Sitting of 22 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What action his Department has taken to promote the role of arts and sport in tackling social exclusion. [98967]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): In the spring of this year, we published the policy action team report, which demonstrated with a host of practical examples how effective arts and sports activity can be in tackling social exclusion. Last month I held a national conference on social inclusion to discuss with local government and partner organisations how the Department and others in the culture and leisure fields can best follow up the work of the policy action team. The Department, our sponsored bodies, local authorities, lottery distributors and the voluntary and private sectors will all play their part.
    Mr. Sawford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on promoting the role of arts and sport in combating social exclusion. Is he aware that there are many examples of that already happening and will he join me in congratulating Kettering rugby football club on its fifth annual mini-tournament, held yesterday, which involved more than 750 young people between the ages of seven and 12 from all sections of our community? Will he consider joining us at next year's tournament?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to Kettering rugby football club on what was clearly an excellent event. I shall need to consult my diary to see whether I can take up his kind invitation. This is indeed a good example of how arts and sport can play a real role helping the process of social cohesion and regeneration.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout the country museums, galleries and libraries are under unprecedented pressure, with many teetering on the brink of closure? Will he concede that access to and participation in sport by young people is imploding under this Government, with 30 per
    326
    cent. fewer physical education teachers being trained and, as Sport England has shown, the highest number of playing fields under threat since records began?
    Mr. Smith: That is a bit rich from a party that presided over the selling off of well over 5,000 playing fields during its time in office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has failed to notice the £15 million of funding that we have put in place for the designated museums throughout the country through the new challenge fund: the first time ever that national funding has been made directly available to regional museums in this country.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has also failed to notice the £270 million that is going to help libraries through the new opportunities fund. Perhaps he should get his facts right before asking such questions.

    Lottery
    Ms Ann Coffey: If he will make a statement on the changes introduced by the Lottery Act 1998. [98968]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Act has allowed lottery distributors to be more proactive in making grants, to work more co-operatively and to allow decisions to be made closer to the grass roots. Distributors have produced strategic plans for their use of lottery money that will allow them to assess the extent to which their objectives are being met.
    Ms Coffey: My hon. Friend will be aware that Stockport has benefited from more than £5 million of lottery funding, which has helped with major projects such as the Hatting museum. We look forward to help in due course with the renovation of Hollywood park. I welcome the increase in small grants from the lottery, which has benefited projects such as the Stockport and district mental health and arts project, which is an innovative and creative scheme that will improve the quality of life for the whole community. Can she assure me that the small grants programme will continue to increase for the benefit of small community groups?
    Kate Hoey: According to my figures, Stockport has had £6 million of lottery money: slightly up on my hon. Friend's estimate. I agree that small community grants are important. They are crucial to ensure that small community organisations can benefit from the lottery. One of the most important things that we intend to do is to make it as easy and simple as possible, while assuring accountability, for those groups to apply for the money.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is it not true that the distributors are now supposed to take much more account of policy directions from the Secretary of State? Is not that in clear contradiction to the need for charitable and voluntary organisations to innovate and experiment? I thought that that was what the national lottery was primarily intended for. Is the Minister happy with the direction that is being taken?
    Kate Hoey: The directions would allow the innovation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are trying to move away from big spending on huge bricks and mortar projects and to concentrate on ensuring that lottery money

    327
    goes towards making a real difference for people and communities. It is important that the distributors can now look at where the money has not been going and ask why, and try to go out and find the projects, working with and supporting people to ensure that all areas of the country benefit in the same way.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Is it not important to consider the money that is going into communities, and especially greenfield communities? May I also make a plea for the inclusion of seaside towns in the new opportunities fund?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend may be aware that the green spaces initiative under the new opportunities fund should allow constituencies such as his to benefit.

    Tourism and Leisure
    Mr. Michael Jack: What calculations his Department has made of the impact on the tourism and leisure industry of Government regulations introduced since May 1997. [98969]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): No new regulations affecting business are introduced without first being subjected to a regulatory impact assessment. This assessment examines the costs and benefits of proposed regulations across the piece, not just on individual economic sectors. Tourism and leisure are key growth industries and my Department works closely with others to see that new regulation does not impose excessive administrative and financial burdens on tourism and leisure-related businesses.
    Mr. Jack: That reply is a travesty. Is it not a cruel irony that my constituency of Fylde receives some £3,000 of help for its tourism business, which is worth £40 million, but that benefit is immediately washed out by the regulatory burden of the working time directive alone? Is not it time that the Secretary of State undertook to object to any more regulatory burdens on tourism if they exceed the value of the help that his Department gives to tourism in this country?
    Mr. Smith: I can do better than that, because I can point to a host of regulatory burdens on the tourism and hospitality industries—about which the previous Government did nothing—that we are actively considering lifting. They include the better regulation task force case study of hotels and catering, the wide-ranging review of the liquor licensing system, Government proposals to simplify the regulation of late night restaurants, Government proposals to remove the ban on admission charging for Sunday dancing and research into the impact of land-use planning systems on leisure-related development. The Conservatives did nothing about those when in government: we are doing something.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the consequences to tourism of returning to the Elgin marbles to Greece? If it were possible to return them to the Parthenon itself, the case for that would be strong, but not for transferring them from one museum to another. They
    328
    were effectively saved by bringing them to this country, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that any such proposal is firmly opposed?
    Mr. Smith: I do, indeed, agree with my right hon. Friend. The Elgin Parthenon marbles in the British museum are visited by some 6 million people a year for free. People come from all over the world to see those treasures, among many others. I believe that it should stay that way.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Government regulation has established the regional development boards, with a special remit for tourism. So far, I do not see many people connected with tourism on the boards that have been established. Little seems to have been done in the traditional seaside resorts, where money is required but help is not forthcoming.
    Mr. Smith: Several representatives from the tourism and leisure industry sit on regional development agencies, although they do not all have such a representative. The development of the regional cultural consortiums that we have put in place will draw together representatives from the range of cultural, sporting and tourism interests in each region and will have a direct input into the work of the RDAs and will ensure that the voice of tourism is not lost.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: While I endorse the Secretary of State's policy towards the Elgin marbles, I must say that the Opposition do not think much of his regulatory impact assessment. Can it be a surprise that we have the worst tourism balance of payments in history, when so many in the tourist industry have been hit by an avalanche of costly deregulations? Is he aware that the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have shown that more than 2,500 new regulations now affect their businesses that cost them £5 billion a year? No sector is worse hit than the leisure and tourism sector.
    Mr. Smith: One of those regulations is the national minimum wage, which I actively support, as do the great majority in the hotel and catering industry. They know that good remuneration and treatment of employees means a well-motivated work force and a better service to the customer. That was borne out in research conducted by Caterer&Hotelkeeper, which showed that 84 per cent. of hospitality staff and 65 per cent. of their employers supported the introduction of a statutory minimum wage. It is only the Opposition who want to get rid of it.

    Ticket Prices
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What account his Department takes of the range of ticket prices for theatre, opera and ballet in London in its funding policies. [98970]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government want to ensure that everyone in England has an opportunity to experience the superb range of arts that we have in this country. With the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board, we encourage companies in

    329
    London to ensure the widest possible access to performances, including through-ticket pricing, touring and promotional activity.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that reply, and hope that my hon. Friend will now make it a priority to introduce a strategy genuinely to deliver cheaper and increased access to the arts for those on low incomes. Does he agree that if Michael Portillo is elected this week, Labour Members will have excellent access to ringside seats for yet another Tory party performance of "Julius Caesar"?
    Mr. Howarth: Our policy is to balance excellence with access, and we write those objectives into the funding agreements that we negotiate with the bodies that we fund. Those objectives are further expressed in the funding agreements negotiated between funding councils and the bodies that they fund.
    On my hon. Friend's tempting point, I simply say that, after Michael Portillo has—unfortunately for him—been unsuccessful in his campaign in Kensington, he will probably have more time to enjoy the remarkable performances that will be available from next week at the Royal Opera house, and at prices that he will be able to afford.
    Mr. John Randall: I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating the Royal Opera house on allowing disabled people to take full advantage of the full range of ticket prices. However, is it not a shame that, although good access will be provided for disabled people within the opera house, there is no provision for parking outside the opera house? Is there anything that the Department can do about that?
    Mr. Howarth: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman expresses that concern. I am quite certain that, when we have a new Labour mayor for London, with his responsibilities for transport, he will be concerned to ensure that parking arrangements and facilities not only at the Royal Opera house, but at all theatres and cultural venues, will be such as to better assist disabled people to have access to those cultural activities.
    Ms Claire Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing access is not only about charging cheaper prices for tickets to places such as the Royal Opera house, but about changing cultural attitudes, particularly among young people and children? Would not such change be in line with the Government's policy to make such access available to the many, not only the few?
    Mr. Howarth: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. Access is not only about ticket prices, but about outreach policies and education policies, and finding imaginative ways of encouraging people who have not hitherto perceived themselves as the types of people who might go to the opera, theatre, museums or galleries to begin to realise that that is their entitlement and a source of enormous pleasure to them.
    The balance between excellence and access will be magnificently exemplified at the Royal Opera house—which is about to reopen with a clean balance sheet, its new theatre the best in the world for opera and ballet, a full programme of the highest artistic quality, and its productions accessible to people as they never were in the
    330
    past. Ticket prices for ballet will begin at £2 and for opera at £6. I very warmly congratulate Sir Colin Southgate, Michael Kaiser and all those who have contributed to the renaissance at the Royal Opera house.

    Arts Funding
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What assessment he has made of funding levels for the arts in Britain since May 1997. [98971]
    0The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government have made available an additional £125 million to the arts over this and the next two years. That is a step change in funding for the arts in this country.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, if that sum is so generous, why is it that everyone I meet in the arts feels let down by the Government? Is it because they were led to believe that they would receive £290 million, rather than £125 million? Is it also because they feel cheated by the raid on the lottery for money that should have gone to the arts, but is being used for social programmes?
    Mr. Howarth: I do not know to whom the hon. Lady has been talking, but I believe that a new and very positive atmosphere surrounds the arts in this country. It is very much to do with my right hon. Friend's success in securing the best ever arts funding settlement, and also with the fact that we have a policy. The Conservative party has no policy—it does not believe that it should because, deep down, it does not really believe in Government responsibility for the arts. We do, and our policy is to promote excellence and access, to ensure that education plays its full part in support of the arts—and vice versa—and that we support the creative economy. There is extensive recognition and appreciation of that among people who care about the arts in Britain.
    Mr. John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the example of the Queen's theatre in Hornchurch when it comes to funding? It is one of the most successful theatres of its type in Britain, and has had an enormous increase in audiences of about 90 per cent. over the past two years. Will my hon. Friend try to bring pressure to bear on the chair of the London Arts Board—one Trevor Phillips—to ensure that in future the Queen's theatre's plea for regular funding is not brushed aside but taken seriously?
    Mr. Howarth: There has been an extensive increase in funding for the London Arts Board of about 10 per cent. It will, I trust, give the board some margin with which to respond to what my hon. Friend very understandably calls for. Moreover, we have asked the Arts Council to conduct a review of the condition of theatre in the country at large, and it has willingly agreed to do so. I do not doubt that the issues surrounding the Queen's theatre will be characteristic of those that it will examine.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When Trevor Phillips is able to identify the extraordinary developments in the arts in London that have been achieved as a result of the lottery, he may also be able to

    331
    inform the Minister of the dramatic reduction in arts funding that has taken place as a result of the £200 million that has been confiscated and given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his pet projects. What disappointment does the hon. Gentleman hold in store following the next election when, presumably, on the basis of precedent, there will be a further raid on arts lottery funding?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Lady's mathematics is surreal. We have committed one sixth of the proceeds of the lottery to the arts, with a guarantee that that amount will be provided for the arts for the whole of the next 10 years and beyond. The arts, heritage, sport and charity sectors can each count on £1.9 billion in the present licence period—that is £100 million more than the right hon. Lady's Government forecast.

    World Cup
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with the football authorities about the world cup 2006 bid. [98972]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Government are providing the fullest support for the Football Association's bid, and will continue to do so between now and the decision by the FIFA executive committee next July. It is an excellent bid, and discussions with the footballing authorities are on-going.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that the Government's 100 per cent. support for the bid, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, has played a significant part in the way in which the bid is proceeding? How does my hon. Friend assess the visit of the FIFA inspection team which I believe was here last month?
    Kate Hoey: The FIFA delegates who visited England last month to inspect the facilities pronounced themselves satisfied with all that they had seen, and described England's bid and its stadiums as outstanding. Whether I can assess how likely we are to be successful is another matter. Certainly, we have an excellent bid, and FIFA's technical inspectors have said so.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will know that all of us who are interested in sport, from all parties, are committed to supporting the 2006 bid, and have fully supported it in this House and elsewhere. However, does she accept that there is a problem regarding Wembley's involvement in that bid? Although we recognise that the new Wembley will be a vital part of a successful bid, there appears to be considerable confusion over the suitability of the newly redesigned Wembley for athletics as well, a factor that will also be relevant to the 2012 Olympic games bid.
    Can the hon. Lady confirm that her predecessor, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), should have been aware of the athletics concerns way back in the early stages of the Wembley redesign, as this is not a new issue? Will she confirm that although we want both bids to succeed, it is important not to jeopardise the bid for the 2012 olympics and the concerns about athletics while
    332
    trying to win the 2006 bid? As the hon. Lady put it, she cannot redesign the project, but she was quoted in the papers as saying that she would if she could.
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we await the independent report commissioned by the United Kingdom Sports Council on suggestions for designs that would put Wembley in the running for the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016. We shall receive the report within a week to 10 days and shall report to the House when we have considered it.
    Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 70 years, football fans at Wembley have been 60 yd from the goal if they are sitting behind it? As 95 per cent. of the revenue for running costs of the new stadium will come from football, not athletics, it would be disastrous if that mistake were repeated. Surely the Olympic games will come to the UK only once every 50 years, and will be attended by 80,000 only on the opening day. The proposed design of Wembley with a capacity of 67,000 would be ample for athletics. Is it not time that the football fans who go to Wembley, and who pay for the stadium to be run and maintained, have a decent view?
    Kate Hoey: I am convinced that the new Wembley will give all football supporters a wonderful view. It will be a stadium that we can all be proud of. We want to be sure, however, that it is a national stadium, and that it will be possible both to hold the world championships there in 2005 and to consider the possibility of a later Olympic games bid. That is why we have commissioned the independent report, which will shortly be with us. I assure my hon. Friend that all football supporters who go to the new Wembley will be able to enjoy a world-class stadium.

    Wembley Stadium
    Mr. John Greenway: What assistance his Department is giving to the project for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. [98973]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Lottery funding of £120 million has been awarded by Sport England towards the purchase of the existing Wembley stadium from Wembley plc, and its reconstruction as a national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. I have established a monitoring committee involving all the key players to allow us to identify and deal with issues arising, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to the project. I have every confidence that the new Wembley stadium will provide a first-class venue for a number of different sports and events.
    Mr. Greenway: It has been suggested that the Minister for Sport's comments last week about the Olympics and athletics implied that her predecessor had put too much emphasis on football. However, the Secretary of State supported the Wembley redevelopment. More importantly, so did the Prime Minister, whose picture appears on the front cover of the world cup 2006 brochure with a redeveloped Wembley in the background. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the Government wish to will the end, taking credit for England hosting the world

    333
    cup in 2006, as we all wish it to do, they must also will the means? Huge outstanding planning and transport issues remain unresolved with Brent council, and those must be tackled. Will the Secretary of State put his Department's full resources into ensuring a successful outcome to the bid? The last thing we want is a successful world cup soccer launch that is hampered as the rugby world cup was by a stadium having to be painted on the day before the first match.
    Mr. Smith: When I saw the rugby world cup at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, everyone agreed that it is a fantastic stadium which provided a magnificent venue for the world cup. Exactly the same quality will be achieved both for the world athletics championship in 2005 and the football world cup in 2006. The Government will bend every effort to ensuring that that happens. However, we cannot, and should not, ride roughshod over the planning system. Proper rules are in place, and the necessary planning procedures will be undertaken.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend share my incredulity that Sport England allowed the release of £120 million of lottery funding for Wembley to purchase the site of the new national stadium, when it must have been known that the proposed stadium could not function as a truly national stadium for the three sports for which it was intended—especially for athletics—not only because of the size of the stadium but because, under Olympic and international regulations, a warm-up facility must be provided alongside? Will he assure us that the trust that was supposed to be the guardian of the project and of the national stadium will—as the previous Sports Minister assured me in the House—ensure that the project also functions for athletics? Will he further ensure that the Football Association pulls its finger out to get the project, which it has delayed by more than 18 months, back on to the drawing board and on target?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has played a major role, as the local constituency Member of Parliament, in promoting the Wembley project. He raises a number of entirely legitimate concerns. However, I assure him that, right from the start, our concern—like that of Sport England—has been to ensure that the stadium can be used not only for football and rugby league, but for major athletics events. Through the establishment of the Wembley task force under the chairmanship of Sir Nigel Mobbs, with the involvement of Brent Council and English Partnerships, we shall also ensure not only that the stadium is created in the right way, but that the surrounding area is treated in the right way.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to the Treasury Bench? I am, however, delighted that the Secretary of State is answering this question, because, although the blame for this fiasco seems to be being shifted to the hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the Secretary of State was present throughout all the proceedings. There is now a real possibility that we shall have a national stadium that cannot host the Olympic games.
    334
    Was it helpful for the Sports Minister to wait until after the planning application was lodged before saying that it was
    "the wrong kind of stadium"?
    What conditions in respect of Olympic-standard facilities were attached to the £120 million lottery grant? Who was responsible for authorising the brief that turned out to be the wrong kind of brief? If the Government are not responsible, and are not to blame, for the breathtaking and pitiful bungling of this major project, we should like to know who is.
    Mr. Smith: Apart from misquoting my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, the hon. Gentleman, by that question, does the cause of creating a truly national stadium no good whatever. The aim throughout has been to ensure that we have a first-class, world-class national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. As he will know, from parliamentary answers, the design for the new stadium was first shown to Ministers in the middle of July this year. As a direct result, I called a further meeting on 21 July with Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the chief architect and Sport England, to ensure that the interests of athletics were intimately involved in the further development of the designs for the stadium.

