show users what is available to them: that museums are for all and not for a select few, an elite or solely for tourists.
Technology is a boon. But a huge cultural breakthrough such as the Internet has been—a source of enlightenment to many—must also, as noble Lords will know, have its downside. Websites on the net, of inestimable value as they will be, must not be allowed to become an end in themselves and deflect potential visitors away from attending museums in person.
With 80 million visitors a year, the public demand has never been higher, for local museums are a very different matter from the huge showplaces in city centres. The 2,000 and more in the United Kingdom are well distributed and increasingly popular. A particular appeal is made by local collections, enabling people to

993
grasp what their heritage is about, to understand their links with the past and to feel part of their communities in a cultural as well as a commercial and social way.
An example of success in difficult circumstances would be Gainsborough's House in Sudbury, Suffolk. Sudbury is Gainsborough. He was born in the town in 1727, a street is named after him, as are many local commercial ventures and institutions and a statue of him stands in the market-place where, holding brush and palette, he seems to be painting the town he surveys. Gainsborough's House is one of a very few independent galleries. Most are local authority museums. However, it does receive grants from Suffolk County Council and from the small parish-type authority, Sudbury Town Council. Three years ago it received £60,000 from the National Heritage Lottery Fund, enabling it to buy, among other works of art, a small Gainsborough painting. But its continued existence is a struggle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, education is a prime function of museums. This is the reason, apart from those opened merely to display vulgar curiosities, why most of them were established. With the Government's new drive to open up "hidden treasures" and free entry for children to 32 major national institutions, museums should develop their educational role and strengthen their links with schools. Inspiring children is of prime importance, that and offering them the opportunity to take pride in the area in which they live and the achievements of some writer, painter, musician, engineer or scientist particularly and essentially associated with their neighbourhood. That children should grow up, as many have in the past, bored if awe-inspired by a school visit to some vast and towering depository of ancient artefacts, is a tragedy. Nothing is more easily dismissed from the human mind than that which has not been understood. Special training for teachers in the explanation of museum exhibits will be of enormous use here.
If local cultural strategies are to be based on the needs of the community, it must be clear what those are. Needs are often not clearly known until information has been given and options offered. Local priorities should be identified and local people set the cultural agenda. Perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be for local councils to become self-satisfied with what is provided and sink into apathy. With the new websites, sensibly used, a real opportunity has appeared, offering everyone a chance to know what is locally and nationally on offer and what is expanding and being enhanced. It is to be hoped that the 24-hour Museum on the internet will be a gateway—but principally a gateway—to library users nationwide and, of course, available in schools.
"Design", as Bryan Appleyard wrote in last Sunday's Sunday Times,
"in the context of the V&A's glorious collection, is much better than shopping".
The difficulty here is that you cannot buy the exhibits, but you can often buy facsimiles or representations of the exhibits. Shopping, we are told, is the consuming passion of the times in which we live. Therefore, the museum's shop, whether it may be attached to a small
994
railway museum out in the country or to the National Gallery is another gateway and its expansion or, in some cases, installation, should be encouraged. The child who buys the plastic cat wearing gold earrings has been introduced to Egyptology and another pathway of his or her education has been entered.
A shop may also be a useful source of funding. In 1998–99, for instance, retailing income in the Wolverhampton Art Gallery shop doubled. Wolverhampton Art and Museums has attracted £6 million from the National Lottery for capital development, commissioning and temporary projects. A measure of the success of these programmes is the enormous increase in the number of visitors. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport is spreading its financial support to museums beyond those it directly funds by means of a £15 million challenge fund for designated museums. Of the 43 designated museums eligible to apply, 17 are local authority managed. Unfortunately, Gainsborough's House failed to gain inclusion among designated museums, although Gainsborough is a nationally, even internationally, famous painter.
A museum may enjoy charitable status. The rules and regulations of a "friends" or voluntary supporters club, can be organised within a simple constitution. Gainsborough's House is presently considering the possibilities of establishing a friends' group. There are a number of financial benefits to be derived from charitable status including 80 per cent mandatory relief on business rates, exemption from certain taxes and enhanced opportunities to receive funds from private individuals. The disadvantages are that the museum, by having to stand alone, will be unable to fall back on local authority resources, financial and otherwise. But since local authorities can and do administer charities, a council may be able to initiate a charitable company to focus on museum operations. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu pointed out, a great many people have now taught themselves to believe that entrance to all museums is, or should be, free.
Finally, the new museum that Somerset House will become, needs a mention in this debate. At present, one of its wings houses the Courtauld Collection on the Strand. When the ambitious and splendid conversions are complete, Mr. and the late Mrs. Gilbert's collection of gold and silver, micro mosaics and snuff boxes will be housed in the Gilbert Galleries. Public access will be from the Victoria Embankment and a glass bridge will span the entrance. The great arch that was a feature of the original 200 year-old building will be re-established. The new museum will be a marvellous marriage of the ancient and the modern and a magnet to art lovers from all over the world.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this timely debate on the role of regional museums and galleries.
In particular, I should like to focus on a much-neglected type; namely, those museums attached to universities and other higher education institutes. They

995
have, with some justice, been referred to as the Cinderellas of the museum world in that they have much to offer yet are little known and appreciated. For various historical reasons, many possess specialist collections, a good number of which are not on display nor catalogued nor curated—indeed, their very existence is only gradually coming to light.
According to the MGC's museums registration scheme, the number of university museums in the United Kingdom stood at 90 on 21st May 1999—5 per cent of the total number of museums. In addition, universities possess a large number of less documented collections, and recent research by Kate Arnold-Foster indicates that the total number of museums and collections amounts to more than 400, suggesting that the issue is a far larger one than had previously been recognised.
They range from major museums such as the Ashmolean in Oxford and the Museum of English Rural Life at Reading to unusual teaching collections of laboratory equipment. Most were put together with a specific educational or research purpose that is far narrower than that of the average public museum. The physical study of objects was seen as fundamental to the teaching and research of subjects such as geology, archaeology, anatomy and pathology.
However, as teaching methods changed, the relevance of the collections decreased dramatically, particularly in the sciences. Important study collections became historical rather than working collections—though some have recently found new uses in contemporary scientific studies; for example, in assessing changing levels of pollution in the atmosphere. As they have become redundant, collections have also become more interesting historically, making new uses for them appropriate. It is neither possible nor desirable to re-invent all these collections as local authority-style public museums. What should be done is to enhance those features that make university museums and collections different. Increased access is important, but so, too, is preserving distinctness.
University museums and collections have the potential to fulfil a number of objectives: supporting teaching and research, enhancing the quality of life of students and staff, raising the academic profile of the institution, enhancing the quality of life of the wider community, raising the local, regional or national profile of the institution and even earning income for it. To do all, or any of these things well, however, they need resources.
Higher education museums have traditionally been funded by their parent bodies. However, in the past decade, with funding under increased pressure and greater accountability demanded, there has been greater resistance to spending money on such "luxuries" as research collections. Perhaps future funding for museum collections could be ring-fenced? Today, university collections are no longer at the forefront of best practices in display or educational techniques. Heads of departments are often unaware or too busy to apply for additional funding, such as challenge funding, which would improve the running of their collection. The Museums and Galleries Access Fund can help.
996
In the past universities had a good record for caring for works of art and other objects entrusted to them. However, unused collections are vulnerable to being disposed of or consigned to unsuitable storage conditions, while some institutes will be tempted to exchange their collections for cash. For example, Royal Holloway College recently sold off some of its most valuable Victorian paintings, thus breaking up a previously intact collection. This would not be acceptable in any public collection. Understandably, universities regard collections as their own property to dispose of as they wish, rather than as objects presented to them in trust for the public, as is the case in local authority museums. The Government should urgently examine whether universities are still the best custodians of their share of our heritage. If not, should the Government act to limit their powers of disposal?
Up until 1998 all higher education museums and galleries relied on the Department for Education for their upkeep. At present the total sum available to HE funding councils is barely adequate and does not allow for building maintenance or capital development. The funding of the major, or non-formula, university museums—some 21 museums of undoubted national distinction—is now in the hands of the Arts and Humanities Research Board, which expends some £9 million on them out of a budget of £17 million. Although there is little possibility of works being sold off, it is worrying to note that the board has little experience in this field.
Is it not therefore worth considering whether such funding would be better managed by an organisation with experience of museums, such as the Department of Culture, Media and Sport? While this would create great unease in universities as it would sever the bonds between university and museum, it is necessary to ask the question: if universities do not see their collections as core to their educational needs, how do they intend to fund their upkeep? Perhaps this is an area that the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council should investigate when it starts operating in April 2000.
What is needed is a complete rethink of the ways universities fund their museums and collections alongside a radical re-examination of their changing role and the possibilities for sharing them with others. The most likely future for many small collections is on The Internet for wider dissemination among scholars and other interested parties. Clearly this in itself will cost money. It would, I think, be an investment well worth making. For, if treated imaginatively, there is every sign that universities' historic collections should have a useful and glorious future as well as a past.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Knutsford: My Lords, I too would like to applaud the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for promoting this debate to call attention to the role of regional museums at a time when the nationals are more in the public eye.
I speak from experience over many years of a local authority museum; namely, the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter—which the right reverend Prelate

997
knows well—which is a large and lively regional museum with many and varied collections, owned by the Exeter City Council, a small, second-tier local authority. An analogy is of a large demanding cuckoo sitting rather uncomfortably in a small local authority nest. This leads to two difficulties which in this day and age are repeated in almost every walk of life; namely, financial and staff shortages.
In terms of financial resources, local authority museums do not compare favourably with the nationals which are funded by the DCMS. Considering the size of its huge Victorian building and the size of its collections, Exeter Museum's revenue budget is very small compared to museums of similar size funded centrally. One reason is that there is no legal obligation on a local authority to provide a museum service, and a small restricted local authority finds it hard to give priority to cultural activities when the alternative is having to cut other budgets. But a more disappointing reason is another cuckoo-in-the-nest situation. Over the past nine years the annual visitor figure has risen from 80,000 to 217,000. However, this number of visitors is over twice the population of Exeter which provide the city council's revenue. Such a large increase cannot be sustained without spending more money, but Exeter City Council is reluctant to find it. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said; namely, that it may be necessary for central government to relieve hard-pressed local authorities of their financial pressures.
I suppose one can argue that such restriction of local authority support should inspire the director and her staff to be enterprising in earning more income from the already profitable museum shop and café and to be energetic in securing external funding. However, these initiatives lead me to the next difficulty of staff shortages. Considering the extent and historic importance of its collections—for example, its world cultures collection has earned designated status—Exeter Museum is short of (it could be said desperately short of) curators. It is unrealistic to expect the owners to employ specialist curators. A solution therefore might be to make meaningful and formal arrangements between nationals and regionals for experienced curators from the former to be seconded to or to assume a pastoral role towards the regional museums.
However, there are excellent adaptable curators in regional museums who juggle sound curatorship with innovative and communicative skills for the benefit of their visitors. But they may not be specialists in the subject matter of their pre-eminent collections. There is also an adverse disparity of salaries in the provinces which impedes career movement of curators from nationals to regionals. There are no "fat cats" purring along the corridors of regional museums.
These staff shortages—and they do not apply only to curators—exacerbate the difficulties of securing external capital funding which is so essential for the refurbishment and modernisation of galleries or the purchase of works of art for collections, to give only two examples. Over the past few months the small staff at Exeter has prepared six extensive and time-consuming applications or feasibility studies—
998
I venture to say with favourable success—and at the same time has helped with a local authority development appeal, as well as keeping in close touch with its friends' organisation, whose good will, vigour and financial support are so vital to the prosperity of any museum.
I will not only draw attention to the negative and assertive problems suffered by regional museums owned by local authorities, as there are many positive factors. The previous and present governments deserve praise for their designated scheme which is perhaps the first time that central government have recognised with financial resources that the regionals care for a significant part of our cultural heritage. Furthermore, the Heritage Lottery Capital and Access Funds, the Designated Collections Challenge Fund, the DfEE fund for museum education and several others are designed to inject capital into regional museums to the relief of local authority budgets.
Conservation, care and access are the purposes and functions of a museum, and they should go together as balanced priorities. With good will and a harmonious relationship between owner and operator, there is no reason why regional museums should not continue to respond to the challenges caused by global activities, such as the 24-hour museum on a website, the growing interest in world culture, the rising standard of artistic work and craftsmanship and cultural education.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford. He drew our attention to the problems which over the last two decades regional museums have faced, and are still facing. I believe the situation could be summed up in the words, "Death by a thousand cuts", or indeed be described as greater demoralisation of the staff, leading to closures which are not only unnecessary but also debilitating to the regional areas, some of which are suffering from great poverty. I therefore thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing this timely debate. We are all in his debt, not only in this House but way afield, in the regions.
I spent the last 24 hours at the Britannia Royal Naval College. It was my first visit, which I made as a member of your Lordships' defence group. I was delighted to learn from the new commodore, Commodore Clare, RN, that there is a plan to have a museum at the Royal Naval College. I noted on the walls of the poop deck, where he briefed us when we arrived, portraits of our Second World War admirals, which I had last seen in the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. I asked whether they were on loan and he replied that they were not; when the Royal Naval College was disbanded as such the portraits and other artefacts were sent for display at the Britannia Royal Naval College. I was delighted to see the Royal Navy in the forefront of the policy of distributing works of art to the regions.
Those admirals and junior officers who served us with such distinction in the First World War and the Second World War were trained from 1905 at the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. What better setting to display

999
these works of art? We learnt that there is an idea to raise £2 million—a measly £2 million, we might say, out of a £16 million annual budget which the Royal Naval College exists on—by selling off the hospital for private accommodation, when, in my opinion, it would be better to have a museum of our Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. That would not only enable more of us to understand what a great debt we owe to the Royal Navy but would also improve and enhance that area of Devon and create a bonus for the local community. I hope that the Minister will discuss that with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, the Defence Minister in your Lordships' House, to see whether that could be arranged.
What is the motive for having museums? It is to bring together objects and people. The role of regional museums surely is to preserve, to acquire, to exhibit, to display objects so as to instruct, inform, inspire, educate, amuse, entertain and enable people to enjoy at all times, wherever possible at little or no cost and with no harm to anyone else, their regional history and identity.
Noble Lords have told us of their own experiences. My noble friend Lord Addington told us about the Norwich Museum. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford told us of the inspiration that he gets from the museums in his great diocese. I also declare an interest. I have walked the Hadrianic frontier, where I am privileged to own some land. I have done so four or five times, and I have taken cadets and others along the main sights of the Hadrianic frontier. I have also walked the Antonine frontier.
I am greatly indebted, as are many others both at home and abroad, to the work done at Tullie House, Carlisle, and the Museums of Antiquities at Glasgow and at Newcastle, part of the universities. But they are not well known. People who go and enjoy the wall would do better if they went to those museums first, so that they would learn where they can and cannot go, where they should and should not go, and where they can see the whole wall and not just, say, the Fort of Housesteads, which too many people visit, thus damaging the area.
There have been recent developments in Merseyside, a great area in Liverpool which had riots recently. It is the museums that have inspired and led the way out of that depression. There are a million visitors a year and it receives £24 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. We have much to learn from the work of Mr. Richard Foster and others who have worked so hard at creating a new Merseyside.
I expect the Minister to trumpet the cause of the Tate Gallery's partnership scheme. Good, indeed, it will be, but I understand that there is a problem with funding and costs. Regional museums can join the scheme at £15,000 a year, with costs for loans at £7,000 to £10,000. They will rely on the Heritage Lottery Fund to provide grants through the Museums and Galleries Areas Fund, but that funding is for three years only: £4 million for 1999–2000, decreasing to £2.5 million for 2000–2001 and nil in the year 2001–2002. How can a regional museum enter a scheme with no funding in the third year? I ask the Minister to explain that discrepancy when he winds up, if he has time. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
1000
We had a debate on the Lindisfarne Gospels. We wanted the Government to hand them back to their rightful place. That did not occur. The east area of Durham has another museum called the Bowes. Museum, which needs support.
Does the Minister agree that, with the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Commission replacing the Museums and Galleries Commission next April, a grant regime should be included in the new body's powers, to enable, where circumstances argue strongly for it, funding to be made available to a willing partnership between a regional and a national museum where the governance of the regional museum needs to be re-engineered? That is one practical way in which the present gulf between our great national and regional museums could be bridged, with huge benefits to the public and to the staff employed by those museums in their training and career development.
The failure to send the Lindisfarne Gospels back to Durham caused injury. Failure to support the Bowes Museum would be a lasting insult.
7.49 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing this debate. My subject is the Josephine and John Bowes Museum, to which the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lard Montagu, and most recently the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, made reference. I shall echo many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Knutsford.
I am a life member of the Friends of the Bowes and I have been discussing its future with Durham County Council in a personal capacity. I want to draw attention to the dilemma facing Durham County as the sole trustee of the Bowes and to suggest one way forward and also that the Government take a fair share of responsibility for the Bowes' future.
A brief history will serve to illustrate the county 's dilemma. The Bowes has large—some would say very large—and fine collections made in the great majority by its founders, Josephine and John Bowes, in the second half of the last century. Josephine was French and John spent much of his time in France. Durham coal financed their purchases which have a strong bias towards continental Europe. For example, the Bowes has textiles, including 40 major tapestries which are third in importance to the V&A and the Burrell. The continental ceramics are many and comprehensive—a collection much admired by both the Wallace and, again, the V&A—not to mention the pictures. In addition to El Greco, Goya and Tiepolo, the many small 19th century French landscapes are outstanding: Courbet, Corot and Boudin, for example. And then there is the furniture, the toys, the mechanical swan—Bowes' emblem—the list goes on and on.
These collections are housed in a large French-designed Durham-built chateau within 20 acres of formal grounds, in the market town of Barnard Castle in Teesdale. The Bowes is by far the largest designated fine art museum—many of its collections being designated—in a semi-rural setting, with the nearest population centres, Tyne and Wear and Teesside, being

1001
30 to 40 miles distant. The impact of the building and its collections is both amazing and unexpected. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, might even find it intimidating. Most regrettably, this major resource of undoubted national importance is seriously under-funded.
The Bowes has had two previous financial crises, one at its inception in the 1890s. Josephine Bowes died unexpectedly before John. He married again—a lady who lived mostly in Paris while he spent time at Streatlam near Barnard Castle. At the time of John Bowes' death the museum was unfinished, he was in the middle of divorce proceedings and the price of coal was low. The newly formed management committee of the trustees had a very difficult time and thereafter, with hindsight, funding was never adequate.
Fifty years on the trustees gave up the unequal struggle and a scheme fathered by the then Minister of Education made Durham County Council the sole trustee in 1956. For 40 years Durham has kept the Bowes going—much credit to the county. However, Durham County has undergone change and the climate affecting public expenditure has radically altered. From a population of 1.2 million, Durham has shrunk through time and local government reforms to half a million. As authorities have left the county—for example, Darlington recently—they have taken with them no continuing obligation to fund the Bowes.
Eventually, the county council responded with a proposal to closed the museum for the winter, a matter referred to in this House 14 months ago. Closure was averted by moneys found by the Friends—all credit to them also—and by a charitable gift made by the Hedley Trust through the Friends. Nevertheless, financial crisis number three is still impending, as is confirmed by the 1998 Richard Foster report. This report, which is DCMS-sponsored, said that core revenue funding, now £600,000, needs to be £1 million plus per annum. And Durham looks forward to reducing its present commitment. As it argues, "Which is the more important: the library in an ex-pit village or money for the Bowes?" Unfortunately, the DCMS Vote does not include core funding for the Bowes—a local authority museum by definition—nor is there any substantial support from within the present budget of the Museums and Galleries Commission.
The new Designated Museums Challenge Fund may afford some relief. Durham County has applied. The commission says that grants over three years which total more than £500,000 will be very exceptional. The Bowes is certainly very exceptional and, ironically, it is the size and excellence of its collections and the size and Grade I status of the building and its location which reinforce the dilemma. The Bowes is a national resource entirely dependent on local funding—not even on regional funding, as with Tyne and Wear and the North West.
If no way forward were to be found, the Bowes would stagnate without the funds to curate, research, conserve and display its collections to anywhere near modern
1002
standards. Indeed, to discuss access and education in the absence of core funding is to deceive the public—and no one feels this more strongly than the 1,400 Friends.
There is a possible way forward which is in harmony with Richard Foster's recommendation that the governance of the museum be widened, a recommendation which has been accepted in principle by both the DCMS and the county. It is possible to move, at some risk, to the modern equivalent of the pre-1956 trust along the lines of 1983 Heritage Act institutions. A charitable company limited by guarantee could be formed, with Durham included and remaining a grant-aiding body but not the sole source of finance. Independent trustees would be appointed whose task would be to gain national and international recognition for the Bowes. They would wish to work closely with such institutions as the V&A and they would need to fund-raise. This is, I believe, a tried and tested solution, not an uncharted path.
If this way forward meets with approval, it leads to two questions. Would the Government find a way to provide substantial transitional finance way beyond the current support for advice and feasibility studies? Secondly, the Minister said last August on a visit to the Bowes:
"I will he taking a keen personal interest over the next few months in the development of plans to secure the Bowes Museum's long term future".
Will therefore the Government make a statement on their policy at an early date?
If it is said that detailed business plans need to come first, I can only say that in the present circumstances they are very difficult to make. Much depends on future governance. What is certain is that Durham County and the museum, and not least its staff, need to see a clear way forward. Surely the Government can act as the enabler.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I want first to add my thanks to those already expressed by others this evening to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate. Museums, an important element in the cultural life of this country, are too often bypassed and overlooked. It is good that, in the words of the Motion,
"the role of the regional museums and galleries (particularly local authority museums) within the United Kingdom",
should be brought forward for public attention in this way. At this point I wish to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who has just spoken, that his father was a friend of mine and a friend to the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum. His encouragement and enthusiasm for the causes that I espoused some time ago were greatly appreciated. I wish to pay tribute to his memory when talking about museums.
If, in offering my remarks to your Lordships this evening, I dwell upon the recent history of one museum in particular—the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum—it is because I want to use that story to underline what I believe is a fundamental point in organising support for our smaller museums; and, secondly, because I was closely associated with that museum for the period of 15 years from 1970 to 1985,