    Museums and Art Galleries
    Mr. John Heppell: On what date pensioners will be allowed free admittance to national museums and art galleries. [98974]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Funds have been made available to permit free access for pensioners, from April 2000, to the currently charging national museums funded by my Department.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank the Minister for that response, and, on behalf of the pensioners in my constituency, I thank him for finding the £99 million extra that has made free entrance to museums possible for pensioners, in the same way as it is for children. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how many extra children have been attracted to museums as a result of free entrance? Does he expect similar increases among pensioners?
    Mr. Howarth: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as we hoped, the project to allow children free entry to national museums and galleries has been a remarkable success. In the past year, the number of children visiting the museums and galleries that have participated in the scheme increased by no less than 22 per cent. I believe that there will be an equivalent beneficial effect when we have free entry for pensioners.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the robustness of his answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the Elgin marbles. Can he reassure me, however, that the Government are equally robust, so that, when he and I are pensioners, we shall be able to visit our best national museum—the British museum—and see the Elgin marbles free of charge? What will he

    335
    advise the Prime Minister to tell President Clinton, who thinks that he knows better than the trustees of the British museum where the Elgin marbles are best placed?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made our position absolutely clear just now. We believe that it is proper that the Elgin marbles remain in this country. That is our position and the statutory position, and the position of the trustees of the British museum reinforces it.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Martin Salter: How many pensioners will benefit from the provision of free television licences to those aged over 75 years; and what plans he has to reform the current system of concessionary television licences. [98975]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): More than 3 million households will benefit from the provision of television licences free of charge to people aged 75 and over. The Government are still considering whether to make any further changes to the existing concessionary arrangements, in the light of the recommendations in the Davies report on the future funding of the BBC and the responses to the public consultation on the report. An announcement will be made early in the new year.
    Mr. Salter: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I understand that there is a separate regime for the licensing of television sets in Her Majesty's prisons. Should Lord Archer end up in prison, will he be given the same access to the television licensing regime as any other common criminal?
    Mr. Smith: The short answer is yes. Because of Crown exemption, television sets in prisons do not require a television licence. Therefore, in such hypothetical circumstances, the noble Lord would be given access to a free television licence some 16 years ahead of his 75th birthday.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Who will pay for all this—the taxpayer or the licence fee payer?
    Mr. Smith: In relation to the question about Lord Archer, the answer is that I am not sure. In relation to the general concession to pensioners aged 75 and over, the answer is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that money available out of Exchequer funds, and the cost is £300 million.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor's decision, announced a few weeks ago, is much welcomed by the age group that will benefit? Can he explain why the previous Government did everything that they possibly could to prevent the concession being granted to pensioners, despite the years of campaigning by Labour Members?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own dogged, persistent and extremely effective efforts to raise the matter in the House. He is right to say that my right hon. Friend's announcement has been warmly
    336
    welcomed. The only place that it does not appear to have been welcomed is on the Opposition Benches. On 10 November, the Daily Mail—which, of course, I always believe—said:
    "Tories dismissed the free TV licences as a gimmick".
    Perhaps they are thereby saying that they would remove that benefit, which my right hon. Friend has made available.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: However well received this concession is—I am sure that it will be well received by Baroness Thatcher, as by many other people of that age group—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the free licence scheme will not extend to the cost of any extra fee that may be payable for digital television services? What is to stop every household with a 75-year-old switching the licence into the 75-year-old's name and watching television for nothing? Does not the scheme mean that, in future, the Government will take a direct stake in the funding of the BBC of at least £300 million a year? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman offer the BBC that that will not compromise its independence?
    Mr. Smith: From those questions and the hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the point that I have raised, I have to take it that the Opposition would remove this benefit if they ever got into government.
    I wish to make two points in answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions. First, the benefit will be available to all pensioners of 75 years and over and it will be available to their households. That is what we have said and that is what we shall put in place. Secondly, there will be an absolute guarantee that providing the money for that benefit will in no way endanger the BBC's independence.

    Tower Opera
    Ann Clwyd: What plans his Department has to support the Tower Opera tour of England. [98976]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am aware of the admirable work of Opera Box in providing opera to new audiences and of the enthusiastic response that there has been in Wales to Tower. As my hon. Friend knows, however, my Department does not provide direct support to artistic organisations. Funding for the arts in England is channelled through the Arts Council of England and regional arts boards. It is for them to take decisions on the funding of individual organisations.
    Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As a former member of the Arts Council of Great Britain, I find it extremely parochial of the Arts Council of England to turn down the application for a touring grant for the "Tower" opera, which tells the story of a highly successful workers' co-operative. Despite the best efforts of the Conservative party, which wanted to close the co-operative down because it said that it had no future, it is now a successful enterprise, making a profit year on year.

    337
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the application for a touring grant was turned down, apparently because the Arts Council of England said that there was no interest in the opera in England? That is despite the fact that 15 theatres in England had said that they wanted it to come to their theatres. To ensure that this cultural delight is not taken away from the people of England, I have booked the Hackney Empire to show the "Tower" opera on 1 March—St. David's day—and I am glad to invite all my friends and colleagues in the House to that event.
    Mr. Howarth: The whole House recognises my hon. Friend's passionate commitment both to the Tower colliery and to the "Tower" opera. She will be a doughty champion of the cause. May I offer her a ray of hope? Since the Arts Council conveyed its decision that it would not support the touring of the "Tower" opera in England, it has reconsidered its commitment to touring and proposed to increase its funding for touring. If my hon. Friend can demonstrate that 15 or more theatres in England would welcome the opportunity to stage this production and that the production has been received with critical acclaim in Wales, it may be worth her while to pursue another conversation with Mr. Peter Hewitt, chief executive of the Arts Council.

    Lottery
    Mr. Ian Pearson: What action he is taking to ensure a fair regional spread of the proceeds from the national lottery. [98977]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Following the National Lottery Act 1998 and my revised policy directions, distributors must now take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Working with the lottery distributors, we have commissioned research to establish what more can be done to help areas where the take-up of lottery funding has been low.
    Mr. Pearson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the pro-active approach of the National Lotteries Charities Board, working with me and others in my constituency, to encourage more applications from voluntary organisations. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that, to many people in the west midlands, it still appears that lottery funders think that interest in art and heritage stops at the end of the Northern line? Will he ensure that arts, culture and industrial heritage projects in the west midlands and other regions receive their fair share of lottery cash? Will he consider putting a moratorium on any new appointments to the lottery board of people who live in London and the home counties?
    Mr. Smith: I am ever anxious to ensure that membership of the boards of lottery distributors and, more importantly, the decisions that they take on the distribution of funds reflect properly the regions of this country, not just London. That is why, for example, the new directions that are in place insist that lottery distributors take account of the need to ensure a fairer geographical spread of lottery distribution. That is also
    338

    why the development of the small grants scheme, which is available throughout the country and which has an easy application process, has been so successful. I am pleased to report to the House that, in the past year, the number of small grants being supported by the lottery has doubled.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Accepting that the fair regional spread of national lottery proceeds must depend on the number of applications coming from the various regions, is the Secretary of State prepared to discount lottery funds that go to national institutions in London, because outer London boroughs in particular feel that they may not be getting their fair spread of lottery funding?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is partly right, although the number of applications that are approved depends on the quality of applications as well as their number. He has a valid point in that the overall London figures can sometimes be distorted by the presence of national institutions in the very heart of London, and some parts of London may get disregarded unfairly as a result of that. A fairer geographical spread means exactly what it says, both for other parts of London and for the regions.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: How he will ensure that poorer communities in need of sports facilities will receive a larger share of allocations from the Lottery. [98978]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Government are determined to ensure that a greater share of lottery money goes to sporting projects in areas of deprivation. Sport England's priority areas initiative provides extra funding to such areas, and sport action zones will provide extra help in focusing funding towards areas of particular need.
    Mr. Wyatt: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. It is a pleasure to see her there. Does she intend, in the sports strategy, to consider an audit for sports facilities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I should think so. Pagers should be switched off before hon. Members come into the Chamber.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend consider, in her sports strategy, an audit of what facilities are currently available in communities? That audit should include not simply how many playing fields and swimming pools there are, but how many facilities are needed per adult. Areas where there is poverty, such as my community in Sheerness, have been told time and again that we should have more sports fields, but alas there are no fields to buy, so that is no good to us at all.
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. It is absolutely clear that, before we can make significant decisions about where and how money should be spent, we need to know what base we are starting from. We are seriously considering some form of audit, helped by local authorities and others.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of providing the maximum number of sports fields to benefit poorer communities, how does the hon. Lady reconcile the statement by the Minister for School Standards on 7 June that the new opportunities fund would provide £125 million to facilitate bids by cash for the creation of new playing fields with the issue on 29 September of that fund's consultation document, which specifically stated that the purchase of land would not be a priority?
    Kate Hoey: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is right and wrong—although perhaps I am being unfair. The buying of playing fields certainly will be allowed under the new initiative, although it will not be the only measure, and it will not necessarily be any more of a priority than some of the other initiatives.
    Ms Joan Walley: I very much welcome the steps that my hon. Friend has taken to make sure that money ends up where it is most needed. However, we still do not have a level playing field. In the west midlands, particularly in my constituency, playing fields have no adequate drainage and there are no proper facilities where people can play sport. We desperately need the support of a sports action zone. Will my hon. Friend consider the criteria carefully and think about those areas that do not have a level playing field?
    Kate Hoey: I would expect Sport England to consider precisely the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend has referred when deciding where sports action zones will be.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the progress of the millennium dome project. [98980]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The team at the New Millennium Experience Company continue to make magnificent progress, finalising delivery of all aspects of the millennium experience at the dome. The dome is on course to be a centrepiece for the country's millennium celebrations, both on its opening night and throughout 2000. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Bob Ayling, Jennie Page and all involved.
    Mr. Paterson: That statement contrasts with recent press reports that the dome may not be completed in its entirety by 31 December. If it is not, who will be held responsible and what will happen to them?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the press. The dome will indeed be completed in its entirety, with all its zones, in time for the opening on 31 December.
    340
    It is surely time for the carping to stop and for us all to get behind what will be a national flagship project for next year. We should surely take just a little pride in our country's ability to produce such a magnificent experience and exhibition for 2000.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Historic Buildings
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What funding he has received from English Heritage in 1998 for the upkeep of the Church's historic buildings. [98996]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 1998-99, 12 million was made available through English Heritage towards repairs to churches of all denominations and religions—Christian and non-Christian churches, historic places of worship in regular use and grade 1 or 2 listed buildings.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that £12 million is significantly less than the Treasury grabs in value added tax on church repairs and renovations? If, as I suspect, that is so, has not the quite ridiculous system of the Treasury giving with one hand and grabbing back with both hands gone on for too many years? I lend my support to the hon. Gentleman and his commissioners in their campaign for the vexed issue of VAT on church repairs to be looked into.
    Mr. Bell: As I reminded the House during my Adjournment debate on 17 November, the total available funding for 1999–2000 of £10 million from English Heritage and £10 million from the heritage lottery fund falls far short of the total bill for major repairs which, for the Church of England alone in 1998, amounted to £123 million. Of that, £18 million was paid in VAT. So, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point; the Treasury has taken with one hand what it has given with the other.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend assure me that churches that receive restoration grants as part of our heritage are brought back into community as well as religious use, as was intended when they were built? Will he also assure me that facilities and access for disabled people are considered when grants are made?
    Mr. Bell: English Heritage money is limited to urgent, high-level structural repairs and repairs to historic fabric at risk of imminent loss of grade 1 and 2 churches. Heritage lottery fund money is available for similar work to grade 2 churches and non-structural repairs of any grade, provided that they lie within certain prescribed

    341
    local authority areas. I am very glad to take up my hon. Friend's point about disabled access and facilities, and will ensure that it is heard.

    JC 2000
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: What representations the commissioners have received concerning any proposed investment in JC 2000; and if he will make a statement. [98997]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am happy to associate myself with JC 2000. As a member of its committee, I must state how pleased I am that 18,000 schools have registered to be part of the millennium arts festival for schools. It is very important that schools help pupils understand the true meaning behind the millennium. JC 2000 has gained support from the Department for Education and Employment, Church leaders and representatives of other faiths. I should add that, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I have received several representations.
    Mr. Rowe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous support for the project. Will he do his utmost to ensure that the somewhat creaky communication network of the Church of England operates to best possible effect, reminding churches and parishes throughout the United Kingdom that, should they want to put on a festival, a massive reservoir of the Church's work is waiting to be exhibited and displayed in concerts and other millennium celebrations?
    Mr. Bell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small; the same is true of the administration of the Church of England, but I shall make sure that his words are heard. The commissioners have consistently encouraged every appropriate attempt to mark the millennium year as the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. I am happy to encourage pupils, teachers and schools to devise drama, music and dance productions inspired by the impact of the Christian story; such productions are well within the framework of JC 2000.

    Millennium
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What contribution the Church Commissioners are making to the millennium celebrations. [98998]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In my role as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I have made a modest contribution in helping to raise 75 per cent. of the total £4 million cost of the faith zone at the dome, and I echo the words of the
    342
    Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of its success. Two million pounds has been donated by the Laing family trusts and £1 million comes from other Christian sources. The faith zone will contain a number of impressive exhibits and installations relating to the way in which the story of Jesus Christ, which lies at the heart of the millennium, has made a difference in this country.
    Mr. Hughes: Have the arrangements for Christian participation in the millennium celebrations now been finalised; and, if so, what are they? Will the hon. Gentleman consider discussing with the commissioners whether, next year, they could put some of the funds to which they have access into increasing the number of people at work as Christian ministers in the field? I have no idea of the figures, but I reckon that the percentage of Christians in Britain was larger 1,000 years ago than it is now. If we are to reverse the trend, we might have to employ more people to do the job.
    Mr. Bell: The other day, I read a story in the Financial Times stating that only 4 per cent. of our community goes to church. However, 96 per cent. are born into the Church, marry in the Church and die in the Church: that makes a strong and Christian country.
    I echo the words of the Secretary of State that the millennium dome will be a big success. The faith zone will show exhibits and installations relating to the story of Jesus Christ. I am told that it will be finished on time and that it will be a wonderful sight. It will marry with other community projects on which the Church is embarked, such as every church bell in the land being rung on new year's day. In addition, the Millennium Commission is funding the restoration of bells, the floodlighting of churches and an imaginative national faith heritage centre in Bradford.
    Mr. John Maxton: Given that the content of the faith zone was decided by the Lambeth conference, chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from which those of us who believe in no god were excluded entirely, how are we to be represented within the faith zone? In addition, how much will the Church of England give directly to the faith zone?
    Mr. Bell: After my last exchange with the hon. Gentleman, I recall someone telling me, "I'm an atheist, thank God," although that might not represent my hon. Friend's views. The Lambeth conference was a conference of all the faiths, so all the faiths have had a say in the faith zone; the zone will be inclusive and display aspects of other faiths. As for the contribution of the Church, as I said earlier, £2 million has been donated by the Laing family trusts and £1 million by other Christian sources; therefore, 75 per cent. of the money raised for the faith zone comes from sources other than the Church itself.

    Bishops' Salaries and Allowances
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans the commissioners have to revise the structure of bishops' salaries and allowances. [99000]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Bishops' stipends are set by the Church Commissioners on the recommendation of the Archbishops Council as the central stipends authority.
    Mr. Swayne: What possibility is there of linking theological orthodoxy and evangelical zeal to remuneration, especially expenses payable, so that occupants of the pews can be reassured that they are getting value for money?
    Mr. Bell: The clergy are there for the salvation of souls, and I am sure that they do a wonderful job. As for expenses, it is important to bear it in mind that bishops' expenses are only 1.5 per cent. of the total running costs of the Church.

    Churchwardens Measure
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the financial implications of the churchwardens Measure. [9900]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In response to comments by the Ecclesiastical Committee, the General Synod has made a number of amendments to the power in the Measure to suspend a churchwarden, including a new appeal provision. The only situation where the Measure might have measurable financial implications would be where there was such an appeal. That would be likely to arise only rarely, and I am sure that all those involved would be concerned to keep the expenses to a reasonable minimum.
    Mr. Luff: I am sure that many of the parochial church councils that have written to me recently to express their concern about the Measure will be encouraged by that response. Will the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the progress that this Measure will make through the House, to enable parochial church councils to shape their representations to Members on this subject?
    Mr. Bell: I am glad to be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The Measure, with the amendments made by the General Synod, has been re-submitted to the
    344
    Ecclesiastical Committee, which will consider it further as soon as possible. From there, we shall voyage on to the Floor of the House.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Red Book Figures
    Mr. Geoffrey CliftonBrown: What are the funding implications for the National Audit Office of its remit to evaluate the methodology of the Red Book figures. [99002]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission is responsible for ensuring that the NAO has sufficient resources to carry out the statutory duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In our previous report to the House, the commission noted the CAG's assurance that the cost of carrying out his new statutory duties in respect of the Budget assumptions is not expected to be high or to exceed the capacity of existing expertise available within the NAO. On the basis of the current scope of Budget assumptions work by the NAO, I remain satisfied that that is the case.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to allocate a specific sum so that we can ensure that the figures in next year's Red Book are truly transparent and that we do not have a situation, as we have had with this Government, where the same amount of money is repeated two or three times over and is accumulated for several years before it is actually spent? The public should be able to see properly what is being spent on health and education.
    Mr. Sheldon: The National Audit Office certainly carries out its remit thoroughly and properly. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's criticism because it is the task of the Public Accounts Commission, together with the Public Accounts Committee, to ensure that this work is done satisfactorily. I have no reason to doubt that that is still the case.

Political Progress in Northern Ireland
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on political progress in Northern Ireland.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach asked former Senator George Mitchell to facilitate a review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The review was to focus on breaking the deadlock over devolution and decommissioning, which has prevented progress for many months.
Senator Mitchell concluded his review last Thursday, after 11 weeks of intensive negotiations. I would like to pay tribute to his balanced, persistent approach, which was at all times good-humoured, evidently fair and respected on all sides. For nearly five years he has devoted his time and energy to helping to resolve the most intractable of problems. Whatever now happens in the coming days, the whole House will want to join me in thanking the senator for a job extremely well done.
The review has not produced a single text like the Good Friday agreement. Instead, it has concentrated on building trust and confidence by means of a number of important steps forward rather than waiting for one giant leap that might never be made.
As a result, last week saw a series of statements by the Decommissioning Commission headed by General de Chastelain, by the parties, by the IRA, by the British and Irish Governments, and by the senator. None of these was in itself decisive. But cumulatively, I believe that these statements, together with the further steps that are planned, have created the conditions in which the agreement can now be fully implemented.
I draw the House's attention in particular to Mitchell's belief that
"a basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible";
to the assumption of a more active, assertive role by the Decommissioning Commission in circumstances which it recognises will be transformed by the full implementation of the agreement; to Sinn Fein's acceptance that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process, to be brought about under the aegis of the Decommissioning Commission in accordance with the agreement, and to its acknowledgement that conflict must be a thing of the past; to the Ulster Unionist party's recognition of the legitimacy of the peaceful pursuit of nationalist aspirations, and its commitment to the principles of inclusivity, equality and mutual respect; and lastly, to the IRA's acknowledgement of the Sinn Fein leadership, and their willingness to appoint someone as an authorised representative to enter into discussions with the Decommissioning Commission.
I plan to call a meeting of the Assembly on Monday 29 November for the purpose of nominating Ministers in the new Northern Ireland Executive. Assuming that Ministers have been nominated, Parliament will be invited to approve a devolution order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on Tuesday 30 November, and powers will be transferred on Thursday 2 December.
Like Senator Mitchell, I believe that, with the institutions established, and everything up and running, decommissioning will happen as a natural and essential
346
development of the peace process. Sinn Fein has previously argued that decommissioning must take place in the context of full implementation of an overall settlement. It now has this in prospect as a result of the review. We are, therefore, planning for success, not failure.
However, if there is default, either in implementing decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions—the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies.
Nobody should doubt my resolve to ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Of course we are talking about voluntary action by all parties to achieve devolution and decommissioning. None the less, in terms of the steps taken and those in prospect, a heavy political price will be paid by those who default.
Unionists, and indeed nationalists, can be assured of that. It would pain me to do so, but I would not shrink from suspending the institutions if it proved necessary, thus restoring the status quo, so as to consider how to rectify the default; but as I said, we are planning for success, not failure. Whether the agreement can move forward now depends on the meeting of the Ulster Unionist council which has been called for this Saturday.
I pay tribute to the courage and leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is advising his party to seize the opportunity that these developments present. It is, for the Ulster Unionist party, a decision of historic importance. A great responsibility rests on it.
I cannot take that decision for the UUP, and I would not, for a moment, overstate the merits of the deal that has now been secured. I would, however, say this. First, the Good Friday agreement is, by any standard, a good deal for Unionists. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said at the time, it secures the Union for as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland continue to support it. It brings government closer to the people in local institutions, which will be responsive to local needs. It ends the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement, and it removes the territorial claim in the Irish constitution.
Secondly, I have already said that, in the new situation that devolution will create, I believe that decommissioning will take place. No longer are the 1RA ruling out decommissioning either by the front door or the back door. I do not believe that the republican movement would have created expectations, as it has, if it did not intend to deliver.
Let us be clear, though, about one thing: the process so outlined may not be perfect, but if it is not attempted, there will be no chance whatever of any decommissioning. Critics of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have offered no alternative way of meeting their objective, and it is certainly not for want of asking.
We will know before long whether the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries are engaging constructively with the Decommissioning Commission. Their representatives should be appointed within hours of devolution. The commission will arrange early meetings with all the representatives of the paramilitaries, and it will issue a

347
further report within days of those meetings. General de Chastelain is an internationally respected figure. We can be sure that he will tell it as it is, and set the highest standards.
Finally, let me say to those critics that those who are embarking on this journey in good faith will not be left on their own. If all our expectations of the Good Friday agreement are not met, I will be seeking a way forward in co-operation with those committed to the process, based on the principles of this agreement.
We stand on the brink of a remarkable transformation in Northern Ireland. There are already signs of growing economic confidence. The security situation, while not perfect, has been transformed. Bombs and barricades no longer interrupt daily life; people can once again lead a normal existence.
We must not go back to the bad old days: with a settled political future, in which the needs of both communities are met in a fair and equal society, we will not have to. The alternative is to hold back; to risk the renewal of instability and all that that brings; never to know whether decommissioning would have occurred; and to create an overwhelming sense of disappointment and uncertainty, which could not be more harmful to Northern Ireland's interests, now and in the longer term. In my judgment, that is no real alternative at all.
People in Northern Ireland are demanding a safe, secure future for their children. It is the politicians' job to create that for them. We must give peace a chance. I commend to the House the steps that are being taken.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Like him, I wish to pay handsome tribute to the work of Senator Mitchell. Without his seemingly limitless patience, we would not have made anything like the progress that we have made—not only during the latest review, but since he was first asked to examine decommissioning way back in 1995.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, throughout the process, we too have been strong supporters of the Belfast agreement and that our overriding objective has been to implement it in full? Does he appreciate that our disagreements with the Government occurred when we believed that the agreement was not being implemented in full, with no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, and no end to violence while 300 terrorist prisoners were released on to the streets early?
We believe that real progress has been made in the review, which could lead to achieving the twin goals of decommissioning and devolution. We welcome, as far as they go, the quite encouraging statements from Sinn Fein and the IRA last week. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said during the debate on the Queen's Speech last week, we have always made it clear that we would support the establishment of the Executive as long as it was accompanied by
"the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning".—[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 17.]
Does the Secretary of State accept that devolution and decommissioning must take place virtually simultaneously? That means that the Provisional IRA
348
should appoint an interlocutor as soon as the Executive is set up. Does he also share our concern about the reported comments of senior republicans Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris in the United States last week? Will he echo the remarks of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party in calling on Mr. Adams totally to dissociate himself from those comments?
I agree with the Secretary of State that we must not plan for failure, but we are of course being asked to take much on trust. Does he agree, therefore, with the words of the Anglican Primate, Lord Eames, who said last week that
"if arms decommissioning does not take place within the timescale that is being mentioned at the moment, then the world's condemnation will rest on those who have not delivered"?
Will he again clearly state that, in those circumstances, he would give his full backing to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), whose political leadership and courage we applaud? Following that, does he also agree that the appropriate course of action for him as Secretary of State, supported by the Irish Government, would be to invite the formation of a new Executive composed only of those parties that have committed themselves, in the words of the agreement, to
"exclusively democratic and peaceful means"?
We passionately want this to succeed, but we might all be wrong. We might all be let down. We might all be being misled. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if that happens, it will not be the fault of the democrats in the House or in Northern Ireland and that not they, but the paramilitaries and their political mouthpieces, should face the penalties? The time has now come for the paramilitaries—republicans and loyalists—at long last to deliver.
Mr. Mandelson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for all that we are doing and for what the parties, together with Senator Mitchell, have achieved over the past few weeks. Whatever differences of emphasis have existed between those on the two Front Benches in the past, I am very grateful for his recognition that real progress has been made and his agreement with me that the steps that I have outlined today should now be taken. I look forward to receiving his continuing support, and that of colleagues, for what will no doubt be a difficult, occasionally painful and fraught process as we move step by step through the series of changes and measures that have emerged from this successful review.
I do not want to dwell, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, on what will happen if we do not achieve the success that we all want. There is always some danger that our doing so would run the risk of reinforcing, rather than addressing, people's doubts and fears, and I do not think that it would be right to do so at this stage. I of course share his view, and that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, that some of the reported comments made by certain individuals in Boston and elsewhere have not been helpful. They are, none the less, the comments of particular individuals; they do not speak for an entire movement.
Although I do not speak for Mr. Doherty, it is worth noting in parenthesis that later in his interview he was invited to offer a pledge that the IRA would not

349
decommission. He declined to give that pledge. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Sinn Fein has issued a statement in his name in which it makes it clear that
"Sinn Fein are not in the business of double-crossing or misleading anyone. Such a course of action would be disastrous. We are in the business of making peace".
It behoves us in the circumstances to take those comments at face value in the knowledge that, in the coming weeks and months, they will remain to be tested.
Mr. David Trimble: My colleagues and I associate ourselves with the references to George Mitchell. Let me also express our appreciation to United States Ambassador Philip Lader, who tolerated our occupation of a substantial proportion of his residence for two weeks during our discussions there.
I agree with the Secretary of State that we have a basis on which we can proceed to both devolution and decommissioning. I emphasise that the one must accompany the other. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that without decommissioning devolution will not survive, if only because our position would otherwise become untenable. I should also say that we would not wish to remain were that the case.
The Secretary of State referred to the de Chastelain commission, and the discussions that it will have with the contact persons appointed by the paramilitaries. Can he confirm that those discussions are expected in the first instance to relate to the modalities of decommissioning—the number of weapons involved, and the ways in which they will be decommissioned? Reference has been made to General de Chastelain's statement that his commission will report on the discussions on modalities within days. Does the Secretary of State share our expectation that the report will indicate how the next phase of the process will be handled? That next phase will relate particularly to timing.
The Secretary of State referred to what might happen in the event of a default in terms of decommissioning and devolution. He said that the two Governments, British and Irish, would take the steps that were necessary to end the operation of the institutions. Are the Irish Government fully bound in on that? Given that steps to end the operation of the institutions will involve legislative and other measures, may we have an assurance that, should the situation arise, those measures will be introduced as soon as possible, and will include the winding up, as soon as is practicable, of the special administrative arrangements for cross-border co-operation that will automatically come into operation on decommissioning? It is important for those matters in particular to be dealt with, for the purpose of reassurance.
Mr. Mandelson: I am happy to offer the right hon. Gentleman all the assurances that he seeks.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's thanks to Ambassador Lader for the extremely generous provision of his residence, his dining table and much else besides. That came at a timely moment. I especially welcome the right hon. Gentleman's view that what has been achieved now offers the basis on which we can and should proceed. He is right to say that the job of the de Chastelain commission is to consider, in co-operation with the appointed representatives, the full modalities of how, when and on what basis decommissioning should occur.
350
It is not for me, for the Irish Government or for any other person to seek to impose any sort of timetable or artificial deadlines on the commission; it is independent—truly independent—and that means that the rest of us must observe a certain self-denying ordinance in expressing what will no doubt be our impatience to see progress.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the interlocutors will be appointed, and will take up their roles, on the day devolution occurs. That means that the process of decommissioning will effectively start at the same time as the beginning of devolution, which, I think, is the outcome that the right hon. Gentleman sought—an outcome that has been achieved through painstaking negotiation on his part.
As for the default mechanism, I can say that, following substantive discussions between ourselves and the Irish Government, they are at one with us in regard to the process that I have described.
Obviously, in the painful event of our needing to suspend the operation of the institutions, so that we can identify what we do next and how we proceed, given the crisis that will have occurred as a result of the suspending of the institutions, there will be a need for legislation. That will be introduced as soon as possible by the British Government. I can confirm that that will relate to the winding-up of the administrative arrangements for cross-border institutions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in questioning the Secretary of State. I hope that I have some credibility with Ulster Unionists in the House in trying to take a serious interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. In that, I would like to associate myself entirely with the statement by the Secretary of State.
Is it not the case that there are times for hard bargaining, and some of us have associated ourselves with the hard bargaining that has come from the Unionists over decommissioning, and there are times for reaching agreements, when the opportunities are there, and for making honourable agreements. That has occurred at this particular juncture. It is a case of there being an agreement and Sinn Fein being expected to live up to its side of the agreement. There is a case in negotiating for perhaps grabbing someone's hand, nailing it to the table and saying, "This is the position that we adhere to and that we expect to be delivered."
I therefore hope that, on this occasion, the lead that has been given by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will be pursued and followed, so that we can get further developments towards peace.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I immediately acknowledge the serious interest that he takes in Northern Ireland's affairs. I agree that there are times for hard bargaining. Heaven knows I have seen a great deal of those times from all those who have been involved in the talks; but equally, people need to know when the negotiations have achieved all that it is possible for them to achieve—and that time was reached last week.
I go some way in echoing my hon. Friend's sentiments about the future. I say merely this. It is not just a question of decommissioning; we are seeking to achieve devolution, too. Everyone has a responsibility to do what

351
they need to do and to fulfil their part of the bargain to ensure that devolution takes place, as well as decommissioning, so it is to all the parties that we say that they need to fulfil their responsibilities. Our expectations of them all are equally high.
Mr. John Major: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has taken a gamble this afternoon, but a justifiable gamble, which I wholeheartedly support? After last week's welcome statements from the Ulster Unionist party, Sinn Fein and the IRA, it is now probable that we are coming towards the endgame and drifting slowly but inexorably towards a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland. I fervently hope that that is the case, but he will know that difficulties may still lie ahead. There may still even be violence from fringe groups away from the main parties. We need to prepare ourselves for that possibility from people who, even at this stage, may wish to wreck the prospects of a better life for people in Northern Ireland.
May I make one separate point to the Secretary of State? It is absolutely right now to nominate Ministers to the power sharing Executive, but there will be many who still have doubts about that, perhaps in Northern Ireland, and it is important that disillusion should not set in and that the Executive should be able to make successful advances. I hope that the Government will offer them whatever support they can.
The whole House will be aware that one of the difficulties that has so often underpinned what we have come to know as the troubles has been a form of economic deprivation on which the men of violence have fed so frequently. May I suggest that, in working with the new power sharing Executive, the right hon. Gentleman seek to revive the idea of investment conferences to bring in the wall of money that I, for one, believe is waiting to be invested in Northern Ireland? In that way, the everyday citizen in Northern Ireland, at a time of hope, can see the practical and tangible advantages of co-operation in government and a better life for them and their children in future?
Mr. Mandelson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his significant statement and assessment of the situation. His remarks are particularly telling, given his contribution towards bringing us to this point. I am sure that hon. Members would want me to acknowledge that.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that we are taking a justifiable gamble—although we shall be careful throughout not to drop our security guard—and that there will be some in both communities who will not want us to succeed. They have the means available to them to be destructive and to try to bring down what the peacemongers among the politicians are achieving. We must be clear that any security changes that might be contemplated in the future will depend entirely on the assessment that the Chief Constable and his colleagues make of the threat posed.
I particularly like the right hon. Gentleman's idea of investment conferences. I agree that there is a wall of money behind the enormous amount of good will that exists towards Northern Ireland. His conference in 1995 led to a major repositioning of Northern Ireland in the
352
international business community. It was from that initiative that new investments by Fujitsu and Ford came to Belfast. There are no greater salesmen for any locality than the local politicians, who live and work there and represent the people who stand to benefit. We are placing that responsibility in their hands and on their heads as devolution proceeds.
Mr. Lembit ¶pik: Will the Secretary of State accept the good wishes of the Liberal Democrats on the great progress that has been made? Does he agree that Senator Mitchell has proved that if we wait long enough, sometimes pray hard enough and maintain our faith in the process, extraordinary things can be made to happen, even if the moves are not always dramatic and can take some time? The Liberal Democrats have resolutely supported this Government and the previous one in their efforts to secure a lasting peace.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) needs a clear run to secure an accord in his party for the proposals? Of course it is right to be tough on compliance, but is it not now essential that the mainland parties back the accord from a safe distance without interfering or providing any distress in the Province? In that context, does he welcome the recent reaffirmation by the official Opposition that they are genuinely committed to the bipartisan agreement? That was evidenced by their recent important meeting with Sinn Fein president Mitchel McLaughlin and other constructive statements from the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that we have got this far thanks not only to the commitment of the Prime Minister, but to that of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who initiated the current process? He should be proud of that. As well as those two Prime Ministers, two Taoiseachs, three Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and, above all, the Northern Ireland politicians have been responsible for the progress made, by showing that they have the capacity to act on the vision of a better future and the courage to work for it. Is it not prudent to remember that the process is not about politics or gaining party political advantage in Westminster or in the Province, but about the people of Ulster?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I endorse his sentiments that we want the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to be given a clear run, not because I think that members of the Ulster Unionist party should simply do what they are told and do the bidding of all who are clamouring at them to agree to the proposals, but because the proposals are right for the people whom they speak for and represent in their constituencies across Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that many people have contributed to the process—so far, so good—but none more than the parties themselves, who have negotiated this painstakingly and directly between themselves. The earlier attempts to get us to this position were a bit like shotgun marriages, forced by the two Governments. What we have now is certainly not a marriage, but it is a voluntary accommodation between parties, freely entered into on the basis of a carefully negotiated contract. What we have is all the healthier, in

353
that the parties have done it through their own free will rather than as a result of the Governments putting them up against a wall and attempting to force them to do it.
Mr. David Winnick: Is there not one thing of which we can be certain? Without the Executive being formed and without devolution taking place, there is no chance whatever of decommissioning occurring. If, as we all hope, the Executive is set up and devolution takes place, will there not be the utmost pressure on the IRA—national pressure, but also international pressure from the United States and others—to decommission on time? Should not we work on that basis?
Mr. Mandelson: I agree. We have good reason to expect movement by the IRA because, for the first time, we have a statement by the IRA. When we were nearly brought to this position in July, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues said that if we had a statement from the IRA, that would clearly transform the situation. For the first time, we now have that statement, and it will potentially transform the situation if it is fulfilled in practice. In addition, we have the IRA's representative, who I confidently expect will work closely, properly and effectively with General de Chastelain.
To those who have told us, and keep telling us, that we will not get decommissioning and that what the parties have agreed over the past 11 weeks is nothing new, I would like to ask—what have they said or offered that is new, or has the remotest possibility of delivering either devolution or decommissioning? The answer is: absolutely nothing.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I concur with the Secretary of State's tributes to Senator Mitchell and to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Does he agree that there is no way forward in Northern Ireland without risk and no way forward without courage, and that we must hope that the accuracy of the calibration of risk will be matched by the courage of those involved? However, success will depend on trust. If that trust is not fulfilled, those guilty of disappointing that trust will be guilty also of taking the whole process back to square one, if not further back.
Mr. Mandelson: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. There are risks involved in moving ahead. Certainly those who are responsible for setting up the Executive and implementing devolution will carry enormous responsibility. However, I have no doubt that whatever position I take or whatever attitude the Governments take to the functioning of the Executive, the Executive would collapse itself—without my having to suspend it—if a political crisis were created as a result of decommissioning not taking place.
Trust is at the heart of the operation of all the steps set out today and all the progress that we want to see in the weeks and months to come. Nothing would impair or threaten that trust more than if people's expectations of what will follow in relation to decommissioning were dashed at the last moment.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State said that Unionists must show courage and take a jump of faith, but many Unionists feel that they are being
354
asked to take a jump into the dark. He said that if the IRA default on decommissioning he will throw Sinn Fein out of the Executive; and he had good news for the Unionists and said that he would throw them out as well. That is not very encouraging. The weakness is that there is no time scale for reaching the decision that the IRA have defaulted. We could be asked to jump into the dark and proceed until June 2000.
Many Unionists are hesitant because they do not know what will happen if there is failure. It is wrong to say that we are not planning for failure; we know that there could be failure. Members of the majority community in Northern Ireland need to know what the position will be if there is failure. When they have reassurances on that, they might go with this, but until then the process is in real trouble.
Mr. Mandelson: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is important to note that he does not quibble with or oppose fundamentally the negotiated deal and way forward that are the outcome of the Mitchell review. I am grateful to him for making a clear distinction between the fundamentals of what has been negotiated and agreed and the additional assurances that people will need in order to summon the courage to go forward.
I hope that I have contributed this afternoon to providing those reassurances and I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and any of his colleagues should they want to put further questions to me about exactly how I envisage the developments and events of the next few weeks and months unfolding.
We are justified in planning for success but that does not mean that we are not providing for failure. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted carefully what I said about that point. It is not right to say that we are jumping into the dark. We are taking some risks, but they are all carefully calculated and controlled and will remain under the control of the parties and the Governments and, above all, of the Assembly itself.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about my excluding Sinn Fein from the Executive in the event of the IRA failing to decommission to the satisfaction of the de Chastelain commission, but it is up to the Assembly, not me, to take that action. In the event of those circumstances arising, I would certainly move to suspend the operation of the Executive but it would then be for the Assembly and all the Members and parties in it to take what action they think appropriate.
We will not necessarily punish all parties in the event of a default. Effectively, all parties are being punished at the moment through the failure to set up the Executive and our inability to make a reality of devolution and satisfactorily to implement the Good Friday agreement as a whole. In the current situation, it is not possible to say clearly where responsibility for those failures lies; but if default occurred it would be only too clear where the responsibility lay. That would represent a considerable move forward and provide a helpful basis for our resolving the situation and rectifying the default in ways that I and all the parties consider appropriate and possible.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable courage has been shown on both sides in Northern Ireland to get where we are today, and that the progress that has been made should

355
totally marginalise those who would pursue violent means to their ends? In the process of planning for success—which my right hon. Friend should use as a slogan in Northern Ireland—will he recall that some people claimed not to understand what they agreed to in the Good Friday agreement? Will he consider publicising the content of the recent review so that people are clear about it and the men of violence are marginalised?
Mr. Mandelson: I entirely share the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. The achievements of the past 11 weeks have shown that it is politics that work, not violence. That is what the agreement is all about and what the Mitchell review demonstrates. That is a message that I shall drive home with all the communication skills available to me.
Mr. Tom King: The House will have noted the Secretary of State's confidence and that of Senator Mitchell that the Good Friday agreement can now be delivered in full, and those of us who have worked in any way on the process will wish profoundly that that will prove to be the case. Will he accept the wise warning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—that this is a time of real hope, but also undoubtedly a time of considerable danger? Certain groups at both ends of the spectrum offer no good will to the agreement and will find no comfort in an accommodation in Northern Ireland. Whatever the views of the Governments, the issue is now for the people of Northern Ireland to resolve, with our good wishes and our confidence that if they can find the accommodation that we seek for them, the future can be bright.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which are shrewd and based on much personal experience in Northern Ireland. He is right to remind us of the colossal public support that exists for the Good Friday agreement. That was tested at the time of the referendum and, more recently, in successive opinion polls. At the time of the referendum, more then 70 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland endorsed the Good Friday agreement. According to a recent, valid, properly conducted opinion poll, and despite all the frustrations, problems and delays of the past 18 months, that percentage has barely slipped. People in Northern Ireland overwhelmingly want to see the agreement implemented, because they know that on it rest their futures, their prosperity, their peace and the possibility that their children can remain in Northern Ireland as leaders instead of becoming exiles. That is why they are crying out for the politicians to implement the agreement and to make the progress that has been agreed in the Mitchell review.
Ms Margaret Moran: I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend and all the parties on the progress made to date, especially the prospect of rapid devolution. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wisdom in selecting the Women's Coalition conference for discussion of the progress of the review. Does he wish to comment on the role that the smaller parties, such as the Women's Coalition, played during the
356
review and will play in future, in the power sharing Executive and in rebuilding the civic society which is so necessary in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Before I mention the smaller parties, however, I wish to put on record my appreciation of the role played by the Social Democratic and Labour party throughout the negotiations and, indeed, the entire peace process. All the values underpinning the Good Friday agreement, and all the good will that has driven forward the Mitchell review, are encapsulated in what the SDLP stands for and what their leaders have contributed throughout the entire process.
My hon. Friend was right, too, to acknowledge the contribution made by the smaller parties. It was a delight for me to go, on Saturday, to the annual conference of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition to make my announcement. Ever so occasionally, their enthusiasm got slightly in the way of the neat delivery of the soundbites that I had carefully prepared—but I do not mind a bit of chanting and jumping on seats interrupting the polished delivery of my speeches if it demonstrates the enormous tide of good will and public support for implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. As someone who has been a Member of this place for 16 and a half years, and felt alienated from this place for 14 of those years—since the Anglo-Irish agreement—I find this an exciting and hopeful time. I hope that getting rid of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the Irish Republic's territorial claim will provide us the platform that will enable us to move forward.
I ask the Secretary of State and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House whether, after D-day, they will continue to pay attention to events and support us during what will be a difficult time? Such support will be most important, now that we have achieved consensus with most people in this Chamber.
On a parochial note, I ask the Secretary of State if he takes encouragement from the fact that—although a virtual spectator to attempts to normalise Northern Ireland politics—the Ulster Democratic Unionist party has today indicated its intention to take up its ministerial entitlement in a new Northern Ireland Executive. Conversely, is he—like me—puzzled by the assertion by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that disarmament of terrorist organisations is not a priority?
Mr. Mandelson: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's last comment. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member for Belfast, East—a leading member of the DUP—will satisfactorily explain to his constituents and others why he thinks that decommissioning is not important any more, and why he attaches so little value to it. It is something for him to explain, rather than for me to comment on.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was also right to draw attention to the fact that members of that party are prepared to receive the gain of what he and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party have negotiated without going through all the pain of that negotiation. I only assure him that, of course, when and