1003
during which time I was its chairman for five years and for a further three was charged with finding the funds necessary to ensure that it was re-established in a new and splendid location within the City of Salisbury and to make certain that its fine collections were well displayed in a manner which their distinction deserved. It is in effect the only museum of which I have a reasonably thorough knowledge and it is the only one I can talk about with any authority. I have no formal or official position and it follows that my remarks represent the views of no one but myself. I do not seek to represent in any way the views of others. What I say this evening has in no way been dictated by the trustees or the professional curatorial staff of that institution.
When I became acquainted with the museum in the early 1970s, it was located in a seldom-visited side-street in Salisbury—one not without charm but off the beaten track, especially that trodden by tourists—where it had been since its foundation in 1860. During the years of which I speak, a number of significant things have happened to the Salisbury Museum, which is independent, and I shall refer to those matters to illustrate what can be done given a modicum of vision and ambition, a first-rate collection and, most important, enduring enthusiasm and support from the local public.
Although the collections in St. Ann Street were highly regarded—especially the archaeological material—they were not housed or displayed in a manner that matched that regard. A new location with up-to-date display facilities was needed if the museum were to prosper. The search for new premises took several years but ended when the 99-year lease of a Grade I listed building in Cathedral Close became available and was successfully negotiated.
Earlier, I mentioned a modicum of ambition. During the search for more appropriate premises it became known that material in the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Farnham, North Dorset—General Pitt-Rivers' private treasure house—might become available once more for inspection if certain complex issues of ownership could be resolved. The collection had not been seen for 15 or 20 years while the museum had been closed.
With help from the holder of the Chair of Archaeology at the University of Southampton at that time, better known to your Lordships now as Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn; the late Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who was then closely connected with the British Academy; and wise counsel offered by the then Director of the British Museum, Sir John, later Lord Wolfenden, a transfer of the Wessex-derived material from private to public ownership was effected. After discussions with Dorset and Wiltshire archaeological societies, Salisbury Museum was named as the new steward of that archaeological material, most of which was excavated by the general himself along the borders of South Wiltshire and North Dorset.
Other items apparently purchased at auction were also included. Virtually the entirety of the pieces from the Farnham Museum thus transferred have been on public display in Salisbury since 1983. Also held at Salisbury are the general's papers and some letters. If I give the impression that the new Salisbury and South Wiltshire
1004
Museum is only about archaeology, I would mislead your Lordships. There are fine collections of ceramics occupying two galleries, collections of costume and English glassware, and two galleries are devoted to displays illustrating the history of the city of Salisbury, including the buildings of the cathedral.
I am daring to take up your Lordships' time relating all this because to realise all the good things that are now available for inspection by scholars and the public at Salisbury Museum, a move from one building to another was involved, the sale of the old and the purchase of the new had to be negotiated, and the new building had to be adapted. All that cost money. There had to be a public appeal and no one was certain how that would go. In the event, at the end of three years' endeavour starting in 1981, and having set a notional target of £280,000—which was calculated as being sufficient to set the re-established institution on its feet—that figure was exceeded by about £50,000 and the battle was won.
That achievement would never have been brought about without the enduring support and enthusiasm of the local, albeit scattered, community. The Salisbury Museum is an independent institution supported by a subscription-paying membership of about 800, with helpful financial input from Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council. It is registered as a company limited by guarantee and is also a charity. It is fair to say that the annual grants from those two local authorities would not be made were it not for the realisation of the excellence of the museum collections and the strength of local support from independent non-local authority sources. Many years ago, I was for 10 years a councillor. It seems that local support comes first, then the local authorities will step in.
At the time of the public appeal, for the required capital sum to set up the establishment, Salisbury District Council came forward with a generous one-off contribution. At the time, the county council felt unable to do that but neither authority has ceased its annual support, which is so necessary to help maintain the fabric of the historic building in which the museum is housed. Wiltshire County Council cut its grant for a year or two by 33 per cent and that was painful.
The work of the Museums and Galleries Commission is influential for the good health of our smaller museums. Your Lordships should understand that I am out of date with all of this. I am talking about the years 1970 to 1985. If I say something that is clearly out of date, your Lordships will understand and think accordingly. In the commission's annual report for 1997–98 its chairman, Mr. Joll, correctly emphasised the fundamental importance of the quality of any collection as the core of a museum's reputation—ahead of conservation, education, scholarly research and entertainment. That idea is sound but the question arises of how collections are put together. In Wiltshire, a clear written statement sets out the agreed policy of Wiltshire Archaeological Society, the other significant museum in the county, with the Salisbury Museum as to which institution will accept responsibility for material excavated in those parts of the county nearest to the geographical location of the museums. Devizes Museum

1005
is to the north and Salisbury Museum to the south. Ordnance Survey references are noted and the system works well.
That raises the question of whether there is or should be a similar set of agreements organised and monitored by the Museums and Galleries Commission to cover the whole country. At present, there seems to be no clear indication as to which museum institution has responsibility for guardianship of excavated material. A smash-and-grab situation seems to operate. If so that is a pity, as it will tend to act against local public support for smaller museums—consequently against local authority support and so on.
I have exceeded my time so I must conclude. I am leaving out an important part of what I had to say. I will end with a letter that I received only last week from Cheshire. It contained the excellent news that the 723 year-old Borough of Congleton, from which my family came centuries ago, is setting up a museum at the town's assembly rooms, to record with appropriate displays the history and pre-history of that part of England. I wish it well. I hope that the kind of local enthusiasm and support as was forthcoming for Salisbury Museum's new location in the 1970s will attend the enterprise of Congleton's current ambition.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on yet again bringing to your Lordships' Chamber the opportunity to debate cultural subjects. The noble Earl has a deep commitment to museums and galleries, and has shown that in the past with his impassioned campaign against admission charges. I share that enthusiasm with him.
Within the greater part of the 2,500 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom there is enormous difficulty in funding because of local government pressures on finance and all that springs from them. However, there are many bright spots to be found. This debate has been fairly upbeat. Various speakers referred to areas of the United Kingdom which have museums and galleries which offer admirable examples of energy, innovation and success. Within the pressures that are placed upon the museums and galleries movement, one feels that there is a momentum building up.
Glasgow was one of the first examples of a United Kingdom city which demonstrated an enormous cultural rebirth. It impressed people not only in this country but abroad and attracted many visitors, not only to the city's museums and galleries but to its other cultural attractions. That example has been followed by other great cities such as Liverpool. Merseyside has eight museums, which I am glad to say have recently received a great deal of funding and attract large numbers of visitors. Two notable examples are the Bob Ballard underwater excavations, and in particular those related to the "Titanic", which have created a great deal of interest; and the natural history centre.
Liverpool is a city that I used to know well. I used to go there on business. I always tried to find time, at the end of my business affairs there, to visit the Walker
1006
Gallery. I always found it an enormous relief, if not a shelter from the inevitably bad weather. I found the gallery itself, and the never-failing good humour of the inhabitants of Liverpool, a very rewarding part of my visit to the area. There was not a great deal of culture there in the mid-1960s, but since then there has been a transformation, as with so many cities and towns in the United Kingdom.
Manchester is another example of a city that has seen a great decline in the industrial and commercial activities upon which it built its wealth and is now becoming a great cultural centre. The Imperial War Museum North had for a long time to deal with the difficult problem of whether to employ the great architect Daniel Liebeskind to build that great structure. To my immense relief, it did not do what the Cardiff Opera House did; namely, invite the remarkable Iraqi woman architect whose plans for the opera house were so imaginative and extraordinary that they drew visitors from abroad even before there was any hint that the building would be started, as, sadly, it was not. The project was simply too bold. Our loss was Cincinnati's gain. She immediately acquired the commission for the Cincinnati Museum of Contemporary Art. That is an example of the kind of boldness that is required for the buildings that house museums and galleries. In this country there has always been a tendency to play safe. I am sure that the opera house in Cardiff will be extremely effective, but it will be a workmanlike affair compared with the imaginative project of Zaha Hadid. That kind of boldness in the employment of world-famous creative and energetic people, if it is possible, should be pursued. All credit goes to Manchester for achieving that success.
The social and cultural role of museums now runs alongside their academic and educational role. That is seen more and more in all kinds of museums; for example, the Museum of Childhood in Edinburgh, and even the Brooklands Motoring Museum, which I visited recently as a member of the all party motor cycle group, is showing enormous imagination in creating a period atmosphere of the great days of Brooklands and attracting large numbers of visitors. The same is true of the Thackeray Medical Museum in Leeds.
I congratulate the Government on their excellent paper, Museums for the many, which I studied in preparation for this debate. They have done a great job in setting out the kind of criteria that are required for the future and how access can be improved. There are one or two rather strange passages in the document, as one would expect. One does not want to carp. They emphasise the need for carrying out research about visitors and users. That is normal marketing procedure, and clever marketing will be needed.
The section headed "Meeting Audience Needs" states that,
"charging is regarded by some as a barrier to access",
and continues:
"museums which charge should have a clear strategy for attracting people on low incomes".
I find that a curious reference. Although people on low incomes may have to prioritise, which is one of the reasons why one does not like the idea of charging, they

1007
are not always uneducated. Often they are educated people, but may be inhibited from visiting museums and galleries if they charge because they have other urgent calls on their income. Education is needed above all.
There is another curious statement later in the document; namely:
"Museums should … ensure that their shops and cafes sell items which those on low incomes can afford".
I have always found the food in museums and galleries to be excellent and cheap. I do not know where the department has found smoked salmon and caviar on the menu, but possibly its researchers have had a different experience to mine.
The future is good. That is borne out by the excellent speech of the right reverend Prelate regarding what is happening in Bromsgrove and his own city of Hereford. It was also borne out by the excellent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford. There is an example of a city that is penalised by its own success. The noble Viscount made an excellent suggestion; namely, that if museums and galleries begin to draw large numbers of visitors, they have a problem finding curators and staff. His suggestion that there should be a relationship with the larger, national museums and galleries regarding some kind of exchange was interesting and productive.
I shall spend the week of the Recess visiting one or two of the places that were mentioned. But the first on my list has to be the Museum of Packaging in Gloucester.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for providing this opportunity to discuss the valuable role played by regional museums and galleries. They are indeed able to reflect local history and culture, and local needs. They give local people an opportunity to view themselves and their existence within the wider context of their nation, and in such a way that they do not remain parochial but are able to maintain a sense of pride in their own locality. Museums and galleries are not only vital to our culture and our education system; they are important to society. The problem lies in getting the balance between all those functions right. It is a task for all of us, including government. This debate is indeed timely. Last week was Museums Week, when 863 museums took part in offering a host of special events, as well as providing free or reduced admission and tours of stores and areas that are normally closed to the public because of the cost of arranging access—the costs associated with security, preservation and staffing. Like many noble Lords, I took the opportunity to visit my local museums and to learn from their experiences about how one can try to put good practice into effect. I went to Guildford Museum on the opening day of Museums Week. I am grateful to its curator and assistant curator, Matthew and Mary Alexander, for the time they spent with me and for putting together a helpful information pack. Here I associate myself with the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate about the dedication shown by curators. We owe a great deal to them for it.
1008
The museum at Guildford was founded over 100 years ago. It is in a listed building, it is now part of the Leisure Services Department of the local authority. It houses the largest collection of archaeology, local history and needlework in Surrey and provides a range of services. The objects in store can always be seen by appointment; it has a voluntary excavation unit which it can turn to at short notice. It has a young archaeologists' club for people between the ages of eight and 18. There they learn about archaeology and local history, using the museum's resources. They have practical sessions and visits to places of interest.
The museum has an excellent loan system for schools which includes objects that the children can handle themselves. I am not sure whether they follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and whether it is a Roald Dahl scenario. Certainly, they are able to handle stone age axes, Roman pottery and medieval pottery among other things.
The pièce de résistance for Museums Week in Guildford was a special exhibition. I am not too sure that it has anything to do with the knowledge of the noble or less noble burghers of Guildford in my area, but they entitled it: "Greed, Avarice and Wanderlust in 17th Century Guildford". It was an exhibition on international trade and its influence on the daily life of the period. It was not only attention-grabbing—it certainly brought me there—but it was also informative.
At the end of Museums Week, I visited an even more local museum, the new Surrey History Centre which was opened only seven months ago, half a mile from my house. I am grateful to the county archivist, David Robinson, for the time he spent there with me explaining how the centre strives to achieve its objective of preserving the past for the future.
The centre collects and preserves archives and printed material relating to all aspects of the history of Surrey and makes them available for reference. It also houses the county's archaeological unit and the museum development office. Surrey County Council provided the site and the Heritage Lottery Fund provided nearly £3 million for building it. There, Surrey's heritage is depicted in stunning and imaginative public works of art which are on permanent display at the centre.
I believe that both Guildford Museum and the Surrey Heritage Centre do their utmost to adopt good practice as advocated by the recent DCMS publication to which noble Lords have referred, Museums for the Many.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I have read the document fairly closely and note that paragraph 4.1 states that:
"These standards seek to encourage all museums to offer wide access. However, in the first instance they are aimed primarily at all the museums and galleries funded directly by DCMS".
What exactly is meant by "in the first instance"? When does the second instance come along? Which institutions would be targeted then? I was also intrigued to read at paragraph 7.3 that the Government accept that:
"some museums have to charge and the income raised can be used to enhance the quality of the experience through longer opening hours and better displays".