357
after we reach D-day, we shall certainly not be losing any interest at all. Support for what is going on, and what has been achieved, is full and will continue to be so.
I hope that, in the days leading up to Saturday's Ulster Unionist council, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will make it very clear to his hon. Friends and colleagues and to members of his party that, unless we get the go-ahead and the vote that we want on Saturday, we shall not be seeing the end of the Anglo-Irish agreement made in 1985, and we shall not be seeing removal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. So if for no other reason than those two great steps forward—there are other reasons—I hope that the council votes yes on Saturday.
Mr. Martin Salter: We await the prospect of DUP Ministers with bated breath. I should have thought that one of the first things they could do is to return some of the paving stones in their constituencies to their natural state.
On a more serious point, we all applaud the efforts of the genuine pro-agreement parties in pushing forward the peace progress so that we are on the threshold of implementing the Good Friday agreement in full. However, how confident is my right hon. Friend that some of the smaller loyalist paramilitary groups and splinter groups are genuine about the process of decommissioning, particularly in the light of the appalling gangsterism that still exists in certain parts of the Province and the sporadic outbreaks of equally appalling sectarian acts?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that recently, and even now, nationalists—members of Northern Ireland's minority community—are suffering disgusting and unwarranted attacks in appalling incidents, many of which, I am glad to say, have been forestalled by the intervention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces. I am glad to put on record my acknowledgement of, and thanks for, what the RUC has done in recent weeks to stop the pipe bombers and others who have been intercepted on their way to carrying out the most despicable and unforgivable attacks.
I believe that the de Chastelain commission will take its responsibilities very seriously in relation to all the paramilitaries. It will adopt an active role, and I am confident that it will do what is necessary to achieve what we all want to see—that is, full decommissioning by all the paramilitaries by May 2000, as set out in the Good Friday agreement. We have already lost some time; there is now an opportunity for the paramilitaries to pick up speed and make further progress so that they will have achieved their targets by the end date set out in the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Secretary of State will forgive me if, in the best traditions of this House, I introduce a note of discord to his orchestrated harmony. In July this year, when the first seismic shift was in progress, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, indicated that a draft treaty was available in the Library. It consisted of a letter addressed by the right hon. Lady to the Foreign Minister of the Republic, introducing a failsafe treaty dealing with the points so ably raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).
358
Is there, in this second seismic shift, a similar failsafe treaty that will ensure that in the event of Sinn Fein/IRA defaulting on their bargain, a treaty will be available setting aside the institutions? The Secretary of State will be aware that those institutions—the north-south implementation bodies and the north-south ministerial councils—are the subject of treaties, not between the parties but between the sovereign Governments—hence the necessity for the failsafe treaty. Is a similar treaty available in this case?
Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware of any institution of government claiming to be democratic that would include the political representatives of a terrorist organisation still in possession of its arms and still dedicated to the destruction of the state?
Mr. Mandelson: In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific question about the treaty, it was not pursued because the plan fell. However, similar understandings with the Irish Government exist, as I think that I have made clear during the course of my responses this afternoon.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had to introduce a note of discord to our proceedings. Quite honestly, I would not have expected anything different from him. I regret to say that he has contributed not a jot to the negotiations or to the progress of the review. I note that he attempts to take no share either of the credit or the responsibility for what has been achieved.
I have not spoken about seismic shifts, either today or on any other occasion. I am interested only in what we can achieve at the end of the full implementation of every aspect of the Good Friday agreement, which is the seismic shift that the people of Northern Ireland want. If and when we achieve that, as I confidently believe we will, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to cheer, and to say "I was wrong".
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that everyone involved in making this significant political progress is to be commended? Does he recognise that the bedrock on which that progress has been founded are the fortitude, courage and common sense of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland over 30 bloody years? Does he accept that their fortitude and courage ultimately resisted the men of violence, slowly but inexorably strengthening the hands of the democrats so that they can now take the risks that they are justifiably taking?
Bearing in mind that, in terms that the Secretary of State will understand, the good reputation of the many has been tarnished by the actions of the few for 30 years, will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland—whatever their religious background or political persuasion—who have stood firm and made today possible, and who, we hope, will make tomorrow possible?
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be shared by most if not all hon. Members. We would not have achieved what we have, and I would not be standing here to announce it, without the majority of the people of Northern Ireland having asserted their values, their good will, their principles and what they believe. They have struggled through so much to achieve

359
it, and it is their mandate that has enabled the parties to negotiate successfully. It is their rejection of violence that has caused the paramilitaries to fall away and to resort to the politics from which they should never have deviated.
Dr. Nick Palmer: One of the great advantages of the peace process is that it appears to be marginalising the extreme groups that still seek change through violence rather than politics. Everyone from the Ulster Unionists to Sinn Fein is being given a common interest in defeating those groups. However, every stage of the process in Northern Ireland, as in similar processes elsewhere, has been punctuated by attempts at disruption through terrorist acts by violent groups. Will my right hon. Friend state that any attempt to disrupt the process through violence by fringe splinter groups—successful or defeated—will fail, because we are committed to completing the process and gaining a long-term peace agreement for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Mandelson: I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. The security forces will not lower their guard, and the people of Northern Ireland will not tolerate any distortion by a continued resort to violence of what they have achieved or the progress that we are making. I am in constant touch with the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding, NI, and other members of the security forces. They maintain their guard and their responsibility, and while I remain Secretary of State, that guard will not be dropped.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Mr. Elliot Morley, presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 6].
  SEA FISHING GRANTS (CHARGES)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Mr. Elliot Morley presented a Bill to ensure the validity of charges made in the administration of certain grant schemes relating to sea fishing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 7].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  Fourth Day
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 November].
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Dr Jack Cunningham].
  Question again proposed.

  Foreign Affairs and Defence
  4.35 pm
  Madam Speaker: I must inform hon. Members that there is a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Benchers' speeches throughout the entire debate.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): May I start by taking the dangerous step of inviting 30 seconds of consensus in the debate? I invite the House to join me in paying tribute to the work of the members of the diplomatic service. Without their work, we should not be able to hold today's debate on international relations. I have worked closely with them for the best part of three years. In my experience, they show a powerful commitment to the public service and put in long hours, well beyond any reasonable requirement of their contracts.
  There is a media caricature of diplomats living a life of receptions in luxurious embassies. That is grossly unfair both to the hard work of the diplomatic service and to the conditions under which it is carried out. Most of our foreign posts are run on a shoestring; half have four or fewer UK-based staff. Those posts always involve some isolation; they frequently entail hardship and, occasionally, real danger. Among the violent crimes against diplomats last year were car-jackings at gunpoint, knife attacks, and a shooting that left two diplomats wounded. After those 30 seconds, I hope that enough bipartisanship remains for the House to join me in recording our appreciation of the universal commitment and the frequent courage of members of the diplomatic service. Their work is all the more relevant because we live in a world in which nations are more interdependent than they are independent.
  The aim of foreign policy, therefore, must be, first, to strengthen Britain's security by deepening our alliances; and, secondly, to promote our prosperity by widening our commercial links. To do that, we need partners in every continent. The Government will thus engage constructively with any country where we can make progress through dialogue. That means that, sometimes, we must be willing to build a working relationship even with Governments who do not share all our values.
  During the past year, we have restored a working relationship with two such countries, where we had inherited a long-standing stalemate from the previous

  361
  Administration. With Libya, we have negotiated the handover of the two men charged with the Lockerbie bombing. After a decade, the relatives of those who died that night will hear the evidence brought out in open court during the coming year. The Government of Libya have also handed over compensation for the killing of WPC Fletcher—thus removing the last obstacle to the restoration of full diplomatic relations. We expect a British ambassador to take up his post in Libya next month.
  Britain already has a full ambassador in Iran, for the first time in more than a decade. Next year, I intend to visit Iran as the first British Foreign Secretary to do so since the fall of the Shah, 20 years ago. We retain real concerns about several aspects of the policy of Iran, but we are now able to raise those concerns through a dialogue that did not exist previously.
  However, we are more likely to find more natural partners among countries that share our values and among people who share our freedoms. It is thus to our advantage to widen the number of countries that have open Governments, open societies and open markets. That is why it is in our national interest to support democracy and to strengthen international law. The Gracious Speech takes forward that commitment to international justice by announcing a draft Bill to give effect to Britain's support for an international criminal court.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will let me finish the point, I shall happily give way.
  We shall publish the Bill in draft—my hon. Friend will be interested in that—so that the non-governmental organisations that are concerned with human rights can comment on it before it is introduced, and so that its terms can be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Members of the House.
  Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of being among the first 60 countries to ratify that important convention, and the effects that will flow from that. Can he give the House a clear undertaking that, after the welcome scrutiny by the Committee and by the non-governmental organisations, the Bill will be enacted in time for the United Kingdom to be among the first 60 to ratify?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm that our commitment remains to be among the first 60 to ratify, because the court cannot come into effect until 60 countries ratify the agreement. It is in our interests to be among the first 60, because we can then shape the nature of the court, and I believe that we are on target to do so. Only four countries have so far ratified the convention, and those four did not require primary legislation to do so.
  The legislation will be complex. As I said when I announced it in the House a year ago, it will not be a fast-track or simple procedure. That is why it is helpful for the House and those outside it who are interested in the matter to have the opportunity to comment on a draft, so that we can ensure that we have an agreed text ready for when the opportunity arises.
  362
  The existence of a permanent international criminal court will end the need to invent a new remedy every time that there is another case of mass atrocities such as those committed in Rwanda, Kosovo or East Timor. It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against a million. This measure will put on notice the Pol Pots and the Saddams of the world that major crimes against humanity are the business of all humanity and will no longer go unpunished.
  Our co-operation at the conference in Rome, attended by more than 100 countries which supported the setting up of the court, is also an example of how we can best fulfil our foreign policy objectives by being a constructive member of an international community. Britain has long ceased to be an imperial power. If we are to influence world events, we must do so, not alone, but in partnership with the international community; and Britain has unique opportunities for such partnerships.
  We are the only country that is a member of the Group of Eight, of the Commonwealth and of the European Union, and a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. This summer, in the G8, we demonstrated what a valuable forum it can be for international co-operation when, over three solid days in Cologne, we hammered out the details of the peace settlement in Kosovo. I vividly remember one adjournment of the proceedings in order that eight Foreign Ministers around the table could get on their mobile phones to give fresh instructions to their ambassadors in the United Nations about the Security Council resolution. It was a practical, operational way of demonstrating how the international community, working together, can find a solution.
  In the Commonwealth last week, we secured a common commitment that, at Seattle, we shall all work together to ensure that the next world trade round has a strong development dimension. We must ensure that not only the rich countries gain the benefits from the globalisation of trade. The Government are proud that we are carrying through a big expansion of our development programme. As Foreign Secretary, I frequently see the good will that that has brought us around the globe. It also enables us to take the leading role in international debate on how best we face the most profound millennium challenge—the elimination of the deepest levels of poverty throughout the world.
  In the European Union, we shall continue to act as a leading advocate for the middle east peace process. If the political settlement is to be secure, we must also deliver a peace dividend for the Palestinian people. The European Union can play the lead. The European Union must open up access to its markets to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority on equal terms, and help provide the firm economic base on which a just and lasting settlement can be built.
  Finally, in the Security Council, the United Kingdom played a leading role in the delegation to Jakarta which was instrumental in compelling Indonesia to accept an international military force in East Timor. At the Asia-Pacific conference I promised that we would not allow the cry for the freedom of East Timor to be drowned in blood, and we are delivering on that pledge.

  363
  In short, the international effort of the Foreign Office is as much multilateral now as it is bilateral. However, there are two bilateral relationships that will always be of strategic importance—our relationships with the United States and with Russia.
  The Queen's Speech finds the Atlantic alliance in good health. Sometimes, I hear Conservative Members talking as if disengagement from Europe would help strengthen our Atlantic partnership. They are sadly mistaken if they imagine that those views are reciprocated in Washington. The more that Britain can influence thinking on the continent, the more it is valued in Washington as a prime European ally.
  Britain's role in the Kosovo crisis, in maintaining the cohesion and resolve of the alliance, was possible only because of the trust and respect which we have built up on both sides of the Atlantic, which enables Britain to act as a natural bridge between them. I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has wanted to intervene for some time; I am glad that he has now made up his mind to do so.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I was trying to choose the appropriate moment, so as not to interrupt the Foreign Secretary's flow. I am grateful to him for recognising that.
  Does the Foreign Secretary not share my concern that, at the moment, the only thing that seems to distinguish the barbarism practised by Milosevic in Kosovo and that practised by the Russian generals in Chechnya has been the reaction of us in the west?
  Mr. Cook: No, I would not agree with that at all. On Chechnya, there is a difference between us and Russia, and we have been robust about that difference. Indeed, only last week in Istanbul, I met Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and at that meeting I stressed to him our three key demands: that Russia refrain from military actions that make the civilian population suffer; that it allow in humanitarian agencies to help the refugees, and, most important of all, that it accept that the crisis can be resolved only by a political process leading to a settlement. That is why I am glad that we secured language in Istanbul that provides a recognition for the role that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe could play in this matter and that provides an invitation to the OSCE's chairman-in-office to visit the region.
  Before I return to my remarks about Russia, I wish to complete what I was saying about Atlantic security. Britain is able to be the natural bridge across the Atlantic, but, at the same time, Europe must shoulder its share of keeping that bridge strong.
  Kosovo revealed that Europe must do more. There were more than 2 million men and women in uniform in the armed forces of the European allies, yet it took an heroic effort to deploy 2 per cent. of that total as part of a peacekeeping effort in Kosovo. We would not have been able to do it at all if we had taken the advice of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) who, at the start of the Kosovo conflict, complained that British troops in Macedonia
  "have become a hostage to fortune and I query the wisdom of having pre-positioned them."—[Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 612.]
  364
  Had we listened to his wisdom, the British Army and its allies would not have been able to carry out the swift liberation of Kosovo when Milosevic submitted.
  We must absorb the lesson of Kosovo. We must ensure that the European armed forces have the rapid, flexible, mobile capacity necessary for crisis management.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of Kosovo, will he comment on the statement that appeared under the byline of Robert Fisk in The Independent today, which said that NATO had refused to allow the United Nations to investigate the effects of the depleted uranium used this summer? Is that true?
  Mr. Cook: We are in dialogue with the United Nations on that point and I would like NATO to be as co-operative as possible with the UN. Equally, we should not overlook the prime finding of the UN study on the environment in Serbia, which was that most of the pollution had occurred before the conflict began and as a result of neglect of the economy by Milosevic and his cronies.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Our partners used depleted uranium.
  Mr. Cook: I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that we are in dialogue with the UN at present. I hope that that dialogue will produce a positive outcome. As the House knows, we used no depleted uranium in the course of any action we took in Kosovo and it is for the United States to decide how open it will be about what its national forces did.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House when it is likely that a completed battle damage assessment and the lesson learned from the Kosovo campaign will be made available to the House for a more detailed discussion than has been possible so far?
  Mr. Cook: The NATO study of the impact of the bombing campaign in Kosovo has already been published. I am not aware that it is not in the Library; if it is not, I will make sure that it is placed there and made available to hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee is in the middle of its inquiry into Kosovo. I look forward to giving evidence to that Committee very shortly, and I am sure that the House will be enlightened by the outcome of that inquiry.
  I was stressing that Europe must learn the lessons of Kosovo and we must expand our capacity for crisis management. Before concluding my remarks on that passage of my speech, however, I want to stress that the security initiative that Britain has commenced within Europe is about crisis management, humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping. It is not about the defence of the continent. That remains squarely the responsibility of NATO, and with one of our former British colleagues now in the post of Secretary-General of NATO, the Government are even better placed to make sure that Europe and NATO work closely together.
  A secure Europe depends on a stable Russia. It is a matter of regret that 10 years on from the collapse of the Berlin wall, the Russian people have not secured the

  365
  economic and social benefits from democracy that their friends would have wished. It is in our interests to help the Russian people to secure a democracy dividend that will demonstrate to them that the new politics can produce real gains in their quality of life. Over the next year, Britain and our European partners will be taking forward a number of initiatives to help the Russian people with social concerns such as the alarming spread of TB. The west needs to be seen by the people of Russia as part of the solution to their domestic concerns, not only as the problem in their foreign concerns.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Could not the Foreign Secretary link the provision of aid, particularly financial credits, to Russia to progress towards attaining the three objectives that he set Foreign Minister Ivanov in Istanbul with regard to Chechnya, namely a cessation of fighting, relief to the refugees and a political settlement? If the aid and credits to Russia are maintained while the war is prosecuted, it will seem that the west is subsidising a conflict that is bloody and inhumane.
  Mr. Cook: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and when I met Foreign Minister Ivanov, I put it to him that it is increasingly difficult for us to understand what purpose is being served by the scale of the military activity in Chechnya. We understand Russia's frustration at the lawlessness of the region, and all Members of the House will be aware that we have seen three British citizens become victims of violent crime in Chechnya in the most brutal and horrible manner.
  It is, however, hard to see how terrorism will be rooted out by a military campaign of which the prime victims have been civilians who are every bit as innocent of terrorism as the victims of the original terrorist bombs. I would not therefore rule out any possible lever being considered at some future time.
  I say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that I do not find myself attracted to using that financial pressure because we should not lose sight of the fact that the current International Monetary Fund negotiations in Moscow are intended to help Russia to repay its existing debt to the international community and the IMF, and it is not clear how it would serve our interests to put Russia in a position where it defaulted instead. That said, we will use whatever platforms are available to us to press our concerns on Chechnya.
  Last week, with my German and Dutch colleagues, I secured agreement within the European Union to those three demands on Chechnya. That agreement was given unanimously, by all 15 member states. That was a good example of Britain working for unity in Europe and to secure a stronger voice on world affairs than we could ever have on our own. The Government's world view starts from the perspective that Britain is a European nation. That is more than just the reality of geography. We share with those European countries the same values of freedom and social justice. We have inherited a common culture and civilisation. Since Europe began in the post-war era to build common structures, our peoples have benefited from half a century of peace and stability.
  One of the most important issues for Europe in the coming year is to help the countries of the Balkans to share such peace and stability. We promised that we
  366
  would make the defeat of Milosevic and his poisonous politics of ethnic hatred a turning point for the region. We are now delivering on that promise through the stability pact for south-east Europe. It is providing a framework for initiatives in the region to promote disarmament, to guarantee media freedom and to stimulate inward investment. Through the stability pact, we are sharing with the countries of the Balkans the key lesson of post-war Europe: the best formula for security is not arming our frontiers but dismantling barriers to trade, mobility and co-operation.
  At the same time as the countries of the Balkans are keen to learn the lessons of post-war Europe, here in Britain we are faced with an opposition party that is equally keen to forget them. It would be unreasonable of me to detain the House too long in detailing why Tory policy on Europe is a mistake. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] It is unnecessary; so many senior members of the Conservative party have already done the job for me.
  The last Conservative Prime Minister has described his party's policy as
  "absurd, politically crazy and economically crazy".
  The last Conservative Deputy Prime Minister has said that his party is moving towards a policy of "incalculable folly". The last but one Conservative Foreign Secretary has described the policy as
  "misleading, damaging, frivolous and unreal".
  The last Conservative Foreign Secretary has termed it "bunker Toryism".
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I am thrilled that so many Conservative Members have leapt to their feet to support their party's leadership. I shall give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In the interests of balance, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the words not of previous high officeholders of the Conservative party but of the present Prime Minister, who said in the election campaign prior to becoming an hon. Member:
  "We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC, which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs"?
  Am I right in thinking that the Foreign Secretary subscribed to the same manifesto?
  Mr. Cook: Demonstrably I did, since I was elected in 1983, as was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One of the points that makes us despair of the Conservative party's approach to Europe is the sheer inability to learn from what has happened over the past 20 years. The idea that we should all be mired at some point 20 years ago without noting what has happened since is exactly why Conservatives cannot come to terms with the modern world.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later because I am about to refer to him. He should be seated just now. I promise that his turn will come; he is already in my speech.

  367
  The shadow Foreign Secretary may wish to take the opportunity to respond to such critics of his policy. If he is to be convincing, he must answer one question: can he name a single European member state that supports his demand for a pick-and-mix Europe? [Interruption.] Norway is not the correct answer. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do so, what will he do when every other member state says no to his policy? At the Conservative party conference, his leader said that there would be no new treaty from the intergovernmental conference unless the other member states said yes.
  The protocol to the Amsterdam treaty is clear; it resulted from an amendment that I moved during the summit. Without reform of the European institutions, there can be no further enlargement. If there is no new treaty, no new member states will be allowed to join. The masterstroke of the shadow Foreign Secretary's policy is to unite the 13 countries that are trying to join the EU with the 14 existing member states in the same frustration with the British Conservative party. The Tory Euro-sceptics are the modern militant tendency.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's turn is coming soon.
  Those Euro-sceptics have saddled their leadership with a policy of demands that are impossible for them to fulfil. The Tory Euro-sceptics do not want their demands to be met successfully: they want failure, because from failure will come a crisis in Britain's relations with Europe, which they will use as a pretext to withdraw Britain from Europe.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Oh, very well—I cannot wait any longer.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. No sensible person—from which category one should probably exclude the right hon. Gentleman—would favour European Union enlargement at any price. Given his risible failure at Foreign Office questions on 2 November to do so, will he now give a categorical commitment that he will not sign any EU enlargement treaty that allows for the erosion or diminution of national vetoes in respect of defence, border controls or taxation?
  Mr. Cook: I said during Foreign Office questions that that is precisely our policy and we have no intention of changing it; I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman wants. Since he mentions people of good sense, I shall remind him of some of his own remarks—after all, he should take some credit for having, in part, masterminded the shift in Opposition policy. He said:
  "renegotiation should start from the premise that we will stay in the EU if we can strike a deal and pull out if we cannot".
  Much as our European partners respect Britain, it is possible that, confronted with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), they will suggest that he skip the renegotiation and go straight to the pulling out.
  By contrast, the Government are firmly committed to maintaining Britain as a full member of the European Union. Last year, more than half our exports went to other
  368
  member states, so we have to be there when they make the rules under which our businesses sell and export their goods. The inward investment that comes to Britain comes not to sell to Britain, but to export to the whole of the European Union—the largest single market in the world, with 370 million consumers. We have to show that we are committed to staying in if we want business men in Tokyo and Texas to show their commitment to investing here.
  Membership of the largest single market in the world gives Britain a clout in international trade talks that we would never have on our own. For the past two months—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Foreign Secretary, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that he has spoken for 34 minutes in the debate on the Queen's Speech so far and I do not want to hear him add to that total from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, to intercede for the hon. Gentleman, I should say that we on the Government Benches relish his interventions when they are made from a standing position.
  Britain has been helping to shape Europe's mandate for the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, to be held in Seattle. Did we not do so, member states in the rest of Europe would draw up a mandate that suited their interests, not ours. That is why our strategy is to make Britain a leading partner in Europe: a Britain that is shaping Europe, not shunning Europe.
  Because we support the EU, we want it to be modernised and reformed. In that respect, the Opposition spokesman could use a little help from his party's Members of the European Parliament, who last month voted to prevent the new anti-fraud office from investigating MEPs' accounts. They were perfectly happy for it to investigate the Commission, the Council and even the staff, but not themselves. Last week, most were shamed into reversing their vote, but three Tory MEPs still voted to keep the anti-fraud office from investigating MEPs' accounts.
  Conservatives cannot be taken seriously when they practise the double standard of promising reform in Britain, but voting against it in Brussels. Nor can they be taken seriously when, with one breath, they pledge that the euro is such a fundamental threat to national sovereignty that they will ban it, but, with the next, say that they will ban it for one Parliament only. Will the hon. Member for Stratfordon-Avon tell us whether keeping Britain out of the euro is a great principle of eternal truth, or just a small principle with a sell-by date? He would be wise to clear up that point before he despatches his leader to tour Britain, campaigning to ban the euro from the back of a flat-bed truck—if he ever finds a truck that has not been made within the euro zone. The decision on whether or not to join the euro will be of fundamental significance to Britain and it is important that we get it right. It is important that we make the right decision for Britain. The decision must be made by giving honest answers to the questions that reflect the real world, in which Britain could soon be the only country in the European Union outside the euro zone.
  If the euro proves a success and if our five economic conditions are met, we shall let the people have the choice through a referendum, in which they can decide what is

  369
  in the national interest. Whether or not we join the euro, it will be a fact of our lives. Last month, BMW announced that it was to pay Rover suppliers in euros. That will bring the reality of the euro to the accounts of big companies trading across the channel and to scores of small firms in the west midlands. Marks and Spencer and Siemens have announced similar moves.
  The awkward truth for Euro-sceptics is that they cannot ban the euro by blockading the ports and preventing it from getting in as in a mirror image of French farmers. There is an underlying unreality to the hostility of Opposition Members to integrating with our neighbours. That was caught perfectly in a headline in the Daily Express which read:
  "Hague Wages War on World".
  Opposition Members are swimming against the tide of the powerful and rapid current of globalisation.
  Back in the real world of interdependence, the deepest political divide is between those who embrace the cosmopolitan character of the modern world and those who reject it and want to retreat into isolationism. Opposition Members are firmly into isolationism. They will never come to terms with globalisation so long as they make their starting point being as rude as possible to our immediate neighbours.
  Labour has always been a party of internationalism. We recognise that the more we play a full part in the international community, the more secure we make our country and the safer we make the world. The most moving experience for me over the past year was when I walked the streets of Pristina and saw the joy of the people of Kosovo at their liberation. One of them described it to me as emerging from one long dark night into the dawn. Their liberation was secured through a campaign by an international alliance in which Britain helped maintain resolve. Their administration is now provided through an international mandate which Britain helped to draft. Those who attempted to ethnically cleanse them are being pursued through an international tribunal, which has received more support from Britain than from any other country.
  Kosovo demonstrated that although Britain may not be able to act on its own, it can and does make a leading contribution in partnership with others. It is on the basis of that successful record of building new partnerships and strengthening old alliances that we ask the House to support the Government in making Britain a leading player in Europe and a respected force for good in the world.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I was going to offer the Foreign Secretary more than 30 seconds of consensus at the beginning of my speech. He can certainly have it on praise for the diplomatic service, although I suspect that it will think it a pity that it has taken him two and a half years to praise it. It would have appreciated his praise at the time of the Sierra Leone affair, when he was blaming his officials for the shortcomings of his own policy. His officials, many of whom I meet in my present role, do a wonderful job for Britain abroad.
  The right hon. Gentleman could have had a greater degree of consensus had he not spent the first 10 minutes of his speech praising himself for his few successes and the last 20 minutes of it criticising by caricature our policy
  370
  in various areas. I find it extraordinary that a British Foreign Secretary has not taken the opportunity to talk more widely about British foreign policy, given that we have not had a foreign affairs debate, apart from on Kosovo, for well over six months. Surely we are entitled to a more in-depth report on his custody of his office.
  There are a great many areas of agreement between us, which is as it should be on foreign policy. However, there are areas of fundamental disagreement, one of which is the European Union and another the European security and defence identity. I shall touch on both. Next week, we have a full day's debate on the European Union, so it is somewhat surprising that the right hon. Gentleman chose to use up so much of his time today discussing a subject that we shall debate at length next week. I am perfectly happy to speak about Europe, even though we shall debate it for a whole day next week. The Foreign Secretary chose to debate it today, but he has not mentioned China, the far east or Africa. There was a passing reference to the middle east, but he spent most of his speech criticising a misrepresentation of our policy.
  There are areas of agreement. I go back to the consensus with which I would have started, had the Foreign Secretary not made his particularly small-minded speech. We all share the optimism about the progress in the middle east, East Timor and Cyprus. There is greater reason for optimism about those areas than there has been for a long time. There are dangers still in North Korea, Libya and Iraq, and in relation to rogue states and rogue actors such as bin Laden, and we would agree on how we should attempt to contain those.
  There is the question of managing the difficult relationships that we have with Russia, an empire in decline—and China, an empire almost certainly in the ascendant. We welcome the end of the fighting in Kashmir, although, as the Foreign Secretary learned to his cost some time ago, the negotiation of peace is a matter for the countries involved, not for us.
  We support the Government's moves to have the military regime in Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth. However, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would agree that the previous democratically elected Governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were not exactly a byword for liberal democracy and were among the most corrupt Governments, both economically and politically, that we have witnessed. I hope that the Commonwealth will play a role in trying to help Pakistan back to a more genuine democracy than it enjoyed under those Governments. Wrong as the military regime may be, it is not a typical military takeover and we should try to encourage Pakistan back to democracy.
  The tragedy of Africa continues, with wars in the Congo and between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We regard those as tasks for the United Nations, and we join the Government in giving the UN Britain's wholehearted support.
  In Iraq, there is an urgent need to re-establish UNSCOM. Containing the threat to peace is probably the best that we can hope for in that region.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a significant step towards solving

  371
  Africa's problems would have been some mention in the Queen's Speech of legislation to control the activities of arms brokers?
  Mr. Maples: A mention might have been expected in the Foreign Secretary's speech today.
  We agree with the Government on the Balkans, and we are behind the policy. Despite the Foreign Secretary's small-minded remark about troops in Macedonia, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former shadow Foreign Secretary, and I supported the Government on that policy during the campaign. They were entitled to our support, and they received it. However, there are problems in the way policy and events are unfolding in the Balkans.
  In our debate in June, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were
  "determined to make every attempt to create a pluralist, multi-ethnic Kosovo",
  and would not allow
  "the ethnic cleansing of the Serb population in Kosovo, nor of any other ethnic minority."
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that about 170,000 of the 200,000 Kosovo Serbs have now left Kosovo.
  The Foreign Secretary went on to say that there could be no future stability
  "if we try to sweep every ethnic group into its own pure cantonment".—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 585–6.]
  However, that now appears to be happening in northern Kosovo, where there is effectively a Serb sub-region and some evidence that Milosevic is helping to organise it.
  In his speech, the Foreign Secretary promised that we would make sure that refugees had shelter for the winter, but that is not happening. I am not sure of the reason for that, and whether it is the fault of the UNHCR, which estimates that only 50,000 of the 120,000 damaged homes in Kosovo will be fit for habitation this winter. I know that there are serious troubles on the Macedonia border with the way in which customs posts are being used and lorries held up, but I hope that those matters can be resolved.
  KFOR has been an undoubted success in Kosovo, but I am not sure that UNMIK, the United Nations civilian mission, has. Recent reports show that there is serious disquiet about morale among mission members being at an all-time low and huge sums of money being wasted. They show that ethnic Albanians and Serbs, infuriated by the incompetence of the administration, have largely taken the governing of the province into their own hands.
  I hope that we are doing something to improve UNMIK's performance and to try to resolve the difficulties, because it seems that the situation is rapidly moving towards ethnic cantonment—exactly what the Foreign Secretary said must be avoided—and that the chance of reintegrating Kosovo into Serbia or Yugoslavia is almost impossible.
  As I said in our debate in June, a danger continues to hang over Montenegro, with 15,000 Yugoslav troops in Macedonia. General Wesley Clark is quoted in a recent edition of U.S. News and World Report as requesting and receiving Pentagon approval to draw up plans for possible
  372
  NATO military action in Montenegro. I have asked the Foreign Secretary about that before; the Government's policy on the matter is not clear. Are we committed to Montenegro's integrity? There is a danger of NATO being sucked into a conflict.
  The normalisation of Serbia is crucial to the stability and economy of the region. We agree with the Government that progress cannot be made until Milosevic goes. However, is some progress possible on the Danube, which is blocked? That blockage is seriously damaging the economies of other countries—more than that of Serbia, which uses it less than other countries. Serbia has a legal obligation to clear the Danube, but it insists that NATO should do that and pay for it. Has the Foreign Secretary any ideas about the way in which that problem might be resolved?
  There is some evidence that the Dayton agreement is failing in Bosnia. Refugee returns across internal borders have been almost non-existent. The UNHCR states that only 340,000 refugees have returned to Bosnia-Herzegovina since Dayton—93 per cent. to the federation and 0.7 per cent. to Republika Srpska. No non-Serbs are being allowed to return to Republika Srpska. The United Nations at least acquiesces in that, but if it is allowed to go on, Dayton will not work. There is a danger that Tudjman's successor will try to incorporate the Croat part of Bosnia-Herzegovina into Croatia. If that happens, Republika Srpska will also almost certainly try to break away. What are we doing to try to ensure that ethnic cantonments are not created, and to achieve our original objective? The United Nations and NATO need to get a grip on matters and stop the drift; otherwise, a solution will be imposed on the ground, and the ethnic cleansers will have won in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  We got involved in Kosovo without a United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised force. The Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary assured us that our intervention was legal. However, that has since become a matter of dispute. The British and the Foreign Office view of the legality of such intervention must be settled. The Prime Minister set out a moral right of intervention and something of a moral crusade in his Chicago speech and his article in Newsweek. The Foreign Secretary supported that in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He said that we must work out the rules, and Kofi Annan made similar comments. What are we doing to work out the rules? Indeed, what are the rules?
  A recent pamphlet published by Mark Littman QC claims that there is no legal justification for the intervention in Kosovo. He quotes from a 1984 Foreign Office document that considered the right of intervention. It states that
  "the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention".
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Things have moved on since 1984.
  Mr. Maples: Perhaps that is so, but I want the Foreign Secretary to explain, because the argument for the right of intervention in Kosovo stood on two planks: Serbia's breach of three United Nations Security Council resolutions, which somehow internationalised the conflict and legitimised NATO's actions; and the various treaties

  373
  on human rights. The mention of human rights in the United Nations charter somehow superseded the charter's other provision, which states that the only legitimate uses of force are self defence and pursuance of a UNSC resolution.
  There is an attempt in the United Nations to develop the right of intervention as a doctrine. That requires legal principles, and we want to know what they are. In the international community, there is a clear division of views: Britain, the United States and Germany want to be able to act without United Nations authorisation; France believes that United Nations authorisation is necessary; and other countries, led by Russia and China, claim that no such right exists. The Foreign Office must take a view. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said that events had moved on since 1984, which is true, but the Foreign Office has not presented another view on the international legality of intervention since then. I invite the Foreign Secretary to present such a view and to publish the basis on which we believe such intervention to be legal. Our attitude to events in Kosovo, East Timor and Chechnya has been radically different and, despite all the moral rhetoric about crusades, the Government are adopting a rather practical policy in those matters. We cannot intervene in lots of places—it is simply impractical or too dangerous—and I believe that foreign policy should be based on British interests, not moral crusades.
  Of course, British interests involve a strong preference for democracy and human rights, but we also have an interest in stability and a peaceful world, which relies on relationships with other powers. We need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the moral doctrine and the legality of intervention if it is to be a feature of NATO policy in future. I am not saying that it should not be a feature—I wholly approve of what NATO did in Kosovo—but we need to understand rather better the moral doctrine and, more particularly, what international legal view the Foreign Office takes.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman's proposition. In all the international disputes with which we have been involved over the past 20 years, there have always been rows in the House of Commons about the legal justification, both before and during those disputes. It would be helpful if we could have those matters updated, because many of us have a great interest in them.
  Mr. Maples: I welcome support from any quarter; perhaps the Foreign Secretary will listen to his hon. Friend if he will not listen to me. We need to be slightly clearer about the basis on which the House is invited to authorise military action and to be sure that it is legal. I understand that international law is an organic matter that moves on with circumstances and practice, but we need a slightly better basis than we have at the moment, particularly as the only outstanding document from a British Government—admittedly a previous Government—denies the legal right of such intervention.
  That leads me to the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy, which the Foreign Secretary launched in one of his first acts, as though ethics was something new
  374
  and people such as Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind had been unethical and had pursued unethical policies.
  Mr. MacShane: Lord Archer.
  Mr. Maples: I do not think that Lord Archer was ever Foreign Secretary, or likely to be.
  Ethics has always been part of foreign policy, both in its conduct and its objectives, but the Foreign Secretary made it the main objective. By doing so, he has opened himself to charges of hypocrisy and foolishness. His pretentiousness knew no bounds, and he even made a video about it to complement his speech. I refer him back to that speech, because it illustrates some of the points that I am making. He listed a series of human rights that he said were important—not all of them, because he said there were too many to do that—and then, rather pompously and with no apologies to Thomas Jefferson, he said:
  "We hold these rights to be self-evident",
  as though he had coined the phrase himself and it had not been said 225 years earlier by somebody else.
  The Foreign Secretary then listed certain commitments on behalf of the Government, and I should like to remind him of some of them. He said:
  "Britain will support measures within the international community to express our condemnation of those regimes who grotesquely violate human rights".
  Not, apparently, including China. He went on:
  "Britain will fully support sanctions applied by the international community."
  Not, apparently, including sanctions on Cuba. He added:
  "At multinational conferences, such as the annual meeting of the Commission on Human Rights, Britain will"—
  [Interruption.] I am coming to Cuba. I have something to say about the right hon. Gentleman's views about Cuba, because he has contradicted himself about it. [Interruption.] No, there are United States sanctions on Cuba. [HON MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Let us come to the next charge.
  The Foreign Secretary said that at meetings
  "of the Commission on Human Rights, Britain will support measures and resolutions which criticise abuses of human rights".
  Under his stewardship, Britain, for the first time, failed to sponsor the United Nations resolution on human rights criticising China. He went on:
  "Britain will support the proposal for a permanent International Criminal Court."
  However, as we have heard again today, not yet. [Interruption.] It is more than a year since we signed the treaty—a whole parliamentary Session has gone by and now, apparently, most of another is to go by. He said:
  "Britain will give stronger support to media under threat from authoritarian regimes."
  That, apparently, did not extend to him meeting Wei Jingsheng, China's most famous human rights activist, at that gentleman's first request.
  Mr. MacShane: The Foreign Secretary met him.
  Mr. Maples: The Foreign Secretary met him eventually, but he refused to meet Wei Jingsheng—who