1009
As my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu pointed out, museum directors have repeatedly stated that entry fees provide a reliable income stream and allow them to deliver quality services that are central to their economy. Free admission means that one loses more than just the income receipts. One also loses the VAT recovery, perhaps sponsors who get benefits under the existing system or go elsewhere and corporate sponsors who leave because they would rather not have their donations returned to the Government in the form of VAT.
I remain concerned that the effect of the Government pressing national museums to abolish entry fees could well cause knock-on effects to those regional and local museums that cannot readily adapt and yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, commented earlier, they will be expected to do so by the public.
The danger remains that the Government's allocation of £30 million will not be enough to compensate museums and galleries for their loss of revenue at a national level and it will thereby reduce their ability to lend items to regional and local museums.
In addition, how will loans to regional museums be affected if there are changes to national museums and galleries in the way in which they are funded and administered? What are the implications for regional and local museums of the Answers given by the Minister in this House on 17th May? He was very informative, but he whetted my appetite and I hope for more. He spoke of a review, of trying to free the museums from the present structure. Today a Written Answer in another place from the Secretary of State to my honourable friend Peter Ainsworth states that:
"Options might include … public sector management, public/private partnerships or a change of legal status".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/99; col. WA 97.]
What would be the impact of any changes on the operation of the regional and local museums and galleries? That is something we need to examine carefully.
The Minister will be aware of the concerns voiced by the Visual Arts and Galleries Association about the funding crisis facing many museums. That crisis was referred to by my noble friend Lord Knutsford. The VAGA's brief for this debate states that,
"large parts of the Local Authority funded museum and art gallery sector are facing death by a thousand cuts, as core funding is being eroded".
The VAGA states that the Nottingham City Museum's,
"service is on the verge of becoming dysfunctional".
It also states that the Wolverhampton Arts and Museums Service, mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, is in danger of collapse unless there is an increase in core support.
Tonight, my noble friend Lord Eccles referred eloquently to the problems faced by the Bowes Museum. When we met last night, I had to admit to him that I had not yet visited the museum, although I know the area well, and it is my fault. Today I have tried to make partial amends by making a virtual reality visit by logging on to the 24-hour museum website launched recently at the beginning of Museums Week. I visited
1010
the Bowes Museum website via that gateway and it is excellent. The 3D Swan is certainly different! I welcome the development of the site, but, as I mentioned to the Minister, I am puzzled by one aspect of it. The home page displays a real time clock, except that the clock is permanently one hour fast. Is it the Government's attempt to make us harmonise with central European time? Or is it a subtle reminder to us all that the future will always need to know about the past?
8.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the wide terms of the Motion which was moved so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has attracted a wide range of well informed contributions from your Lordships this evening. The noble Earl should feel able to congratulate himself on it. Although he originally spoke of regional museums, the debate has been about regional, local authority, independent and university museums and galleries. The debate has been outstanding for the contributions from those who have close connections with particular museums. I have leant a great deal from the contributions this evening. They have been about the Bowes Museum, to which I shall have to return, Hereford, Salisbury, Exeter, Guildford, Norwich and no doubt others which I have overlooked. It has shown how important it is for our cultural life that we should have this vast range of museums, many quite newly-opened. to complement our national collections.
The Department for Culture has just completed a research project about visitors to museums and galleries, and noble Lords may be interested in the headline results. A sample of the total population was asked which of a number of activities they had taken part in during the previous 12 months. The most popular of all was the cinema at 59 per cent, but museums and galleries came third. Thirty-five per cent of the population had visited one in the past 12 months. That compared with 33 per cent who visited zoos or wildlife parks; 32 per cent who visited historic buildings or churches; 30 per cent who went to the theatre, opera or ballet; 26 per cent who attended live sporting events; 16 per cent who went to pop or rock concerts; and 12 per cent who attended classical concerts. Clearly, one is talking about something that has a very wide range of visitors. If your Lordships are interested in the detail of the research it will be possible to place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
What I have to say about local and regional museums must be set in the context of the national museums. Your Lordships make it clear, as always, that what you expect from government is more money. I shall seek to defend and promote our position. Against the background of the museums' baseline under the previous government, last year the Culture Secretary was able to announce an extra £99 million for the museums sector over the next three years. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for his thanks for that increase. That is in line with our aim to preserve our cultural heritage, encourage the widest possible access to it and ensure that the

1011
greatest possible public benefit flows from our cultural assets in areas such as education and combating social exclusion.
I face head on the issue of access. I deal first with what we consider to be only one part—but not necessarily the most important part—of access: free admission. There is clear conflict between the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others on the one hand and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on the other Yes, we have a policy to increase free admission to national museums and galleries. That was begun this year with free admission for children, and we intend to continue it next year with free admission for pensioners. For the following year we shall provide funds so that the trustees of the national museums, if they think fit—it is their decision—will have support to provide free admission.
But as the document Museums for the Many (to which I shall return later) makes clear, access in our terms is very much wider than free admission. We see that in context and recognise that under certain circumstances national, local and regional museums will find it necessary or desirable to charge. They must make their own decisions. We have made our position clear on that. I am aware that some believe that national museums attract a predominance of government support to the exclusion of the remainder of the sector.
Without in any way undervaluing what we do for the national museums—our three-year funding agreements established this year are, we believe, of enormous importance—I should like to consider our support for museums on a wider basis. I state at the outset that there is no intention that government funding should be extended from the national museums to all other museums in this country. That would not be possible or right. It is right to have a plurality of funding from local authorities, charities, public appeals, private sources and many other sources to sustain the incredible range of museums and galleries in this country. Before I leave the subject of national museums, I have nothing to add to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the status of those museums. I believe that it falls slightly outside the subject of this debate.
Although we do not propose to take over the funding of other than national museums we recognise the links between them. A number of noble Lords have made points in that regard. I shall deal first with the Museums and Galleries Commission, the designated museums scheme and the Challenge Fund. I shall deal next with information technology and education and refer to some of the links that appear to be appropriate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, referred to curatorial problems. He spoke of the possibility of sharing curatorial resources between national and local museums. That suggestion has been made in the past by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. We take it very seriously and are looking into it. The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, also spoke about the possibility of further collaboration between national and local museums in the context of the Bowes Museum. The latter was referred to with great authority by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
1012
I have a very lengthy brief about the Bowes Museum. I would take up far too much time if I went into it in detail. It is clear from the fact that we appointed Mr. Foster to report on the museum last year that we are very conscious of the problems of the Bowes Museum. I have before me a submission from Durham County Council. I do not know that we have any easy solutions to those problems. It is true that Durham County Council, having lost its unitary authorities, has a council tax base that is a good deal less than before.
There are one or two encouraging signs. The museum is now registered with the Charity Commissioners, and there is talk, which I believe is reciprocated, about a working relationship with the Victoria & Albert Museum. There may be other hopeful factors that affect the Bowes Museum. We hope that it will be successful in its Challenge Fund application to the Museums and Galleries Commission, and it is for the commission to advise the Government on the allocation of those funds. I shall keep the House informed about the future of the Bowes Museum as and when an opportunity arises. The Challenge Fund and designated museums scheme are enormously important. Forty-three flagship collections have been identified: some are local authority, some are independent and others are university museums. They can apply for a fund that is worth £15 million over the next three years to raise standards and access to those collections.
I say a brief word about information technology. We have also provided £1 million to set up two smaller challenge funds, one for information technology and one for museum education, which are open to all museums registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission. An educational challenge fund will be distributed to the seven English area museum councils to help raise standards of education provision in institutions where there is scope for an enhancement of the current service. I hope that that gives the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, an indication of the co-operation that he seeks between the DCMS and the Department for Education and Employment.
The DfEE recognises the importance of museums to education and has prepared a £2.5 million programme to enable museums to provide curriculum support for schools, and there has been a good number of applications for that. That follows a pilot programme funding 17 pilot museum education projects at institutions providing out of school study reports. I was amused by the reference of my noble friend Lady Rendell to museums being only for children—unless accompanied by an adult, I assume she was saying. Recently when the Secretary of State 'was proposing a promotional launch in Coram's Fields in Bloomsbury in London I had to say that you cannot go into Coram's Fields in Bloomsbury unless you are accompanied by a child. I do not know the effect on Chris Smith's plans.
While on the educational point, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to university museums. Yes, we take seriously the difficulties which some of them have. We are perfectly prepared to talk to university museums about their problems. But I think that the noble Lord

1013
will find that some of them are proud and independent and would not welcome intervention from central government.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the lottery and other financial support to museums. That is enormously important. It is part of the range of things we can do with digitising educational learning materials and providing centres for community lifelong learning in which museums should be able to play a part. In addition to National Lottery funding, there is a lot of charitable funding. The Clore Foundation has established a million pound museum education programme which will be focused towards non-national and regional museums. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the Gulbenkian award for the Hereford City Museum. I was privileged to be present at those awards. I well remember the presentation which Hereford City Museum made. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said about Salisbury and south Wiltshire and what can be done with a well planned and well directed public appeal. I thought that that was an encouraging story.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the problems—they are true of lottery funding—of funding bricks and mortar without providing adequate onward funding of people. In other words, capital is provided without being sure of revenue. We shall have to take a grip of the business plans of some of those who apply for lottery funding and look critically at their forecasts of visitor figures to ensure that we do not lose out by funding buildings which are not viable in the longer term. There is a halfway house of endowment funding but that has to be limited and it is not always the most cost-effective way of spending lottery money.
A number of noble Lords referred to the work of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the £7 million Heritage Access Fund which supports museum projects which build existing or develop new audiences, encourage the involvement of friends or volunteers, and facilitate the touring of works from national or designated museums. There have been some outstanding and substantial grants.
We are aware of the difficulties which local museums have—a number of noble Lords referred to them—as regards funding from local authorities. We realise that some of them—I have a list; I shall not read it out—are living a hand to mouth existence. That is a great shame. It is not a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide a museum or gallery service, although a number of local authorities recognise that it is valuable to local communities, just as, let us say, the British Museum or the Tate Gallery is valuable to the country as a whole. We think that local authorities have a major role in delivering government objectives. But it is for them to decide on the level of support they give to their museums.
We could not take over the running of something like 2,000 institutions. I am sorry to say that to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, who seemed to suggest that we could. What we can and will do is to strive to create the right
1014
conditions for all types of museums so that they can thrive, and stress to all who will listen the importance and value of museums.
Clearly one of the institutional ways in which we shall be reforming our provision is by setting up the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council which will have a very much wider remit than the Museums and Galleries Commission. Archives have not been represented at a national level and libraries are, if anything, more widely used by the general public than museums and galleries.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I recognise the need to improve statistics about museums and galleries. He is right to say that that should be one of the activities of MLAC when it is established.
I said that I would return to the point—I have a brief moment to do so—on the wider definition of access which is referred to in Museums for the Many. We think about access as overcoming a wide range of barriers: physical and sensory barriers—in other words, access for people with disabilities, for older people and children—and intellectual barriers where there is inadequate display and interpretation; and cultural barriers where museums are not welcoming to people from different cultural backgrounds. Reference was made to Bristol City Museum and the very successful exhibition about slavery which not only increased visitors to the museum but also had over 200 people participating in putting together the collection. There may be attitudinal barriers. In other words, museums should be welcoming and should value their visitors. As regards financial barriers, yes, admission charges, but consideration should also be given to transport costs, and the costs of catering. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, did not seem to think it appropriate that we should talk about catering for people on lower incomes. I think that it is. When we talk about removing financial barriers in those museums which charge, we are talking about wide and generous concessions for those most in need.
All that adds up to a deep respect for local and regional initiatives. We are talking about cultural strategies on a local and regional basis. As the regional development agencies are coming into action, we shall have culture, media and sport representatives on them. We take seriously the need for public involvement to which my noble friend Lady Rendell referred and we welcome such initiatives as the West Midlands regional consortium to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred.
Without taking over the funding, there are many things we can do. I think that I have referred to some of them. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are determined to have a role in providing leadership and encouraging conditions in which all museums can thrive.
8.48 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank the