  375
  described the right hon. Gentleman as two-faced on human rights—on his first visit to Britain. I accept that I may not be an authority on human rights, but Wei Jingsheng certainly is. He has spent half his life in jail in China and the Foreign Secretary refused to meet him the first time that he was asked to do so. Under considerable pressure from us, the media and other people, he eventually met him.
  This is what I wanted to say to the Foreign Secretary. Nowhere in politics is policy more driven by facts outside one's control than in foreign policy, and it is those facts that have exposed the hollowness of the Foreign Secretary's pretentious position on human rights. In Kosovo, in East Timor, in Chechnya, we have seen columns of refugees, we have seen provinces seeking autonomy or independence from effectively imperial masters, and we have seen brutal repression; but our responses to all those have been very different. In Kosovo, we rightly launched a moral crusade. In East Timor, we did a little. In Chechnya, until this week, we have done absolutely nothing. We waited for someone else to take the lead on East Timor, and until last week we had nothing to say about Chechnya.
  I told the Foreign Secretary that I would return to the subject of Cuba. In his party conference speech, he contradicted himself in the space of half a page. Cuba is, of course, one of the left-wing dictatorships for which the Foreign Secretary has a predilection. He said, "Britain has held talks"—[Interruption.] I bet the right hon. Gentleman had posters of Che Guevara on his walls when he was a student. [Interruption.] This Foreign Secretary, who spent much of his speech lecturing us on Britain's place in the world, is the Foreign Secretary who used to be a campaigning member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who begged Labour conferences to pass motions on nuclear disarmament, and who was a tacit friend of the Soviet Union during the cold war. No doubt he was what one of his childhood heroes would have described as a useful idiot.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: Not yet; not to the hon. Gentleman, anyway.
  In his party conference speech, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "I made it clear we want to see better human rights"—
  [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen. The speech contains a direct contradiction within the space of a few lines. The Foreign Secretary said:
  "I made it clear we want to see better human rights in Cuba. But we have a better chance of getting them, not by blockading Cuba but by making the world open to Cuba.
  Four paragraphs later, referring to Burma, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is because of their behaviour that this Government has stopped all support for trade with Burma and discouraged any tourism to Burma."
  376
  There is no consistency there. If we are in favour of trade sanctions to stop human rights abuses, surely that applies to both countries—but it seems that we have a soft spot for left-wing dictatorships.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: I will in a moment, but I want to make another point first. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer this point as well.
  We saw a similarly prejudiced reaction in the case of General Pinochet. Here we have a right-wing dictator, no doubt part of the demonology of the right hon. Gentleman's youth. The right hon. Gentleman showed how the Government were prepared to sacrifice the interests of a nascent Chilean democracy and the interests of the Falkland islanders to indulge again the stupid prejudices of his youth. There is no consistency in that policy, and the right hon. Gentleman should not have allowed himself to be exposed to this charge of hypocrisy.
  Mr. Cook: I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman's attack on me, but I feel that he should reflect on whether he should begin by complaining that others attack him in their speeches in the House.
  Let me return to the serious point that the hon. Gentleman made about Burma. He attacked me for what I said about that country. Let me get this clear: are the Opposition saying that our position on Burma is wrong? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Burmese Government are one of the rare Governments in the world who connive in the heroin trade? They have carried out massive ethnic cleansing of many Burmese tribes; they have been denounced by the International Labour Organisation for their practice of forced labour; they rule by power, and by power alone; they have 200 elected MPs in prison; and they refuse to deal with Aung San Suu Kyi. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the light of all that, he thinks that we should support trade with Burma—yes or no?
  Mr. Maples: I think that the Burmese regime is one of the nastiest in the world and that we should do all that we can to improve human rights in Burma. What I am saying to the Foreign Secretary is that he contradicts himself: he has a policy that puts human rights in Burma at the top of the agenda, but not those in Cuba.
  Let us deal with what the right hon. Gentleman did last week, at the Commonwealth summit. We are really tough on Pakistan, because it has a military dictatorship, but we are soft on Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malaysia, where political opponents are beaten up and imprisoned. In many such countries, Governments have even tried to kill them. We have the laughable situation of the President of Zimbabwe being on a high-level team to examine and settle the future of the Commonwealth. The President of Zimbabwe runs a Government who are probably the worst human-rights abuser in the Commonwealth, but the Foreign Secretary goes along with that. All I am saying is that foreign policy is and should be driven largely by the facts with which one is confronted. The Foreign Secretary has got into a mess, opening himself up to the charge of hypocrisy that I level at him, by the pretentiousness of elevating human rights as though it would be the sole objective of his policy.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman clear up one ambiguity that has arisen as

  377
  a result of what he has said? Does he support the Helms-Burton legislation, which is characterised by the fact that it seeks to take extraterritorial jurisdiction over countries that are far away from the United States simply because companies in those countries may seek to trade with Cuba?
  Mr. Maples: The Foreign Secretary can probably defend himself without the Liberal Democrat spokesman's intervention. I do not support the Helms-Burton Act. I have never supported the attempt to extraterritorialise United States trade policy, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is virtually a part-time member of the Government. We have now found out that, before the election, the Liberal Democrats were conspiring with the Labour party, unknown to the electorate—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' I have answered the question: I said no.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Tony Worthington rose—
  Mr. Maples: Let me finish; I can deal with only one intervention at a time.
  Mr. Anderson rose—
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Mr. Maples: No, I will not give way. I will turn to China.
  Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: I have said that I am not giving way for the moment.
  China must have one of the worst human rights records in the world. The Foreign Secretary made a bad start by, as I have said, refusing to meet Wei Jingsheng. As we all know, China' s record extends from the rape of Tibet to the kidnap of the Panchen Lama and the suppression of democracy activists who were trying to use their rights under a UN convention that China signed only last year. We laid on a state visit. Pinochet gets arrested, but the Chinese President gets dinner with the Queen.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Queen visited China in 1986.
  Mr. Maples: Then we saw the obscenity of the heavy-handed policing.
  Mr. Battle: She visited China in 1986.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Stratfordon Avon (Mr. Maples), but the Minister of State must contain himself.
  Mr. Maples: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary could put the Minister of State out of his misery and let him make a speech in the Chamber some time.
  378
  The heavy-handed policing of the demonstrations when the Chinese President was here was extremely unusual. We now discover that it was conspired in the Foreign Office. I met Wei Jingsheng during the events of that week. He had been outside Buckingham palace on the pavement, standing peacefully. He had pulled a banner out of his jacket, which said simply, "Free political prisoners." He was grabbed by three policemen, two of whom pinned his arms to his sides. The other tore the banner out of his hand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rotherham should be ashamed that that happened. It did happen and there is no justification for it.
  I saw Wei Jing Shen a couple of hours later. He said that Chinese secret policemen in the crowd were identifying people such as him to the British police. Labour Members choose not to believe Wei Jingsheng, who has better credentials than anyone in the Government on the matter.
  We then found out as a result of questions to the Foreign Office that it had no less than eight meetings with the police before the visit and that 35 Chinese secret policemen accompanied the President. The reason was given away by the Minister of State, who said in a written answer:
  "Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Metropolitan Police discussed the proposed programme for the State Visit and the concerns of the Chinese authorities about the possible impact of demonstrations on the visit."
  We are not talking about the safety of the Chinese President—of course he is entitled to that protection; we are talking about the impact of demonstrations. The Foreign Office sought to suppress those.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: Not for the moment.
  The Foreign Secretary and his officials conspired with the Chinese to prevent lawful demonstrations by human rights activists. I do not suppose that he will make a video about that. The self-styled champion of global human rights has been exposed as a fraud, a mouse that cannot even squeak, let alone roar, when the Chinese are the audience.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Queen visited China in 1986 under the previous Government and that the recent visit of the Chinese President was a return visit? Will he also confirm that there are usually meetings between officials when there is any state visit? I spelled out in repeated replies in the House that there was no collusion between our Department and the police. There were no meetings between Ministers and the police. The Chinese were informed that there would be demonstrations in this country and that they would, as usual, be freely respected. Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that no one was arrested, no one was charged or countercharged, and no one has reported having been arrested or charged as a result of the visit? What is the difference between that and the way in which the Department dealt with state visits when he was a Minister, except for the fact that he took no action?
  Mr. Maples: My God, have we touched a raw nerve? The hon. Gentleman gave the game away in answers to his hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). He said:
  "Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Metropolitan Police discussed the proposed programme for the State Visit and the concerns of the Chinese authorities about the possible impact of demonstrations on the visit."—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 993W.]
  It appears from the prompting that the Minister was getting that he did not know that the Queen had visited China until his hon. Friends behind him tipped him off, but two things have happened since then. The first was Tiananmen square, and the second is the Foreign Secretary's human rights policy. I have no objections to the Chinese President paying a state visit, but the Foreign Secretary should have if he believes in his human rights policy. However, we have found that his policy allows him to bully and lecture the weak while kowtowing obsequiously to the strong.
  Before concluding, I want to move on to the two foreign policy issues on which we disagree fundamentally with the Government. They are profoundly wrong on the European security and defence identity. The policy will weaken our security and that of Europe; it will undermine the transatlantic alliance; and it breaches Madeleine Albright's three conditions of no duplication, no discrimination and no decoupling. There was a press briefing in the Foreign Office on the subject today. We are used to the press being briefed a few hours before the House of Commons is told, but no press release was issued. Apparently a paper is to be issued on Wednesday. I suppose that that is so that this debate is well out of the way.
  The Government's position changed at St. Malo. At the Amsterdam summit, the Prime Minister refused to go along with the proposals on the European defence and security initiative. He said that it was an ill-judged transplant. He changed his mind last November because we were not going to be in the first wave of the euro and he desperately needed something to resurrect his European credibility and the good reception that he gets from other EU leaders. No other explanation has been given for that Uturn. The Berlin accords in 1996 clearly envisaged the development of a European pillar inside NATO, but the St. Malo agreement talks about it being inside or outside the NATO alliance.
  The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly told me that the Americans are happy about the developments and that they were endorsed at the Washington summit, but that is not true. The strategic concept said that
  "the European Security and Defence Identity will continue to be developed within NATO."
  That is not happening. Any ambiguity has been removed by the Cologne summit and the various bilateral summits this year. We are clearly talking about the European Union absorbing the Western European Union without dealing with the problem of discrimination against countries that are in NATO but not in the European Union, such as Norway and Turkey, or new members of NATO, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, which are very unhappy about the development.
  The Cologne summit called for European Union military spending on intelligence, transport and command and control. That is expensive duplication. Those assets
  380
  already exist in NATO. At a time of falling defence budgets in every European Union country, it is stupid to duplicate expenditure on assets that already exist.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the hon. Gentleman say Czechoslovakia?
  Mr. Maples: I think that I said the Czech Republic, but if I said Czechoslovakia I mis-spoke myself.
  Sir Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend leaves this subject, will he comment on the great danger that if the Western European Union is taken over by the European Union, four EU nations which are neutralist and not members of NATO will be making military decisions and will have some say about military decisions taken by the WEU and, therefore, by NATO?
  Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I am concerned about the premature folding of the WEU into the European Union. The WEU provides an extremely useful meeting point for countries that are in one of the bodies but not the other, but it is now to go. Those countries which are useful and valuable allies in NATO but which are not in the EU will not have a say, but countries which are neutral and, frankly, not useful as military allies will have a say.
  I said that we had breached the conditions of discrimination and duplication, but we have also breached the decoupling condition. At the Franco-Italian summit in Nimes in September, there was a call for the European Union to have permanent political and military bodies responsible for security and defence questions—that is, military committees. If that is not decoupling Europe from NATO, I do not know what is.
  The Foreign Secretary told us that there will be no European army, but all last week we were hearing about a 30,000 to 40,000-strong Euro corps. If he thinks that the United States was not concerned about this at the time of the Washington summit, he should read the recent speech given by Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State, in London last month. He said:
  "We would not want to see an ESDI that comes into being first within NATO but then grows out of NATO and finally grows away from NATO, since that would lead to an ESDI that initially duplicates NATO but that could eventually compete with NATO."
  Two other things had bothered him. The Anglo-French summit at St. Malo raised concerns among non-EU allies—to which I have just referred—and the EU leaders' declaration at Cologne in June,
  "which could be read to imply that Europe's default position would be to act outside the Alliance whenever possible, rather than through the Alliance."
  That seriously concerns us, and it is now developing.
  It is clear from the speeches of many European Commissioners and Mr. Solana that the United States is right to be concerned, as they want a European Union foreign policy that is backed by a European Union military force outside NATO.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Did the hon. Gentleman also read that part of Strobe Talbott's speech in which he said that he supported the ESDI, as did the United States?
  Mr. Maples: Yes, but that is polite cover. [Laughter.] I happen to have discussed this matter with Strobe

  381
  Talbott, and his views are perfectly clear to me. The communiqué in Washington said that the initiative would be developed within NATO. He is happy about that, as am I. If we develop the ESDI within NATO—a European pillar, as envisaged at Berlin—my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be totally happy. We started that process.
  We do not like the initiative being taken out of NATO and given to the EU, which is not the right organisation for it. The Government have surrendered to France what the French have long wanted—an alternative to NATO.
  Mr. Michael Howard: On the disingenuous intervention from the Secretary of State for Defence, is it not the case that Strobe Talbott said that the US support for the ESDI
  "will be guided by the answers to two questions"?
  He went on to detail those questions, one of which related to the precise quotation from his speech that my hon. Friend gave the House a couple of minutes ago.
  Mr. Maples: Disingenuous interventions by the Secretary of State may fool a few Labour Back Benchers, but he should not let himself be blinded to what is happening in foreign policy. It is being changed—there is no point in pretending that this initiative is not developing outside NATO. It is, and that is the French agenda.
  On 8 November—the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall—President Chirac made an incredibly anti-American speech in Paris. He called for
  "the European Union to work for a multipolar world that contained US military…power."
  This agenda has been pursued by the French for some time, and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have fallen for it. It is a dangerous policy, and it is not in the UK's interests. It will weaken NATO and substitute something with less political credibility and less military clout.
  Everybody in Europe is cutting defence budgets, and we will need to duplicate certain things to make the ESDI work. It is possible to make it work if we are all prepared to spend a lot more money, but we are not. The idea that we can strike out on our own is a dangerous fantasy. It is the Foreign Secretary's job to stop the Prime Minister playing games with our long-term security for his own personal vanity.
  The Foreign Secretary spent an awful lot of his speech dealing with our policy on the European Union, so let me say what it is after I have dealt with what he has succeeded in getting in the EU. His handling of European affairs has been characterised by surrender. He has raised pre-emptive concession to an art form. The Government signed up to the social chapter without getting anything in return. At Amsterdam, they gave up our veto in 16 areas and asked for nothing in return.
  The European security and defence identity is a 180-deg reversal of policy. The Government conceded ground on the corpus juris at Tampere. They are trying to introduce the single currency by stealth, and I believe that they are planning to give up our veto in more areas at next year's intergovernmental conference.
  What is the purpose of all that? The Prime Minister says that it is to generate good will. He says, "We will have much better relations than those awful Conservatives
  382
  had with the Germans and the French and we will be able to get things in exchange." Until a month ago, when asked what we got in exchange, he said that we got the beef ban lifted. That was the only prize that he could identify from the ream of surrenders and pre-emptive concessions. Apparently, our relations with France were not even good enough for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to telephone his French counterpart for a week. I do not know whether they had lost one another' s phone number or could not find an interpreter.
  This is pathetic. We have surrendered long-term, hard-won interests for good will, and all we have gained is the supposed lifting of the beef ban, which has not even happened. That really illustrates the bankruptcy of the Government's policy.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of the Foreign Secretary's low music-hall bluster, does my hon. Friend recall that, at column 86 on 2 November, the Foreign Secretary, having been invited by my hon. Friend to commit himself to veto an enlargement treaty that eroded our national vetoes, three times declined to do so?
  Mr. Maples: Indeed, he refused to rule that out, which makes me very suspicious that the Government are preparing to surrender our veto in more areas, which is of course the agenda of the President of the European Commission.
  We are allowing the European Union to continue down the wrong road. A lot of the regulation being imposed on business imposes unnecessary costs that do not fall on businesses in America or Asia and attracts more power to the centre. If we do not stop it at some point, that will eventually lead to a European super-state. The Government say that they do not want that, but others want it. It is what the Simon-Dehaene report, commissioned by President Prodi, says. He has said that he wants that in many pronouncements, including his speech last week to the European Parliament.
  The danger is that we will get that over-regulated super-state unless the Foreign Secretary is prepared to stand up for Britain's interests. One of Europe's main tasks should be to concentrate on ensuring that European business is competitive, that we can continue with our agenda of free trade and that we complete a north Atlantic marketplace and the single market in the areas in which we want it to be completed; but the European Union and the Commission are obsessed with integration and harmonisation, leading to expensive regulation that makes European businesses uncompetitive and will eventually lead to job losses and, I believe, calls for protection for some member states.
  We must reverse that before it is too late. We have an opportunity, because enlargement, as the Foreign Secretary said, requires institutional reform. A European Community of 25 to 30 members will need some reform. There are two models for that reform. One is the Prodi model of removing the national veto, and introducing much more qualified majority voting and a requirement for much bigger blocking minorities. The alternative model would not require every country to go along with every piece of legislation. Of course we must be bound by the core legislation on the free market and free trade and competition, but we do not all need the same trade union recognition rights or the same paternity leave arrangements.

  383
  The flexibility model offers an alternative vision of Europe. There is a clear distinction between our policy and the Government's. Our vision is of an open, flexible, outward-looking, free-trading, free-market, low-cost Europe. The Prodi vision, in which the Government are acquiescing, will lead to an inward-looking, protectionist, over-regulated super-state.
  I said at the beginning that there were large areas of agreement between us on foreign policy and if the Government are in a morass on their pretentiousness over human rights, that is their own fault. They are pursuing a dangerous and anti-British policy on the European security and defence identity and they are supinely acquiescent in allowing the federalist regulators to take over the European Union. It will take a Conservative Government to put that right, and put it right we will.
  When we are in government, we will not lecture the world on morality. We will not sacrifice fundamental, hard-won British interests for short-term popularity abroad, and we will not allow Britain to lose her independence in a European super-state. We will be, as we always have been, the guardians of Britain's true interests. We will strengthen the European Atlantic alliance and we will ensure that Britain is in Europe, but not run by Europe.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to remind the House that the 10-minute rule now applies to Back Benchers' speeches.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: That was a sad speech by the hon. Member for StratfordonAvon (Mr. Maples), who was a moderate European in the past and now feels under pressure to bow to the prevailing wind in his party. The vision of Europe that he set out is shared by no other Christian Democrat party on the continent, although it is perhaps shared by Mr. Haider in Austria, and it goes against all the traditions and interests of this country. The hon. Gentleman used words such as surrender—at least six times—against our partners in Europe, as if they were our enemies. His policy is self-defeating, against our national interest and shared by no one. The fact that the hon. Gentleman imagines that we can have a pick-and-mix Europe, at a time when Europe is being transformed and the world is changing, shows that he is someone who stands on the sandbank of time and spits against the wind.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Anderson: No, I have only 10 minutes.
  On the subject of the law of humanitarian intervention, it is a pipe-dream to imagine that we can have consensus on that. I invite the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to consider the debate in the United Nations General Assembly. He can ally himself with the speech made by Mr. Ivanov on national sovereignty or he can adopt the policy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which is the only honourable and moral one. In the case
  384
  of Kosovo, it would have been immoral for us to stand on the sidelines and do nothing when we had the capacity to intervene for good.
  I wish to offer some general reflections about where we are now. I make no excuse for that: this is probably the last foreign affairs debate before Christmas and therefore the last of the millennium, so we may take some time for reflection. Ten years ago there was some euphoria in foreign policy circles. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, and all was to be new. Some scholars were talking about the end of history. The mood has now changed and, in my judgment, changed too far. Anyone with a sense of history knows that that euphoria could not last. We need a balance: we have much about which to rejoice but we also face great challenges.
  I was concerned that much of the foreign policy content of the Gracious Speech appeared to be an afterthought. The speech contained a welcome reference to the International Criminal Court, although I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would give a clear commitment today not only that we would be among the first 60 to ratify but that the Bill would become an Act during this Session. I was also surprised that the Gracious Speech contained no mention of Kosovo or the Commonwealth, and that whole swathes of foreign policy were not addressed.
  What is clear is that whereas for 40 years following the five-year or so period of intense institutional adjustment after the second world war, we had the stability of the cold war, the past 10 years have seen great movement: it is as if a boulder had fallen into a pond whose ripples have affected our defence policy and our relations with the European Union and the third world.
  I believe that the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of communism—the revolutions of 1989—will be far more significant historically than the failed revolutions of 1848. The effects of the end of communism will be felt for the next 10, 20 and even 50 years. The immediate effect was the end of the USSR, leaving the US as the only super-power. As there is now no perceived threat, many in the US ponder their role in burden sharing in Europe, and that has led to the necessary debate in Europe on the European security and defence identity and where we stand after Kosovo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave some figures showing how much we spend on defence and what we get for that, as compared with our US partners.
  Ten years after the fall of the Berlin wall on 8 and 9 November 1989, NATO has responded with many important institutional initiatives, from the North Atlantic Co-operation Council of 1991 to "Partnership for Peace" and the special agreements with Russia and the Ukraine culminating in the Washington summit this year at which three former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO. That was an earth-shaking event. The security map of Europe has been redrawn and will be again, as membership action plans are implemented for those other countries that also seek membership of NATO.
  Ten years ago, the alignment of countries that we see in KFOR, the Kosovo force, would have been unthinkable. There is a new momentum in transatlantic arrangements and a proper debate about the role of Europe. For example, the incorporation of the Western European Union into the institutions of the European