1015
Minister for his many interesting and important comments. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Convergence Criteria
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1999–2000 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inheritance Tax
8.50 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wonder if I can congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on having been able to introduce something between the two debates in which I know he is involved. I would have thought he might have found someone else to do that: a minor thing.
In introducing this Question I should declare an interest. I am the owner of a number of items which were conditionally exempted from inheritance tax on my father's death in 1989, and indeed on my grandfather's death in 1952. My great-grandfather died in 1907, and I have no knowledge of the situation as it was then. I have discussed my position with the Clerks of this House who could not advise me not to speak on this issue as it is a matter of public policy. I also had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, prior to the debate.
This debate, as I stated, is about public policy. If it concerned pecuniary matters I would not be speaking, as I have already advised the House of my interest. However, as the purpose of the debate is to attempt to be co-operative with the Government, I feel fully entitled to ask the Question.
The existing exemptions have long been given in return for an undertaking, the specific terms of which are agreed in writing between the Treasury and the inheriting owner, to secure reasonable access to the public. The specific terms agreed, in the majority of cases since 1976, have been that access shall be given by prior appointment. This seemed appropriate to the Treasury then, and on that basis the agreements were made. We are now being told that such agreements, retrospectively, were not appropriate. The new rules will be applied and new agreements are required. Such agreements can, if agreement cannot be reached between the parties, be made unilaterally by the Inland Revenue with the approval of a Special Commissioner.
1016
I am sure that many decisions to seek conditional exemption would not have been taken in the past had the open access provisions been threatened at some time in the future. I believe that we all share an abhorrence of retrospective legislation, and I wonder it was deemed appropriate to apply retrospectivity in this situation.
Schedule 25 to the Finance Act 1998 introduced new rules. I wish only to consider two of them. First, under Section 8 a previous undertaking agreed by both parties may be varied either by agreement between the parties or by the Board of Inland Revenue imposing a variation, subject to approval by a Special Commissioner, without the consent of the person bound by this undertaking.
The Inland Revenue wrote to the owners of conditionally exempt chattels on 31st March 1999, requiring the owner to advise the Inland Revenue by 30th June on which 25 days the property would he open to the public without prior appointment. This is called "open access." The notes on the changes made by the Finance Act 1998 issued by the Inland Revenue state that under Section 5.11 the minimum period for open access should be for buildings which are not themselves tax exempt 5 to 100 days a year. It appears that a mandatory period of 25 days had subsequently been determined.
I understand that the Inland Revenue is to issue, or has issued, a second letter to heritage owners, indicating a degree of flexibility as far as open access is concerned. I welcome this concept of flexibility, which may assist in certain cases. I believe there is also an extension of time in which replies to the original letter may be made. I am slightly surprised that in the discussions that I had with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, last night he did not advise me that this letter was going out.
The second new rule requires that owners will be required to publicise their undertakings. The form attached to the Revenue letter contains the wording:
"I/we shall give appropriate publicity to the public access arrangements, namely by agreeing that the Inland Revenue may:

(1) publicise the availability of this access via the internet or other appropriate means, and

(2) provide anyone who requests it with a copy of the undertaking".

These new rules have created an impossible situation for owners who do not live in a house which is normally open to the public, on the grounds of security apart from anything else. Many people are not set up to open their houses to the public without prior appointment and the chattels may not all be displayed in one room, but may well be scattered throughout the house. This new requirement equates to a right to roam through private property, and I have been advised that either insurance premiums would leap (possibly to even more unaffordable levels) or insurance may not be available at all. This is hardly protecting the Government's interest in the chattels—because that is what exists. The exemption is only conditional: the Government have an interest in the chattels. Any open access is liable to create a security problem.
The second security problem is created by listing on the Internet. These two requirements surely comprise a "burglars' charter" which could endanger life and limb,

1017
to say nothing of the contents of the houses themselves. I understand that the second letter from the Inland Revenue makes no mention of the Internet problem.
The other point is that while there may be a number of exempt chattels in a house, there will be a considerable number of other chattels, all of which are put at risk by advertising on the Internet. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the words spoken in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 30th June 1998. I quote:
"We are not saying that appointments to view objects should be abolished; we are saying that there should be a review of a system where there is appointment-only access to a certain category of object".
She went on to say:
"There will still be cases, however, where an appointment will be necessary for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined: security, sensitivity and an object's fragility".—[Official Report Commons, 30/6/98; cols. 238–39.]
Your Lordships will note the use of the word "security".
On a slightly different tack, I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act would not apply to this potential invasion of private property. The protocol states:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions".
I would also cite Article 8 of the convention, which states:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
Does this equate with listing on the Internet?
I am sure that the Minister will advise us that these concerns are not real: all one has to do is to lend the objects to a museum or gallery. However, it is not that simple. Quite apart from the difficulty of finding a suitable location—and I understand that the noble Lord will have something to say on that—there are also problems of damage during transit and of insurance. If these problems were addressed, this could certainly be a solution worthy of serious consideration.
I fear that the consequences of this legislation will be totally opposite to those intended. I am convinced that a number of heritage owners will either pay the deferred inheritance tax, where they have the wherewithal, or will sell all or part of their collections. The result will be to take them out of the public domain, and quite possibly overseas. That would be a great shame and, surely, contrary to the intention of the legislation.
I am sure that most heritage owners are proud of their objects and wish to co-operate with the Government in this matter. They would appreciate the opportunity of discussions as to how these problems can be overcome. I look forward to hearing the speeches of those following me and the answers of the Minister. The debate is intended to be helpful and I hope that it is accepted with that intention in mind.
9 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am glad to be able to take part in this debate. Like some other noble Lords, I am
1018
personally affected. But the reason for raising the Question in this forum is that the main issue concerns a matter of public policy; namely, access to significant works of art and their maintenance in this country. It is, in other words, a heritage or cultural matter. The articles in question are those considered by the authorities to be sufficiently significant to warrant deferral of taxes due to the Inland Revenue based on the proviso that the articles are accessible for the general public to inspect them. What is at issue here for me and others is the nature of public access.
There is a wide variety in the articles themselves and in the places where they are kept. This is a large part of the difficulty. If we are talking about a painting in a large country house which is already open to the public, it may not be difficulty for the owner/custodian to agree to access for a minimum number of days each year. If a picture is hung in a room not normally open to the public, it may be moved or an extra room added to the circuit of the house. But not all custodians are like that. He or she may be an elderly person living alone, perhaps in a flat in London, with a single precious possession—a picture, a piece of fine furniture or porcelain—and circumstances may be such that the owner is wary of having the front door open to all-comers for a stated period each year. I do not believe that that is an uncommon state of affairs.
My own position is somewhat in between those two extremes. I and my three siblings share ownership of an interesting collection of books belonging to our grandfather, Robert Bridges, the poet laureate who died in 1930. Two successive deferrals of tax have been granted on the death of our parents. The books, perhaps 3,500 in all, were either written by the poet, many of them having been beautifully printed by Provost Daniel on his private press, or were written and presented to him by his friends, who included Hopkins, Yeats, Masefield and J.C. Smuts, or were books of personal interest to him, such as the miniature edition of Virgil which he carried on his person for much of his life. The value and interest of this collection does not lie in individually precious bibliographical items so much as the illustration of the wide range of his intellectual interests and friendships. In other words, it is the totality of the collection.
It is also interesting to see evidence of his wide reading in other European languages; for example, his heavily annotated copy of Dante. The books are housed in a handsome glass-fronted bookcase and looked after by a member of the family. This person happens to live in an isolated place with no close neighbours. For these security reasons, the house is not open to casual visitors.
We have however a contact in central London who can arrange for individual items to be brought to his office within 36 hours for inspection. So far as we know, this system, which has been agreed with the Inland Revenue, works well. It has not given rise to any complaint. In fact, the only people who have made use of it are journalists who have no apparent interest in the items themselves: they seek to look at the books on a random basis so that they can test the system. The scholars who are interested in these books know who we are and approach us direct. There is no difficulty.

1019
The problem we face is this. We believe that the present system works and fully meets our earlier obligations to the Inland Revenue. We acknowledge our responsibilities over access and if the Revenue tells us, as it does, that its obligations have been changed which obliges it to alter the terms of an earlier agreement (because of the retrospective legislation already referred to) we will do what we can to help. But we feel unable to agree to access on demand. That would endanger the security of the collection, the other possessions in the house and the people living there.
We are also amazed by the news that the locations may be publicly advertised by the Government on the Internet. This amounts to an invitation to burglars on an international scale and hardly seems to accord with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. Why should the Government publish a catalogue for international burglars? It seems very unacceptable.
So what can we do in this situation? There is the legal route which would mean taking a case to a special commissioner. That would apparently involve the employment of counsel and I am given to understand that such services are very expensive. I am told that the cost is a minimum of £15,000 a time. Presumably that would be outside the scope of the access to justice legislation. Why should we have to bear this burden? Furthermore, it would be a difficult contest as the commissioner would address just the "reasonableness" of the Inland Revenue's proposals and not our own. This looks to me like a very expensive and uncertain kind of justice. I am not litigious by nature and would prefer a different approach if we could find one.
What are the alternatives? We could sell the collection. We could give it away to a public library or learned body. But we would find it difficult to pay the tax without seriously depleting assets set aside for years of retirement, and not all of us could do that anyway. We have thought of entrusting it to a university or college and feel that it might be accepted in good faith for a period of years. But if major repairs to the college roof were necessary, that asset would be at risk.
Furthermore, big libraries do not like to keep a donated collection intact, preferring to distribute the books among their various classified sections. I suspect that many donors will end up selling some of their articles in order to retain others. That will lead to many sales and the export of items which this arrangement was designed to prevent in the first place.
So the Revenue's action is presenting us with an apparently insoluble set of problems. I am happy to work out a solution if we can find one, but I have to say that a commitment to open access for a fixed number of days annually would be very difficult for us and probably impossible. I suggest that that arises from a false perception by the Revenue of the very various circumstances of custody and the articles in question. Indeed, it looks as though someone in the Revenue or Treasury has the wrong image of who we are and how we live. They apparently see us in the image of Trollope's Duke of Omnium, living in Gatherum Castle with a suite of liveried servants having nothing much to do. That certainly does not apply to me.
1020
I come back to where I began. This is, or should be, a policy issue regarding our cultural heritage. In my case, I want to maintain the totality of the collection. It is quite difficult to find a collection of books belonging to some person of past literary status in this country. I remember only Macaulay's collection of books which were entrusted to the Trevelyan family in Wallington in Northumberland, now in the care of the National Trust. That is a remarkable but unusual exception. When I take from the shelf the Pickering edition of Surrey's poems inscribed to my grandfather by Hopkins in his unmistakable hand, I feel an immediate link with that remarkable friendship which has left its mark on our literature.
That collection is worth preserving. If we can work out some system with the Revenue to enable that to happen, I shall be delighted. I trust that the Treasury will allow the Revenue sufficient flexibility to arrive at a means of access acceptable to all concerned.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I note the remarks made by the Financial Secretary of 30th June of last year in another place. When I read the latest letter from the Inland Revenue dated 25th May, which arrived, perhaps not entirely by chance, today, it expressed its views in more emollient language but it follows quite a different line from that of Dawn Primarolo and shows little real flexibility of principle in relation to access on demand. For my part, that is still the sticking point.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the whole House and the whole country should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Chesham for raising this important issue which is so vital to the future of our heritage.
I take part in this debate specifically as the founding president of the Historic Houses Association whose views I express; and beyond that, as the owner of a property which has for nearly 50 years provided access and enjoyment for many millions of visitors who can see what conditionally exempt objects I own every day of the year.
I speak not only as an individual but also as former chairman of English Heritage whose philosophy has always been to advocate the policy of the quid pro quo of tax concessions in exchange for public access as being fundamental to the future survival of Britain's heritage—both for historic houses and gardens arid their contents.
There are elements of the new legislation that the Government have introduced to improve access to conditionally exempt works of art that the Historic Houses Association welcomes. The functioning of the old V&Amp;A list system had become increasingly unsatisfactory, despite the efforts of the last government to improve it. In only a very few instances was the malfunctioning the fault of the owner. The fault was the system, which needed improvement—improvement rather than wholesale change. I fully accept the need to ensure that tax deferred is balanced by an appropriate degree of public benefit. However, there are elements of the new measures which will cause concern. It is all a question of balance and what is appropriate. It would be

1021
extremely counter-productive if the measures which the Government intend to introduce were to deny the nation the treasures that the legislation was set up to protect and to deny the public the present access that they currently enjoy.
To make an appointment to see an object can in some cases be a long-winded and frustrating process. That should not be so. Equally, there are elements of the by-appointment system which have suited everyone very well. The thousands who do so by appointment enjoy access at times to suit both the visitor and the owner. They appreciate the personal element involved. For example, several thousand visitors went to Hovingham Hall in Yorkshire by appointment last year. At another house, more than 80 days' access were provided, which is far more than some houses which are open regularly to the public. Scholars are invariably made most welcome by those owners with similar interests who are delighted to share access to their objects, particularly those of academic interest.
All that advantage may be lost if the by-appointment system is removed entirely, as a matter of principle. The Government must realise not only the advantages of the by-appointment system but also why the alternative of open public access which they are proposing will in many cases simply not work.
First, to set up the whole infrastructure of opening to the public, as I know only too well—the car parks, the lavatories, security, guides, regulations and disabled access—is a complex and expensive business. Those who live in urban areas in either small houses or flats or who are at work all day simply could not contemplate that. They have no alternative but to sell.
The overwhelming concern, as has been said by other noble Lords, is criminal activities, invariably mentioned by those faced with providing open access for the first time. The fear of burglary is real. I could tell your Lordships horrific stories of owners tied up and beaten by thieves who had already targeted their treasures and knew where to find them. A chilling fact is that in 1997 alone items valued at £1.8 million were stolen from 259 historic houses.
Under the new regulations, once you provide open public access to your house, you have to advertise the fact that in that house are kept particularly valuable objects. Many owners feel, quite rightly, that their first priority is to protect their families and treasures. Therefore, they are reluctant to undertake such advertising. The most dangerous suggestion is that those objects should be advertised on the Internet. However, advertising would certainly increase the insurance premiums which will be necessary.
There is a good suggestion that some major objects should be loaned to local or national museums for a period, say in the winter months. The truth is however that their storerooms are already full and in my experience they like to lend objects out rather than receive more in.
Next there is the subject of retrospection. I shall not dwell on this; my noble friend Lord Chesham covered it very well. It strikes at the heart of legal essentials and
1022
I suspect that lawyers are bound to resist it fiercely. While most owners will have little problem in accepting variations to future agreements, many would not have agreed to the arrangements that are now being proposed if they had known about them in advance.
I confirm that much good will exists among owners who recognise their obligations to preserve our heritage, but even with that good will the new arrangements could make it hard for many to comply in simple practical terms. But I am sure that a solution to all this does exist, and I am greatly heartened to hear of a growing realisation within the Government of the dangers within this new legislation, introduced, I have to say, with insufficient consideration and forethought of its consequences.
HHA has held constructive discussions with the Inland Revenue and I understand that it is to meet the Paymaster General. It is comforting to know that consideration is being given to the need for individual agreements according to circumstances on a house-to-house basis to ensure that they are just and reasonable and that the rigid maximum of 25 days is negotiable, subject to the type of object and its situation.
For the past 100 years generations of owners have acted as unpaid curators of important parts of our national heritage. Pictures and other objects have been cleaned and restored and furniture repaired; increased insurance premiums have been paid. There has been absolutely no financial reward or profit for the owner and when they have been forced sometimes to sell, taxes are assessed at the old rates of duty, sometimes going as high as 80 or 90 per cent.
The sensible concessions recently proposed by the Revenue will certainly help. But there may be a need to go further before a stable and worthwhile solution can be found to resolve this potentially damaging situation. The HHA welcomes dialogue but urges the Government to continue to consider how best to introduce measures that are sufficiently flexible to retain the best elements of the old system, rather than discarding it, and agree a new regime for the benefit of all, especially for future generations. After all, the system was set up in the 1890s to preserve our heritage objects. It has up to now worked extremely well; without it the country would have been much poorer instead of being enriched. So I say—to use an old expression—"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
9.18 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for putting this Question to the Government.
The policy of conditional exemption was established by the Inland Revenue many years ago. So far as I am aware, it has been managed with success by the Capital Taxes Office. It has been suggested that some owners are taking advantage of the scheme without carrying out their obligations, and so defrauding the taxpayer. If there are cases of infringement, then those cases need greater supervision.
By and large the scheme is, as my noble friend Lord Montagu said, working well. Owners resent the implication by the Government that they are trying to

1023
defraud the taxpayer. In my view the public have benefited greatly from the arrangements that are in place. Many of the owners, like my noble friend Lord Montagu, have rendered service as trustees of museums and galleries and taken part in the scheme in a spirit of wanting to let like-minded people enjoy their possessions.
Like my noble friend Lord Chesham I must declare an interest as the acquirer of a modern collection, now owned by my son. It is largely of the British school with some Euston Road paintings, many of which were made by my friends between 1940 and 1960. It is a painter's collection which has expanded into abstraction. One early inspiration came from Jackson Pollock whose work is being exhibited in the Tate at the moment. The value of my collection is not for its individual works, but for its value as a whole. It may be studied and enjoyed by those people who make a plan to visit my home. The paintings are housed and shown in a historic house, part of which was redesigned in 1960 for the purpose of a modern gallery.
Some 60 years ago the opportunity arose to preserve the collection intact for a future generation, when I entered into an agreement with the Government whereby those paintings which were judged by the National Gallery of Scotland to be of national importance, some 170 modern paintings, would be donated to my son and heir, and would be housed, heated, secured and insured at Bemersyde. I undertook to show them to members of the public who applied for appointments to visit, with good warning. My son undertook not to sell any of the works with the proviso that, if anything was sold, tax would be liable on the income which would have arisen from the capital difference between the 1983 valuation and the valuation of the work when sold. In my son's case, such a sale would be unlikely.
Like other noble Lords, I wonder whether the Government are within their rights to break a legal agreement. Are they entitled to amend legislation, which will come into force retrospectively, thus cancelling legal agreements made in good faith in the past? In my view, the legislation which underpinned our agreement has been changed. These changes are unworkable and unacceptable. If an owner is unable to embark on a system which is impossible to carry out, he has no alternative but to withdraw, but at what appears to be considerable cost. This amounts to expropriation.
In my case the open access requirements are impractical, as I believe they are for many others also. We live in an isolated area and are vulnerable to break-ins. All the houses which are open to the public in our area have been burgled. Extended access would encourage reconnaissance by potential thieves and add to our security risks. I would not be able to ensure the safety of the collection, and the cost of my insurance would rise steeply. When the public wish to see items which are stored in a public collection, they have to apply and their credentials are checked before authority is given. To have open access would not only be a problem from a security point of view, but it would also destroy privacy.
1024
My own experience of past years relates to the time when I opened the house to the public to show my father's memorabilia. I found that the house was not large enough to be lived in and used as a museum at the same time. So I presented my father's collection to Edinburgh City Council for exhibition at Huntly House. As we are on the Walter Scott tourist route, the number of visitors escalated because of the historic interest rather than because of interest in the paintings. So I decided that our privacy had to be protected and I stopped the regular opening of the house.
The present system of opening the collection to members of the National Art Collections Fund, to NADFAS, friends of museums and galleries and various groups all over the country is working very well. Many of the visitors are painters themselves. Any regular opening would require additional guides and increased security arrangements, both of which are outwith my slender pocket.
I am particularly worried by the publication by the Victoria and Albert Museum of details of my collection on the Internet. Publication of those lists offers an invitation to burglars. Recently I have been pressurised by people in television and by journalists who ring me up pretending to be genuine students of art. On one occasion, the telephone conversation was taped and used for a comedy programme in which I was portrayed as a Colonel Blimp, much more so than I might appear in reality, with my mind totally focused on the loos and facilities available for a children's play area. The matter was raised with the television complaints commission and an apology was offered by Channel 4.
Part of the public resentment in the matter has been whipped up by a few art critics and journalists who fail to acknowledge the advantages to the public. They ring me up pretending to be potential visitors, but with no intention of making a visit. They ask whether I have such and such a picture, which they have spotted in the V&A catalogue, to sound me out as to whether or not I have a welcoming attitude and whether or not I am a good egalitarian. There is no sharing of the love of painting during the conversations. We might just as well be discussing the marketing of a sack of coal.
As a result of these variations of tax exemptions, art lovers will be denied the opportunity to see works of art in a domestic setting. The chance of using smaller historic houses for a good purpose will be ruled out. I hope that my noble friend's Question will encourage the Government to think again.
9.24 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for asking this important Question. I have a number of interests to declare. I am the custodian and 60 per cent owner of a small collection of exempt pictures and a few other small chattels. I am responsible for the maintenance of a small listed house. I am a member of the Historic Houses Association, and the house, because of its size, is on its "not generally open to the public" list. Finally, I am an associate by examination of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