  385
  Union will be done only when the interests of those members of the WEU not in NATO, such as Norway, Turkey and Iceland, have been addressed. I support the lead taken by the Government at St. Malo and beyond. It has not yet been reflected in the European defence industry, but that will follow.
  The fall of the Berlin wall also had profound effects on the European Union. We understand the desires of the former Warsaw pact countries to seek full integration into the European Union, and I should have thought that the best option for those who do not wish to see further integration within Europe would be to support enlargement. However, the Conservatives' motives were questioned by our European partners because they were not part of the club, or were not thought to want to be part of the club, and their views were disregarded.
  The Commission's report on 13 October made it clear that six countries are already negotiating entry to the European Union, and six more are to be invited. An intergovernmental conference will be necessary in advance of that, but it will transform the whole political landscape of Europe.
  Whereas European history has hitherto seesawed between the dominance of Germany and that of Russia, Germany is now a full and leading member of the European Union and Russia is seeking to determine its own relations, in a rather turbulent manner, within the new Europe.
  We do not know where enlargement will end. Reports of this weekend's Financial Times conference dealt with the fact that we shall have to accept that, if there is to be a core Europe—an entity called Europe—there will have to be a non-Europe. We must ourselves begin to work out the limits of enlargement, and a dynamic debate on that matter is under way.
  On the night when the Berlin wall was demolished, I was travelling back from Namibia, having witnessed its first democratic elections. I had arranged for a full range of press conferences on the success story of democracy in Africa to take place on my return, but no one was interested in the story. Alas, the incident symbolised Africa's place in today's world. In one sense, the fall of the Berlin wall sidelined the third world; but it also precipitated the end of apartheid—first, with democratic elections in Namibia in 1989 and, secondly, with South Africa's 1994 elections. The end of communism also marked the end of client-state status held by countries such as the Congo and Somalia, where we were constrained in attacking human rights violations. We are now able to take a far more objective view of the situation in those countries.
  I rejoice, for example, at the way in which East Timor—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Tom King: In my 10 minutes, I shall certainly not—as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said—have time for reflection on the great events. Although I should have liked to say something about Northern Ireland, anti-terrorism legislation, legislation on communications interception, the appalling problems facing British agriculture, and
  386
  the overwhelming planning and land-use issues which affect so many parts of the United Kingdom and which will be of considerable interest this Session, I shall focus on two issues that might be summarised as great national assets at serious risk.
  The first issue transcends all the issues raised in the debate on the Loyal Address. I am not seeking to make a party political point, but believe that the quality of government and administration in the United Kingdom is at serious risk. We used to pride ourselves on the quality of our administration and government, which were described as the envy of the world, but in recent years, and over many years, the quantity and complexity of legislation has exceeded the system's capacity to administer it. As an example, I need only refer to the problems of the Child Support Agency—in relation to which various proposals were mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
  Some hon. Members will be aware of the problems with the administration of IACS, the integrated administration and control system, and of the difficulty in getting answers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—from a system and administration for which the rules and regulations are regularly changing, and from staff who are overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the problems with which they must deal. The House should spend more time addressing those issues.
  Last week, a farmer brought to my constituency surgery the names of those whom he had contacted in Workington in an attempt to get an answer to his problem with the British cattle movement service. The list included Miss Justin, Phil Christopher, Sue Owen, Pat, Jackie, John Briggs, Mr. Cater, Darren and Viv Gill—hall of them dedicated, decent and hard-working people, trying to cope. When I wrote to the Minister about my constituent's problem, he replied that, although he appreciated my constituent's frustration,
  "especially at having to speak to different people when he telephones …the BCMS has dealt with nearly 300,000 calls in the past year and an open helpline is the only way to cope with this volume of calls."
  My constituent did not receive solutions to any of his problems.
  Constituents have also alleged that, in reply to their queries, people at overstretched offices have said, "I'm sorry, but we've never received your letter". Subsequently, when my constituents have said, "But I sent it by registered post, and I have a signature for it," the letter has been found.
  The House shares responsibility for good administration and government, and cannot pass by the Queen's Speech without recognising that fact. The Queen's Speech states:
  "As part of my Government's drive to address inappropriate and over-complex regulation, legislation will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens."
  The House should have a sweepstake on the number of regulations that will be introduced as a consequence of the proposals in the Queen's Speech. The Government have proudly said that the speech describes 28 Bills—on e-commerce, utilities regulation, financial services regulation, CSA reform, welfare reform, interception of communications, a right to roam, national aviation, trustee reform, party funding, local government, freedom of

  387
  information and armed forces discipline. I may be wrong, as I have not seen the legislation, but I suspect that every one of those Bills will entail new regulation and a new administrative burden.
  I say with all humility that I have had some involvement in various Departments of State, and that I am seriously worried that the civil service's capacity is not what it used to be. Parliament will have to give more serious consideration to that issue. There is no point in passing legislation if it cannot be effectively implemented and administered, and we would be doing a disservice to our constituents if we tried to pretend otherwise.
  We once subscribed to the slogan, "to govern is to serve." It is the duty of a Government to govern wisely. Although I do not have time to deal with the ways in which the problem should be dealt with, the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem. In a non-partisan spirit, I say that we have a serious problem, which is underlined in the Queen's Speech.
  The second of the great national assets at risk—which I have already identified to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is in the Chamber, and whom I welcome to his first Queen's Speech in his new office—is our armed forces. Although our armed forces are respected and valued, they are seriously at risk, and although the Foreign Secretary has gloried in the achievements of our forces in Kosovo, there is no question but that our forces are seriously overstretched.
  The strategic defence review asked our forces to do more with less. They have subsequently been asked to do much more with even less. Our forces are admired because they are so well trained and motivated. However, time is an essential component of training. If our forces are constantly deployed on operational duty, they will have time neither to withdraw for operational training nor for the rest and recuperation that everyone rightly expects. If our forces are continually deployed, they will also not have time to be with their families. Their families resent that, and put pressure on them to leave the forces.
  Every time I hear of a new assignment being undertaken or honoured by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, saying—admirably—that Britain will play its part, I worry that we may not be remembering who will have to discharge that duty. I was delighted that the Secretary of State's first comments on taking up his new and important office expressed his worries about overstretch.
  Exactly what I feared would happen is happening. According to anecdotal evidence, key trained people—Army majors, captains, sergeant-majors and sergeants; people with some years in service, who had planned on making the armed services their career; the very core around which young recruits are built into efficient units—are the ones who are leaving. We run the risk of doing permanent damage to our services. It is no good the House simply paying tribute to our forces: it is vital that we maintain conditions in which our forces are happy to continue serving, and in which their families are willing to allow them to do so.
  May I add one final comment arising from the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)? The Secretary of State's smart remarks may sound good, make the headlines and cheer
  388
  up the troops behind him. But I beg him not to be under the illusion that the Americans will look with ease or relaxation on a separate European identity and on the United Kingdom moving away from NATO. Many people in the United States would like it to pull out of NATO; they believe that it makes too big a contribution and that the Europeans are not playing their part. If the Europeans give those people any encouragement, NATO—an organisation whose value the whole House recognize—will be put at risk. I beg the Secretary of State to remember that the core importance of NATO to all our undertakings cannot be overestimated.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's comments on the Gracious Speech. He spoke about our role as a member of the international community. As chairman of the board of governors of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I thank the whole House for the support that we have received. The organisation, which began its life under a previous Government, has played an expert role in projecting Britain's foreign policy on a level that demonstrates to the outside world how at our best we can work together to support foreign policy and help restore democracy and civil government in parts of the world where there is conflict.
  This year, we received a major increase in funding of 33 per cent., for which I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We have used that most beneficially in support of Britain's role as a member of the international community. I pay tribute to the way in which the political parties have worked together, particularly on the extra-budgetary technical projects in which the foundation has been engaged over the past few years. That has demonstrated to parts of the world where there is conflict and internal strife that working together can build a better society.
  In Bosnia, all three British political parties are working to strengthen the parties that follow the multi-ethnic and democratic agenda. In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, we have taken concrete steps to strengthen the fabric of civil society and help independent media survive in difficult circumstances. We will be helping democratic political parties and civic groups to build effective structures. As soon as the refugees started returning to Kosovo, we were in there with a scoping mission. We seek to overcome the divisions created by the extreme national and ethnic polarisation in that society as a result of the conflict, and I think that we are having some success.
  The foundation's strong cross-party nature enables it to gain access to a wider audience, and to reinforce the messages of openness and tolerance, both through our methods of operation and through the content of the programme that we seek to deliver; it has begun to produce results at grass-roots level in Bosnia, Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia.
  In central Asia, an area characterised by authoritarian government, great social hardship and concomitant low levels of political activity and awareness, we have targeted grass-roots women's organisations to help them provide education in electoral and general civil rights. A group of women in Tajikistan who are actively involved in the voter education programme in the run-up to the

  389
  elections which they hope will take place before March 2000 have been in the United Kingdom learning from our experience.
  We have been involved in Nigeria, a very important country for the whole of Africa. Despite all the difficulties, we continue to support a range of organisations in Nigeria, from women's rights groups to civil education and human rights campaigners. In Kenya and Zimbabwe, we have assisted with major constitutional reform processes and helped the Zimbabwe constitutional commission with academic advice as it seeks to rewrite its constitution. In Rwanda, while the rest of the world may have been looking elsewhere, we have been funding the work of lawyers and paralegals, helping ordinary citizens who suffered human rights abuses in 1994 and are seeking redress.
  Perhaps the area that demonstrates best how both arms of our policy work together is Nepal. Geeta comes from Chitika, a village in the Katmandu valley. She is in her fifties and, like 80 per cent. of Nepalese women, has never had any schooling. However, she attended adult literacy classes and learned to read. She has also received training, through a WFD-funded project, to help her become a grass-roots representative of her people in the democratisation process. The village supplies most of the Gurkhas who are serving with such distinction in Kosovo and East Timor, working to support democratisation and peaceful self-determination. In that way, all our policies come together: we are helping the village people of Chitika and they are helping us to deliver some of our other policies.
  I should like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in scoping missions and supported the WFD, which demonstrates the best of this House in action.
  I should briefly like to mention two other subjects—first, the middle east peace process. I think everyone in the House was overjoyed at the election of a new Labour Government in Israel. We are all pleased at the move towards final status talks, but there has been some confusion over some of the comments of the new Israeli Prime Minister and his negotiators. We must remind him that if there is to be peace, it must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The resolutions cannot simply be pushed aside while the two sides move to the final framework agreement. Whether or not the word "the" is in resolution 242, resolution 194 recognises the rights of the Palestinian refugees. Without the resolution of that conflict, there can be no peace in the area.
  It is not for us to tell the two sides how to negotiate. However, neither Yasser Arafat nor Ehud Barak can take away the right of those refugees under international law. They have the right of return or the right of compensation, or both, depending on how this matter is resolved. There have been other dialogues, and whether they have been in Oslo or Sharm El-Sheikh, it does not remove our responsibility to those refugees under international law.
  In the early 1980s, when the prospect of the Palestinians and Israelis sitting down together was very remote, I remember sitting in a café in Covent Garden, listening to a ginger-haired, blue-eyed young person from north London telling his friends how great it had been working in Israel over the summer, and how he intended to go back and settle down. Among our company was a Palestinian
  student, who is now the Palestinian
  390
  representative to Ireland. He was listening to someone who was born in north London and has the right to settle in Israel, yet he could not go back and visit his mother.
  If we are to resolve this problem once and for all, the Palestinian refugees must have their rights addressed; without that, there can be no peace there.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) commented on the need to consider international law in certain areas. I do not support all that he said, but a dialogue must continue on how we define humanitarian law and the role of the United Nations Security Council. There are great divergences of opinion over the role of humanitarian law and its applications and over the rules that should cover our actions. I hope that many hon. Members will have seen two television programmes over the weekend—the drama "Warriors" on BBC 1 and the subsequent debate, on "Heart of the Matter". Those programmes posed problems that the House should resolve. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, we could once pretend that we did not know, but we can no longer hide behind that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate embraces both foreign affairs and defence. Unusually, we have not had a defence White Paper this year, or the normal two-day debate on defence matters. I do not criticise the Government for that. It was right that the incoming Secretary of State should take the opportunity to revise the White Paper left by his predecessor. I have no doubt that we shall hold the debate—almost traditional in the House of Commons calendar—in due course. As a result of its absence, however, we have had no obvious pointers to the Government's defence proposals, except for those on the European security and defence identity.
  I share many of the apprehensions expressed by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). There is no doubt about the overstretch facing all three armed services, but particularly the Army. There is an urgent need to resolve procurement problems thrown up by the strategic defence review. For example, there is the problem of heavy lift and the abortive competition to obtain the short-term capability of C 17s or their equivalents. There is a need for confident confirmation by the Government of their intention to obtain the carrier replacements that are central to the expeditionary strategy enshrined in the conclusions of the strategic defence review.
  I do not go too far by saying that resource problems in the armed services need urgent attention. In particular, the 3 per cent. so-called efficiency saving has been described to the Select Committee on Defence by Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff, as "challenging". Anyone who knows Whitehall-speak will realise that Sir Charles means something rather more than that. There is plenty of evidence from senior budget holders of the consequences to which they have been subjected by their endeavours to achieve the 3 per cent. efficiency saving.
  When the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, can give an on-the-record interview to a national newspaper that points up the problem of overstretch, and when the Secretary of State, in almost his first major television interview, can acknowledge that same problem,

  391
  we are living in strange days for defence. Perhaps freedom of information is beginning to have an effect, even if the legislation is not yet on the statute book. Those statements emphasised the extent of the pressure that our armed forces, particularly the Army, are experiencing.
  We cannot have an expeditionary strategy unless we are willing to pay for it. We must have the capacity both to get to places quickly with sufficient numbers and to stay as long as necessary. Before any tax cut could recommend itself to me, I should think it much better to consider putting more resources into the defence budget of the United Kingdom.
  I referred earlier to the exception of the European security and defence identity. The Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for much more integration in defence in Europe. We have sought to rely on the principles of interoperability, common procurement and force specialisation. Two recent experiences serve to underline the importance of those ideas. First, there was the paralysis experienced over Bosnia. The international community and NATO were unable to move until the United States of America agreed to do so. Secondly, and equally embarrassingly, in Kosovo the European contribution was a fraction of what it should have been.
  Mr. Grieve: As a result of the discussions at Rambouillet, there was a great deal of Anglo-French momentum to try to initiate operations in Kosovo, but it proved impossible to do so. Was not the reason the fact that, until the United States could be got on board, such operations were simply a non-starter? How would that problem be resolved when there is a growing split between the idea of getting the United States involved and the developments advanced as desirable by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. Campbell: I have a copy of Strobe Talbott's speech, some passages of which, if fairly read, suggest that there is more support for the European security and defence identity on the other side of the Atlantic than some hon. Members might be willing to acknowledge.
  Let me return to the financial and statistical information that I was about to outline. Europe spends £100 billion a year on defence—approximately two thirds of American spending, but for a fraction of the capability. The USA contributed 75 per cent. of aircraft in Kosovo and 80 per cent. of munitions. As the previous Secretary of State for Defence has pointed out several times, European forces struggled to put on the ground a force equivalent to 2 per cent. of all the men and women under arms in Europe.
  The alliance will not hold if that imbalance between the USA and Europe continues. Which of us would confidently assert that the Americans would necessarily come to Europe's aid in similar circumstances in the future? I am not talking about collective defence, because I do not doubt that the Americans would come to Europe for that. However, there will be increasing reluctance in the USA, even to the point of refusal, to take part in operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo.

  Europe must spend more wisely, but Europe may have to spend more. That is why the defence capability initiative that arose from the Washington summit is so important. Europe may need more than that—a
  392
  European-wide defence review. The key to the European security and defence identity is capability. Architecture and command-and-control issues will be much more easily resolved when our capability is adequate.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) rightly referred to the three Ds—no duplication, no discrimination and no de-coupling. If what is produced at the end of what Strobe Talbott calls an iterative process does not conform to those principles, there should be no deal. Those principles were slightly differently described by the Secretary General of NATO when he addressed the North Atlantic Assembly in Amsterdam a fortnight ago. He talked of adding to Albright's three Ds Robertson's three Is: improvement in capability; inclusiveness, involving total transparency between NATO, the Europeans and the north Americans; and indivisibility, meaning collective defence uninfringed and undiminished by what is proposed.
  When American politicians express reservations we should take account of their views. But there is a paradox: the United States calls on the Europeans to take greater steps in their own interests, but then claims that Europe is turning its back on its transatlantic partners. Some of those who expressed the strongest reservations were against intervention in Kosovo; they were against the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty; they are in favour of the revisal of the anti-ballistic missile treaty; they are in favour of the Helms Burton resolution and the extra-territorial jurisdiction that it seeks to achieve. Until recently, many of those who are so vociferous about the ESDI were against the United States of America paying its dues to the United Nations. The transatlantic relationship is absolutely vital, but it must be a mature relationship in which the United Kingdom and Europe are partners of the United States, not satellites.
  Furthermore, it is true that, so great are the resources and capabilities of the United States, nothing that Europe could do would ever detract from the overwhelming military capability of the United States and the political leadership that it gives to NATO in collective defence.
  There have been references to Strobe Talbott's speech. I doubt if he expected it to be pored over like a conveyancing document, or a memorandum or prospectus from something like the south sea bubble. In relation to Kosovo, he stated:
  "Many Americans are saying: never again should the United States have to fly the lion's share of the risky missions in a NATO operation and foot by far the biggest bill. Many in my country, notably including members of Congress—are concerned that, in some future European crisis, a similar predominance of American manpower, firepower, equipment and resources will be neither politically or militarily sustainable, given the competing commitments our nation has in the Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere."
  He continued:
  "It did not take Kosovo for both Americans and Europeans to recognise that there is an asymmetry in the transatlantic relationship; that is unwelcome and unhealthy; and that we must find ways to rebalance our respective roles."
  On the ESDI, he stated:
  "I'll start by reiterating what I hope is a clear, unambiguous statement of American policy. It's a policy of support: the US is for ESDI. It's in our interest for Europe to be able to deal effectively with challenges to European security well before they reach the threshold of triggering U.S. combat involvement."
  That is quite right. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former shadow Foreign Secretary, pointed out, there are