1025
I wish to speak mainly to the second part of the Question and only in respect of pictures and small chattels. I say at the outset that I entirely understand what the Government are trying to achieve but I see some real practical problems and dangers. I suppose the most alarming proposal is at paragraph 5.32 on page 20 of the Revenue's January 1999 booklet which states,
"In general, we will expect you to agree to provide through the Inland Revenue's Internet website the following basic information about the exempt assets and public access to them".
There follows a heading,
"Chattels excluding historically associated chattels."
The document continues,
"A description of each object"
and,
"If they are located in a building open to the public, the full address of the building and the opening times".
If someone invited me to design a burglar's charter I could not have done it better. The Internet is a wonderful source of information but it is totally uncontrolled and information is available to those of good intent and of bad.
The Times of 25th May reported that two new Internet websites had opened the previous day. With the help of the Library I visited both sites. The first was a database posted by the Mormon Church to help us trace our ancestors and contained as much detail as possible. I shall not be able to post as much detail—enough detail to attract a member of the public to come to see an exempt picture certainly, but not enough to attract a burglary.
The second website I visited was a website of the Prison Service to help prisoners' families. That is a commendable intention but I can see another group of people that access to the site could help. I have not given the Minister notice of my next point but perhaps he can write to me with an assurance that if it is intended that prisons are to have Internet access, governors will be instructed to programme their equipment so that there is no possibility of accessing the Inland Revenue's Internet website of exempt chattels.
I turn to insurance. I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government have consulted the insurance industry and been advised that no increase in premium will be necessary. I have spoken with a fine art underwriter who considers that what is proposed will certainly lead him to rate the risk differently, possibly increasing the premium and certainly requiring extra security precautions. I hope I may put in a plea to the Government to instruct the planning and listed building authorities that if the owner of a listed building has to install security lights, window bars, window locks and double glazing as a direct result of complying with the insurer's requirements to cover the new risks that increased public access entails, permission will be given immediately without the normal hassle.
I understand that there is a proposal for those of us whose houses are too small for realistic public access to lend exempt items to larger houses which could show the items properly. That is an interesting idea, but
1026
I would counsel about too much movement. Good furniture and pictures hate being moved. Although damage and subsequent loss of value may not be immediately apparent, that will occur over time. Some of the evidence given to the inquiry into the Burrell collection is particularly relevant and possibly should be studied before this proposal is too far advanced.
An answer for small houses would seem to be to try again to make the "by appointment system" work. Having a lawyer as an agent can be problem. Why not use the excellent network of local galleries as agents holding the exempt list, with the directors of the galleries empowered to report us to the Inland Revenue if we are not fulfilling our obligations?
There is a serious problem here. It can be resolved by flexibility and good will on all sides, but if it is not resolved the only art available to the public to see will be in galleries and museums and the large, flagship, great houses.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long. Unfortunately, I have no interest to declare in this matter.
It appears that the reason why the rules are being changed and the goalposts moved is that a very few people took advantage; they have not been playing the game and making their heritable property available to managed access. That is a shame because, by and large, the scheme has worked very well, not only keeping together collections, keeping items in the country, but also making a large number of works of art available to view by scholars and members of the public, works which would not have been seen under other circumstances.
Many medium to small scale owners of heritable items have been upset by the retrospective nature of the new arrangements. Retrospective legislation is always bad, as other noble Lords have said this evening, and in this case it could be disastrous.
Many of the people concerned have had completely to reorganise their commitments. In some cases major items are being sold to pay outstanding tax. They will not be seen again unless they have been bought by museums—and they may be bought by museums abroad. In other cases, particularly where a person, perhaps a bachelor or an old lady, is living alone, whole collections are being sold up, or maybe, depending on circumstances, the person is selling the one treasure which he or she cannot possibly keep at the expense of allowing unrestricted access to his or her home, possibly a flat or small house. Security and comfort would be comprehensively destroyed.
I ask the Government to think again before it is too late. To my certain knowledge, certain dispositions have already been made in some cases, so if action is to be taken it must be soon.
It has been suggested that items could be displayed at museums and galleries for the requisite 25 days. The consideration raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, about the movement of some of the items is real.

1027
Paintings, particularly old ones, do not like being moved, and certainly furniture and priceless porcelain would be very much at risk.
What evidence do the Government have that museums, particularly local museums, would be both willing and able to fulfil the function of a peripatetic warehouse, as it were?
One sensible way to solve the whole problem, and one that I strongly commend to the Minister, is to abolish inheritance tax.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for initiating this debate and I declare an interest in having received a letter from the Revenue. I therefore share the anxieties expressed by noble Lords and have a question to ask the Minister. Why, when public service broadcasts and the police advise citizens never to open their doors to strangers and not to invite people in without first ascertaining that they are genuine tradesmen by asking for identification, are those who have valuable works of art in their houses compelled by law to overlook these sensible precautions?
When the Minister comes to reply, no doubt he will repeat the pledge made by the Labour Party before the election that it would take steps to stop the widespread avoidance of tax. This is one of the rackets that it has had in mind. I agree that this arrangement is questionable in law, or at least in one interpretation of it, but I maintain that it is not one which has up until now been allowed in order to protect the wealth of that section of the community who are neither too rich nor too poor to avoid being caught by inheritance tax. It was to save governments from the odium of being accused of taxing away that priceless and uniquely British heritage represented by houses and their contents.
When death duty was introduced at a very low rate at the end of the 19th century, there were those who said that this would mark the end of the country house and its estate. The forecast was premature, although the number of houses which have been pulled down or converted into flats, conference centres or golf clubs or have simply been allowed to become derelict bear witness to a steady attrition and the very high rates of tax extracted from their owners up to 1980—"until the pips, squeaked", so to speak. It has always appeared to be politically unacceptable to abolish a tax which by its very name and nature is a tax on our heritage. But what is the heritage if it is not what we inherit?
That any of our great houses and estates survive at all is due to the unwillingness of owners to abandon their responsibilities. They have given their properties to the National Trust when they could have cashed in by selling their contents, they have opened them to the public, given them to their children, lived in acute discomfort and cold and used every conceivable means at their disposal to ensure their preservation for posterity. To a considerable extent, their efforts have been connived at by every government since the war because they recognised the value of what was being done and did not want to lose the support of the
1028
powerful lobby representing the arts. The exemption of works of art from inheritance tax is just one instance of this connivance.
I do not believe that the majority of us who own exempted works have ever objected to people who could prove their bona fides seeing things that they have wanted to see. My noble friend Lord Haig made exactly that point. Objects go to exhibitions, even when they are not on the exempted list. Scholarship in art is to be encouraged and I find it interesting as an owner to hear what experts think.
There has been a campaign to make the general public feel hard done by because, hitherto, they have not for practical reasons been allowed free access to people's private homes to see things on the list. But true art lovers might be gratified that they can still see things in this country which might otherwise have been taxed away to the USA or Japan or some other more prosperous country.
In espousing what they would like to think of as the public cause, the Government might also like to reflect on the good deal they get as tax collectors on behalf of the general public. Tax on exempted works of art is not forgone; it is postponed, as my noble friend Lord Chesham said. If the exemption took place before inheritance tax was reduced to 40 per cent, this rate can be as high as 80 per cent. The astronomical rise in the art market in recent years means that when on a death 20 or 30 years ago they might have collected tens of thousands of pounds, now they stand to make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds on a sale.
The threat of inheritance taxes to the heritage arises because works of art must be regarded by the Revenue as financial assets for tax purposes. Because they earn no income but rather incur costs, they are in reality liabilities until they are sold. It is quite possible to inherit millions of such liabilities but to have no income because all the income-earning assets have been taxed away.
Attrition caused by taxing the passing of the generations, keeping ancient buildings in repair and a general decline in income from estates are bound to bring a perpetual flow of exempted items on to the market. The Finance Act 1998 will accelerate that process. The illusion that there was a sort of partnership between owners and government for the preservation of our heritage has been broken by New Labour. The Goths are at the gate—or is it the Scots?
9.41 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for asking this vitally important Question. I, too, must declare several interests. I am a director of the Historic Houses Association and chairman of its Scottish region, and almost everything that I own—objects and masonry—are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax.
My home was one of the last major historic houses to be built and has been described as the swan-song of the great classical house. If they were not exempt, there is no way that I could have inherited this marvellous property intact. Neither could I have considered passing

1029
it on to one of my children. Our only alternative would have been to sell the house and to disperse the contents—which of course are historically linked to the house. If that had happened the access enjoyed by the one quarter of a million people who have over the past 15 years visited and enjoyed the house, its remarkable contents and grounds would have been lost. As important, so too would the 20 jobs that are associated with providing public access.
Mercifully, however, I am not personally troubled by the new legislation. At home, our obligation is to open the house and grounds for 25 days a year, and to date that system has worked well. But I have great sympathy with those owners whose exempt objects are housed in smaller properties, for all the reasons so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. Here, I pay enormous tribute to the noble Lord for all his efforts for the country's heritage and for the role that he played in founding the Historic Houses Association. There is one point from his speech that I would like to take up and leading on from this, one positive suggestion that I hope the Government might consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and others described the very real practical difficulties that owners face in opening their houses to the public. I know only too well what many of them are. The noble Lord also draws attention to the horrendous security implications created by the publication of the exact location of their exempt objects, some of which will be very valuable, on the Internet. That will, I am afraid, dissuade many from agreeing to the Revenue's new proposals, much as they would wish to do so, even for a minimal number of days.
The alternative to displaying the objects at home, the Government would suggest, is to show them in a museum. For many, that is simply not an option. We all know that many museums are already filled to capacity and/or insufficiently funded to contemplate the extra curatorial burden. Moreover, it has long been the policy of successive governments to maintain as much as possible of Britain's "secondary collection" in private ownership, for practical and economic reasons. That sensible policy will undoubtedly be adversely affected by the new measures.
Where do owners who cannot show their objects at home or in a museum put them on display? The suggestion that I propose is that other historic houses, be they privately or publicly owned, that already have existing facilities such as car parks, guides, security and so on be encouraged to create display facilities to show exempt objects drawn from their immediate and surrounding localities.
Not only would such a scheme greatly assist the implementation of the new measures; but also it would create a series of displays of real interest. Objects would be shown in their proper setting rather than seen in the front room of a gloomy office shown by a grumpy solicitor who would rather be doing something else. The scheme would also extend the attractions on offer at those houses that already are open to the public.
1030
The HHA has discussed this idea with Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland. They are interested in it. English Heritage and others, however, remain to be convinced. There are, I admit, practical difficulties to be considered—transport, insurance and so on. But none of these need be insurmountable.
Endorsement of this scheme and, in particular, allowing a government indemnity, would go some way to encouraging what could become a beneficial aspect of what could otherwise be unhelpful legislation. There could be favourable consideration by the Revenue in allowing owners to accumulate credit for, say, three or four years by displaying their objects for a longer period in any single year.
I urge the Government positively to support what I believe to be a most practical proposal and thus to help safeguard the great heritage of this country.
9.46 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I shall be brief, as I have no personal interest to declare.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who asked this Question. There are two principles involved that are not easily compatible. There is the principle that seems easy to support: if valuable works of art, furniture and other chattels which are part of the heritage of the nation are in private hands, and if tax can be deferred and they can be kept in the place where they have been for many years rather than being sold and dispersed, there is a strong reason for making sure that they are kept in situ. However, I do not understand the other, rigid principle of the Inland Revenue's 25 days' access. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
Where is the public demand for such access? I can understand that there is a demand from scholarly bodies whose representatives come to see such chattels by appointment. I can understand that if it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the physical surroundings, to make access available to those bodies by arrangement, and even members of the public who apply to join them, there is good reason, in order that he may continue to enjoy his own chattels and the tax deferment, for him to make a contract to allow that access. But to allow 25 days a year access across the board seems extraordinary.
I also take the noble Lord's point that advertising on the Internet seems crazy and can hardly have been thought through. It is an invitation to criminals—probably more so than having one's house displayed in all its glory in Hello magazine. I wonder whether the Inland Revenue has considered that. No doubt the noble Lord who will reply has thought about it carefully and will give it his full attention.
This approach is extremely rigid. If there is a principle of access of which he can persuade me, surely a more reasonable and flexible way of making it work can be found. At present, it seems to me that the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and other noble Lords is well-founded. The matter needs some thought and sensitivity. I look forward to the noble Lord's reply.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because it is the normal courtesy of the House that I should begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Chesham for asking the Question of the Government. However, he put me in difficulty because by asking the Question tonight he has prevented me from being elsewhere—that is, in front of the television set watching a football match that I would rather have seen. I know that earlier today the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—he is "tut-tutting" now—made clear that he would rather be elsewhere, but not watching the match.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was invited by the noble Baroness to tell the House the result. We have just passed a message to her with it.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am glad he did so. I am extremely grateful not only to the Minister but also his officials for making it possible for the House to know the result: Manchester United won, 2:1. We are delighted.
Returning to the debate tonight, on this occasion I have no personal interest to declare, but I am interested in the implications of the issue for the heritage of our country. I am interested in ensuring that whatever system is in place is fair to both the owner of the historic items and to the taxpayer. The rules should be fair in their composition and in their application. It would not be in the public interest if the rules were applied in such a way that collections were broken up or works of art sold and lost to an overseas buyer.
Tonight noble Lords have examined the implications of the changes introduced by the Finance Act 1998. First, there is the requirement that those who have already obtained exemption from tax on their works of art in exchange for an undertaking to make them available to the public by appointment should renegotiate those undertakings so that they will in future have to allow access without prior appointments. Secondly, there is the requirement that in future the standard of the work of art, in order to qualify for exemption from tax, will have to be of pre-eminent instead of museum quality.
The first change is the one that has attracted most of the publicity. It is possible that many people will pay the tax rather than allow open access to the work of art and that those who cannot afford the tax will sell their work of art. But the second change, of definition, is also a serious threat to the retention of works of art in collections in this country.
Like my noble friend Lord Luke., I intend to be relatively brief so I do not propose to rehearse again all the arguments which have been adduced so effectively this evening. I listened with interest to the points argued so effectively by my noble friend Lord Montagu. I wish to associate myself with them. I also wish to thank the HHA for the time it has taken to provide me with most helpful briefing material and for meeting Lord Luke and myself to discuss the issues in some detail. I also endorse the remarks made by my noble friend with
1032
regard to the invidious position in which the changes put those individuals who may live alone in modest circumstances but who have always been prepared to offer access to their work of art by appointment. They may feel that their personal security is compromised by these changes.
I also wish to ask what evidence exists to prove that museums are ready, willing and able to give room to those works of art which are currently open to view in homes, but which owners may wish to show outside their home under the operation of the changed rules.
In preparation for this debate I was made aware that there had been extensive and constructive discussions on the matter between the Inland Revenue, interested representative organisations and the Government. I have of course not been party to those discussions, but believe that they have made significant progress. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House such information as is not confidential about the progress of those discussions and their likely outcome.
9.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this debate can take place only on the basis that it is about public policy. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made that clear and I respect him for it. Your Lordships will therefore understand that although a considerable number of contributions have been about noble Lords' own personal circumstances, it would be quite improper for me to attempt to reply to that part of the debate. What I shall seek to do is to talk about the public policy issues which are raised by the Question.
First, I shall say something about the changes which have taken place to the inheritance tax rules for conditionally exempt chattels. I understand that we are not talking about land and buildings. I shall then say something about the nature of the problem that gave rise to the change in the law. I shall explain what the Inland Revenue has done and is doing. Finally. I shall make some suggestions—perhaps modest and inadequate—about possible solutions to the problem that has been identified.
Two changes were made to the inheritance tax rules by the 1998 Budget. The first related to the quality of the items. It was made clear that in order to qualify for conditional exemption in future, items should be of pre-eminent quality rather than, as under the past vile, of a quality sufficient for them to be shown in a local authority collection. There has not been any debate on that side of the issue tonight and I shall not go into it any further.
The second change in rule which has been the subject of debate is that there should be improved access. I shall deal with how that is intended to be achieved. It is proposed that there should be improved access only where there is already in the agreement a requirement for reasonable public access. That makes it clear that this is not retrospective legislation as claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and a number of other noble Lords.
How is it proposed under the legislation that this should be achieved? If possible, it should be done by agreement. I shall come to the letters which the Inland

1033
Revenue has sent out. I suspect that in a very large number of cases there will be agreement. That is not even required in the case of those noble Lords and others whose houses are already open to the public for at least 25 days a year, of which there is a substantial number. If agreement cannot be reached arrangements will have to be made which will be endorsed on review by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax who are the tax judges. As in all Revenue matters the arrangements would have to be,
"just and reasonable in all the circumstances".
This means that in law it should be just and reasonable in all the circumstances relating to the asset, not the owner. Otherwise, one would have a situation in which different judgments were made by the Special Commissioners, not according to the nature of the original deal under which tax was foregone or postponed, depending on how noble Lords wish to describe it—some have used one word or the other—but according to the nature of the circumstances of the present owner and where he lived. That is not what the law says.
The Revenue has the intention as far as possible to proceed by case-by-case negotiations, but if there is no agreement arrangements must be made which are subject to legal process by the Special Commissioners. But the Revenue concedes, rightly I believe, that it has a duty under the Finance Act 1998 to review access to existing exempt chattels, to seek open access to them where appropriate and to require special access on conditions which the Special Commissioners must approve.
Before I leave the question of what the law says, I should like to respond to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that this may be in breach of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a very simple solution for those who fear that their human rights are being infringed by the access proposals: they can remove the chattels from their houses for the amount of time that is proposed or, in an extreme case, sell them and pay the tax. Under those circumstances, I cannot conceive that there is any infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I now turn to the scale of the problem. From the public point of view, this is costing the taxpayer £25 million to £30 million a year. There are 900 owners of conditionally exempt chattels and there are approximately 20,000 chattels concerned. When the system was set up it was intended that the prior appointment system should be the last resort. The basis was that there should be reasonable public access, and clearly prior appointment is not reasonable public access. Now in all too many cases it is the first resort. I know that noble Lords will not wish to hear the name of Mark Thomas and Channel 4. The three-tier mahogany buffet with partially reeded slender balustrade upright supports was a theme of his television programme.
It is not a question of access for scholars but for the general public—those who can go into our museums and galleries. It is the general public who are paying, in
1034
effect, through the tax that they have forgone. It is the general public, not scholars or researchers, who have to have access to these chattels. The plain fact is that in many cases that does not happen: they do not have access. Of course it occurs in the stately homes, the homes which are open to the public. But in far too many other cases it is simply not happening. The original intention of the legislation is not being achieved.
I appreciate the difficulties which have been described in public policy terms. I shall turn to possible solutions in a moment. In the meantime, I have to assert implacably that some public access is essential.
I turn to what the Inland Revenue has been doing. In January of this year, the Capital Taxes Office produced a booklet. It has been inadequately quoted today by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. He quoted the full address and the opening times of a building open to the public. The Capital Taxes Office pamphlet states:
"If they are not located in such a building [it has to declare] period(s) when open access will be available; for example. 12 days from May to July [and the] name, address and telephone number of the person, yourself or your agent, who will give details (where necessary) of the actual opening days and the venue(s)".
So neither the Internet nor any list produced by the Inland Revenue will give the address at which these chattels are held.
Paragraph 5.33 is quite clear. In answer to the question,
"Will the Internet entry identify the previous or the current owner of the exempt assets?",
the answer is,
"No".
As has been stated, the Inland Revenue wrote to all owners of exempt chattels on 31st March. It sought a measure of public access on terms which do not require a public appointment. It suggested—the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that it was mandatory; it is not—a preferred access period of 25 days and asked for an answer by 30th June. This was a question which in Latin would begin with nonne: a question expecting the answer, yes. It expects people to answer as constructively as they can to suggest ways in which the law could be complied with. The Historic Houses Association—I pay tribute to it for that—is helpfully collating the responses.
A letter which has gone out today or yesterday—I do not know the date; I saw only the final draft—goes rather further. It invites people to telephone for further help and advice. It gives an extension to 31st July for a reply. It invites owners of conditionally exempt chattels to make their own suggestion in the hope that there can be an agreement. If not, it repeats that there have to be Inland Revenue proposals to these Special Commissioners.
As far as the 25-day period is concerned, it describes this as a fair starting period for currently exempt heritage objects of the highest quality; in other words, those which have been displayed or would be suitable to be displayed in a national collection. Where the quality standard does not apply, a lower level may be appropriate. But still, except where there are conservation problems, it would expect at least five days' access.

1035
What are the solutions? I do not know that there are complete solutions and I cannot suggest that there are. The helpful suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that there could be access in larger houses which are already open to the public. The suggestion has also been made that objects could be on loan to a public collection. There is at the moment in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge a display, which I am told is very attractive, of conditionally exempt items from eastern England.
I recognise that the supply and demand are not meshed together. There is a market failure, one might say, between the museums and galleries that might show these items and owners who would wish to have them shown in order not to be required to show them without appointment in their houses. Digitised images on the register may be appropriate; it would be valuable if it could be done, but it could not be suggested that this would be an alternative to actually showing the items themselves.
What I should like to suggest, and I have discussed this with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is that we seek to set up a clearing-house, a way in which those who might show the items could be put in touch with those who might wish to have the items
1036
shown. Clearly I am not committing public expenditure to this: if it happened, it would save the owners money of the sort which has been described on insurance and other costs. In any case, what the Inland Revenue is doing is seeking agreement and case-by-case negotiations; and that will continue.
In the end, however, the result must be more public access, wider public enjoyment of the heritage and public support for the inheritance tax relief which is in existence and for which I suggest there is inadequate public support. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, asked: what is the heritage if it is not what we inherit? I take the heritage as being what we collectively inherit in this country: the public heritage of this country, rather than what individuals inherit. That is how I think the public see it and that is how I think the public will see the issue before the House this evening.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, I cannot reply to questions.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  Kosovo Refugee Return
  Kosovo Refugee Return
  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Kosovo Refugees: UNHCR Capacity
  Kosovo Refugees: UNHCR Capacity
  Public Bodies: Minority Representation
  Public Bodies: Minority Representation
  Northern Ireland: Religious Studies Examinations
  Northern Ireland: Religious Studies Examinations
  NHS: Electronic Exchange of information
  NHS: Electronic Exchange of information
  Social Security Benefits: Pathway Project
  Social Security Benefits: Pathway Project
  Foresight Programme
  Foresight Programme
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Former Yugoslavia: Likely Length of War
  Former Yugoslavia: Likely Length of War
  Weapon Systems: Operational Use
  Weapon Systems: Operational Use
  Hill Sheep Breeds
  Hill Sheep Breeds
  Organophosphates: Implementation of Carden Report
  Organophosphates: Implementation of Carden Report
  Non-UK European Vets: Language Skills
  Non-UK European Vets: Language Skills
  Meat Hygiene Service Charges
  Meat Hygiene Service Charges