  393
  questions to be answered. That is perfectly right. However, if one reads the speech as a whole, Strobe Talbott's position on behalf of the American Administration is, "Yes, we are in favour, subject to these questions". His speech does not state that they are against the matter because of those qualifications.
  Mr. Robert Key: Nor are we.
  Mr. Campbell: It was notable that in commenting on the rebalancing of the relationship, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) did not have much to offer by way of constructive proposals. If he has such proposals, the House will be happy to hear them on some other occasion.
  We have heard some exchanges about the single European currency. I realise that there will be a full-scale debate on Europe in a week's time and I do not want to dwell on European issues, apart from the fact that—rather like the Foreign Secretary—I find it difficult to understand that there is a principle of such importance that it is time-limited until the expiry of the next Parliament. If it is a matter of principle that one is against the currency, one will be against it for ever, no matter how many economic advantages might flow to the United Kingdom. One would be against it as a matter of principle. One cannot hold such a principle and say that it will lapse at the end of the next Parliament. I think it was the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who, in analysing that policy, said that it was a bit like saying that one was against rape, but only until the end of the next Parliament. No doubt, he chose his example for some of the connotations that it might carry.
  I am not a part-time member of the Government. The Government have been timid—continuously so— the single currency. For our part, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out in his response to the Queen's Speech, we believe that it would be right for the Government to declare in principle an intention to join, to work towards the convergence criteria that are necessary and then to hold a referendum, so that the people of the United Kingdom can pass judgment on what is not just an economic matter, but a political and constitutional one.
  It would once have been unthinkable to ask whether a Conservative Government would withdraw from Europe. However, it is now no longer impossible to see circumstances in which they might do so. That would be profoundly against the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. If the Conservatives do get into power and they want to withdraw from Europe, will they pledge to hold a referendum so that the people of the United Kingdom can have the opportunity to pass judgment before that withdrawal takes place? To those who say that the North American Free Trade Agreement offers a sensible or viable alternative, what procedures within the agreement would compel the United States or Canada to accept British beef? I doubt if there is a commission, and I doubt very much if there is a court.
  In relation to Kosovo, there are not only issues as to the requirement for better integrated defence, but questions as to the right of intervention. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon gave the impression—no doubt it was a slip—that the House somehow authorises intervention,
  394
  but, of course, we do not. Intervention is an Executive prerogative. I agree substantially with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn): when we send young men and, increasingly, young women from this country into circumstances in which they risk their lives, the House of Commons ought to have the right to pass judgment on that decision.
  Does a right exist if no UN resolution allows it? That question is not new. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in the document "Agenda for Peace", published 10 years ago, argued for an extension of the right of intervention. I assert that such a right exists, but that it is subject to the following criteria, which might be swept up in the Foreign Office study that has been urged on the Government. First, force should always be the last resort. Secondly, all diplomatic efforts should have been exhausted. Thirdly, the intervention should be undertaken to deal with a systematic breach of international law, or the universal declaration of human rights. Fourthly, regional stability should be threatened by the mass movement of refugees, or there should be a risk of severe environmental damage. Fifthly, applicable United Nations resolutions should have been flouted. Sixthly, the intervening powers should be willing to make a commitment to make good damage and to restore democratic institutions. Seventhly, will the intervention diminish conflict, rather than escalate it? Finally, as a matter of principle, rather than of pragmatism, can the intervention be made effectively? Those are the type of criteria that justify intervention.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is not time limited. What does he think are our obligations towards countries such as Bulgaria and Romania? They went along with NATO in good faith and are now desperate to have the Danube unblocked—of which there is no possibility. Do we have some obligations to such people?
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, we do. Indeed, I have pointed that out in the House. Those countries made great political sacrifices—in the case of the Bulgarians, because they thought it might enhance their application for membership of NATO—but they are certainly entitled to proper treatment now. I may surprise the hon. Gentleman, because I would go further: it is not right to ban all humanitarian assistance to the people of Serbia. It will not do much good for the cause of intervention, or the cause of the west, if we allow people in Serbia to die of hunger or cold throughout the coming winter. I put that point to the Prime Minister, and received a pretty dusty reply. However, I still believe that it would be the right thing to do. It is time for a recognition and a codification of a right of intervention based on those criteria.
  I feel a considerable sense of discomfort as to Chechnya. We have seen the indiscriminate shelling and bombing of citizens and the prevention of humanitarian effort by the United Nations. We have seen the denial of free passage for refugees. The two situations—Kosovo and Chechnya—are not the same. However, I hope that when the Secretary of State was arguing with—or, perhaps more correctly, putting his points to, or making a demarche on—Mr. Ivanov, he not only raised the question of International Monetary Fund support but raised what seems to me to be a compelling matter in all this: the extent to which things are being done for the domestic political aspirations of Mr. Putin and others in the Yeltsin camp.

  395
  The Government set out to achieve a foreign policy with an ethical dimension, and there are some achievements of which they can rightly be proud. Among those are the Ottawa treaty on land mines, ratified pretty well in the course of a day, one Friday, here in the House of Commons; the publication of an annual human rights report; and a European Union code of conduct on arms sales where none previously existed. But arms sales are as effective a test of the ethical dimension as any other, and both the present Government and their predecessors experienced considerable embarrassment in relation to Indonesia and the repression that was carried out in East Timor.
  New legislation is required. The Queen's Speech should have announced a new strategic arms export Bill, because in his report on the arms to Iraq affair, Sir Richard Scott was very critical indeed of the rather clumsily named Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. As its date tells us, it was passed through the House at a time of national emergency. Surely different considerations now apply, and a new Bill should license and regulate arms brokers, tighten end user controls, bring forward criteria for control of licensed production in third countries and establish a Select Committee of Parliament to monitor arms export policy and to scrutinise individual export licence applications above a certain size. If the right hon. Member for Bridgwater can be trusted to scrutinise MI5 and MI6 along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickupon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), surely Members of that stature in the House could be trusted with the responsibility of monitoring arms export policy.
  Let us also have an annual report on arms exports which is intelligible, and which contains detailed and easily understood information showing what arms have been exported, and to which countries. Categories that include a jet fighter aircraft at one end of the spectrum and a parachute at the other are not readily intelligible even to those who make a special study of these matters.
  The arms to Iraq and arms to Sierra Leone affairs were both significant. They had significant domestic consequences, but they also seriously damaged the reputation of the United Kingdom abroad. I believe that if a Select Committee had been in place, it would have prevented them.
  I feel profound disappointment that there is no Bill in the Queen's Speech to achieve ratification of the statute establishing the international criminal court. I know that there is a promise of draft legislation, but that is not the same as the indication of determination to publish a Bill and take it through the House. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out, the Government's 1999 human rights annual report promised that the United Kingdom would be among the first 60 states to ratify.
  There is too much uncertainty surrounding the Government's intentions. This could be the last full Session of Parliament before the general election. Would there be time, in a truncated Session before a spring general election in 2001, for the ratification of the treaty?
  396
  Without difficulty, I reach the following conclusion. A foreign policy with an ethical dimension would look a little tattered if the Labour party faced the electorate without the ratification of the treaty establishing the international criminal court.
  Let me finish by discussing nuclear weapons. Article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty imposes a legal obligation on the United Kingdom to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. That obligation was renewed in 1995, when the Conservatives were in Government. What steps will Her Majesty's Government take in the coming year to fulfil that obligation?
  It is a curious treaty because India and Pakistan are, technically, non-weapon states under the NPT, although they have now, as we all know, exploded nuclear devices. What steps will the Government take to persuade them to adhere to the obligations incumbent on weapon states in the NPT? We would all have hoped to persuade India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty, but the decision of the United States Senate to refuse to ratify has made that prospect remote, to say the least.
  The difficulty of relations with Russia is compounded not only by the failure to ratify the CTBT but by an apparent determination in the United States to depart from, or at least renegotiate, the anti-ballistic missile treaty. What steps will the Government take to persuade those in the United States who stood in the way of the ratification of the test ban treaty that they should now ratify it? What steps will the Government take to persuade the United States of America not to depart from the ballistic missile treaty?
  I leave the Government with proposals as to what they should do about nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom should convene a conference of the five permanent members of the Security Council to prepare the way for a new round of strategic arms reduction talks, covering the weapons of all existing nuclear weapons states, including our own. That conference should include a review of all previous nuclear weapons agreements, including the ABM treaty.
  We should work to bring about an annual declaration of nuclear weapons stocks held by all de facto nuclear weapons states under a United Nations nuclear weapons register. We should embark on the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention to match those for chemical and biological weapons, so as to formalise the commitment of all nuclear weapons states to nuclear disarmament.
  The nuclear threat is much reduced, but we should take the opportunity to reduce it even further. That truly would be a foreign policy with an ethical dimension.
  6.46 pm
  Ann Clwyd: I should like to talk about many things tonight, but there is not enough time, so I shall get straight to the point.
  I want to ask especially about our policy towards arms exports to Indonesia. I have probably asked more questions on that subject than any other Member has, and I am continuing to ask those questions because the embargo imposed by the European Union comes to an end in the very near future, and certainly before we have an opportunity to discuss it again in the House.
  I hope that we would heed the words of one of the leaders of the East Timorese, who has now returned to East Timor, who came to this country many times when

  397
  a spokesman for the then opposition. Over and over again he begged this country not to export arms to Indonesia, but we continued to do so. I believe that many people have learned a lesson from the events in East Timor, and I hope that that lesson will be acted on when the question of renewing that arms embargo arises in the next few weeks.
  I should like to quote the words of Jose Ramos Horta, vice-president in exile of the East Timorese, who has just returned to his country. He says that the destruction and human suffering caused by 24 years of Indonesian military occupation are indescribable. For peace in the region, and in particular for the future of East Timor, it is crucial that the embargo stay in force, at least until all East Timorese refugees have returned safely to East Timor—there are still about 200,000 in West Timor—all militia are disarmed and Indonesia co—operates with a commission of investigation established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
  Moreover, Jose Ramos Horta has drawn attention to the fact that the Indonesian armed forces play a very controversial role in other parts of Indonesia—in the Moluccas, Irian Jaya, West Papua, Acceh and Kalimantan—and repress the opposition in Indonesia. An arms embargo is necessary until the military become subordinate to democratic control.
  There is no equivocation about that point of view, and I hope that that message has got through today. The East Timorese want that European Union arms embargo extended, and I hope that our Government will work towards that end.
  I had the privilege of witnessing the referendum in East Timor. Many of the things that we had predicted in the Chamber came to pass. There was violence, which I believe could have been avoided, and there was great suffering. I believe that when the final body count is made, we shall find that many thousands of people lost their lives there. They got their democracy—yes—but at such a price. I am afraid that we are all responsible because we supplied arms for many years. The previous Government supplied arms, and this Government have supplied arms. I hope, therefore, that we now listen to the views of people such as Jose Ramos Horta and Xanana Gusmao, the leader of East Timor who is now back in his own country.
  I shall talk about one more country—Iraq—in the short time that I have available. However, I would have liked to have mentioned many countries and conflicts and to have asked our Government what role we are playing in trying to bring conflicts all over the world to an end. In particular, I wanted to refer to countries, such as Sudan, where the conflict has gone on for many years.
  Nearly 10 years ago, before the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were set up, it was clear that Saddam Hussein and his close associates should be indicted as international war criminals. When Pol Pot and his associates in Cambodia were indicted as war criminals, when Milosevic and the people responsible for the events in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo have now been indicted as war criminals and when we are talking about indicting some of those responsible for the terrible events in East Timor, we must ask ourselves why Saddam Hussein has not been indicted by the United Nations as a war criminal.
  398
  Unfortunately, Saddam and his cronies are still viewed by a few Governments as leaders with whom they may want to do business one day. Some may even be doing that business right now. Saddam and his associates are looked on as leaders of a country under siege by the powerful, struggling to survive against the odds. In reality, as the American ambassador for war crimes, Ambassador Scheffer, said in New York a few weeks ago,
  "these are thugs who terrorize what was once, and could again become, a great nation."
  I chair an organisation, Indict, which is focused on bringing Saddam Hussein and some of his close associates before an international tribunal. The latest report from the United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq was published a few weeks ago and it shows that atrocities are being carried out by Saddam' s army against the Arabs of the southern marshes with a ferocity that is as widespread—and over a longer period—as that waged by Milosevic against the Kosovo Albanians.
  We have identified nine major criminal episodes under Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq. Three of them continue to this day and, indeed, one of them is accelerating at an alarming pace. In the 1980s, crimes against humanity and possible genocide were committed in the Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds, including the notorious use of poison gas in Halabja in 1988. In the 1980s, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the use of poison gas, took place in the war against Iran. In the 1990-91, there were crimes of humanity and war crimes against Kuwait. In 1991, war crimes took place against coalition forces during the Gulf war.
  There is not time to list all the crimes, but, of course, Saddam Hussein did not commit them on his own. We know that he has built up one of the most ruthless police states, using a small number of associates who share with him the responsibility for those criminal actions. Ali Hassan Al-Majid became known as "Chemical Ali" for his leadership and enthusiasm in using poison gas against Iraqi Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war. He also turned up in Kuwait during the occupation and, more recently, as governor in the south of Iraq and acted against the Shi'ite people. Saddam Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday, are both involved in all the crimes.
  My organisation has come up with a list of 12 people who we believe should be indicted by an international war crimes tribunal. There must not be a memory lapse when it comes to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. This is a man and a regime who have brutally and systematically committed war crimes and crimes against humanity for years, are committing them now and will continue committing them until the international community finally says, "Enough".
  A few weeks ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what we were doing in the Security Council of the United Nations to establish an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein. He said:
  "we do not at present detect a consensus in the Security Council for a war crimes tribunal on Iraq."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 95.]
  Recently, the United States has said strongly that the Security Council would be fully justified in establishing an ad hoc international criminal tribunal without—this normally happens in such cases—having a commission of experts to consider the matter beforehand. The evidence is there, and I have seen much of it—5.5 million pages of

  399
  captured Iraqi documents that were taken out of northern Iraq by Human Rights Watch. They detail in the minutest fashion the day-to-day nature of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against the peoples of northern Iraq. An archive of Iraqi documents contains more than 4 million pages and there are video tapes shot by cameramen and an archive of classified documents is, at present, being declassified. There is plenty of evidence, so I ask my right hon. Friend to do his utmost to bring about an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and his associates as soon as is humanely possible.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has fought so long and so hard for the causes that she holds dear—indeed, causes that impinge upon us all.
  Many criticisms can be made of the present Government's approach to foreign affairs and defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Foreign Secretary, made many of them most effectively in his speech. I particularly agree with his call for an up-to-date statement of the Government's view of the legal basis for humanitarian intervention. It is perfectly true, as some Labour Members pointed out, that things have moved on since 1984. Indeed, I remember making the point during the debates on Kosovo that international law in this area is evolutionary. That is precisely why an up-to-date statement would be helpful, and I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's call for that.
  Even my hon. Friend did not have time to cover all the criticisms that can be made of Her Majesty's Government. I shall confine myself to one. The Gracious Speech tells us that the Government will ensure that NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security. It is certainly true that NATO should remain the foundation of Britain's defence and security, yet the Atlantic partnership—the partnership between Europe, and not just Britain, and north America of which NATO is the most visible manifestation—now faces greater challenges than at any time in its recent history.

  I believe that deep-seated forces are at work, on both sides of the Atlantic, that are tending to drive Europe and north America apart from each other. That poses great risks for the partners themselves and for the world at large. Yet instead of seeking to minimise those risks the Government are, perhaps unwittingly, making them worse.
  It is worth spending a moment or two on the divisive forces at work. In north America the political, business and cultural centres of gravity are shifting westwards. California long ago overtook New York as the most populous state in the USA, and Microsoft and silicon valley are both on the west coast.
  American—and Canadian—eyes are increasingly turned towards the Pacific and beyond. Japan, despite its recent difficulties, remains a most formidable economic power. The United States, in particular, is becoming increasingly preoccupied with China, both as a huge market and as a potential military rival. Those trends are
  400
  to some extent reinforced by demographic changes. There is an increasing number of Americans and Canadians of Asiatic descent. The growing number and influence of Hispanic Americans is also significant. They tend to look south to Latin America, rather than east to Europe.
  Those trends are exacerbated by the increasing number of trade disputes between Europe and north America. Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated by what they see as European failings to abide by rulings of the World Trade Organisation. Those frustrations feed the traditional forces of protectionism and isolationism which are never far below the surface.
  On the European side, we have the drive towards deeper integration, partly—I emphasise partly—motivated in some quarters by explicit anti-Americanism and by a wholly misguided desire to set up in Europe a centre of power which it is thought could rival the United States. There is the European perspective on the trade disputes—the understandable concerns over genetically modified foods, hormone-treated beef and bananas from the Caribbean. There are also particularly worrying developments in defence, to which I shall return.
  Of course, not all these developments are new, but while the cold war was still in being there was general recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that nothing should be done that would put at risk the ability of the free world to defend itself. That cement has now gone, and those irritations, which would once have been suppressed, are now increasingly allowed to dominate and divert policy.
  The dangers are perhaps greatest in defence. No one would deny that the European members of NATO could and should do more to shoulder the burdens of the alliance. The most effective thing that most of them could do is to spend more money on defence and spend it more sensibly. Nor do I resile from the European defence identity, which began under the previous Government and was taken forward by Michael Portillo when he was Defence Secretary. When we were in government, however, that was always envisaged as being within the framework of NATO. That is the essential point.
  We were assured, at the beginning of their term in office, that the present Government shared that view. After the Amsterdam council, the Prime Minister told this House that
  "getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for—and won—the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
  It was not until the St. Malo agreement that we realised that things had indeed changed.
  There has been a great deal of speculation about the reasons for that change. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that by far the most credible explanation is that the Prime Minister, frustrated by his inability to smuggle Britain into the single currency and desperately casting around for some other way of establishing his credibility as a good European, identified defence as the only way forward. Be that as it may, whatever the reason, the Prime Minister signed up at St. Malo. That agreement

  401
  specifically and expressly provides for defence co-operation "inside and outside" NATO. The Cologne declaration calls for the European Union to
  "have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces"
  and
  "the means to decide to use them."
  Those are the agreements that have led to concern on both sides of the Atlantic. Those are the meetings that were described by Strobe Talbott, in exquisitely diplomatic language, as emitting a somewhat different set of signals to those emanating from Berlin in 1996 and Washington in April this year. In view of the references to him made earlier in the debate, it is worth quoting him in full. He went on to say:
  "The Anglo-French Summit at St. Malo last December raised concerns among non-EU allies that they might not be sufficiently involved in planning and decision making structures. Then came the EU leaders' declaration at Cologne in June, which could be read to imply that Europe's default position would be to act outside the Alliance whenever possible, rather than through the Alliance."
  It is absurd, in the light of those statements, for the Government to deny that any concerns exist in north America over these developments. There is concern and it is serious.
  At the very time when the Atlantic alliance is most at risk and most in need of reinforcement, Her Majesty's Government, instead of acting to strengthen it, are acting to weaken it. At the very moment when the partnership that has been the world's best hope for peace for the past 50 years is facing unprecedented challenges, Her Majesty's Government are taking action that could undermine it. At the very moment when the world is racked with uncertainty, Her Majesty's Government are taking action to add to that uncertainty.
  I urge the Government to think again. I urge the Government to draw back from the actions that they seem to be contemplating. The Atlantic partnership can repeat in the next 50 years what it has achieved in the past 50 years. It is the Government's duty to help that process, not to hinder it.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: First, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the opportunity to speak in this debate, because this is the only day of debate on the Queen's Speech on which I am able to be present.
  I noticed that there is very little mention in the Queen's Speech of foreign affairs and defence. I can only assume that it is because our manifesto commitments are being carried out and everything is felt to be satisfactory. It is certainly satisfactory as far as I am concerned. As a member of the Western European Union and Council of Europe delegations, I can say that we are held in very high esteem by many of our foreign colleagues, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has much to be proud of in having brought that about.
  It has always been the tradition that the debate on the Queen's Speech is an opportunity for Back Benchers to state what they think about the planned legislation and to make a few remarks about what they would have liked to have been included in the programme. What struck me first about the Queen's Speech is that it contains many
  402
  small, useful Bills. I am of the opinion that the road to heaven is often reached by small steps rather than by taking a large, broad-brush approach.
  I particularly welcome, in the welfare reform Bill, further simplification of the Child Support Agency. Heaven knows that it is badly needed. Improvements have already been carried out that have probably made life much better for most Back Benchers who have had complaints about that organisation. Let us hope that the Bill will make things even better.
  I particularly welcome also the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which will give children—"children" is the correct term—support when they leave school, at a difficult time in their lives when they are deciding what to do with their future. Anything that can be done to try to point them in the right direction is very welcome and long overdue.
  Similarly, I welcome the care standards Bill, which will bring the standards in private hospitals and clinics into line with those that we expect in the national health service. That must be right. If we are being told that private enterprise is best, it should certainly be able to stand up to some scrutiny.
  I particularly welcome the Bill to help children with special educational needs. The parents of children who need treatment will be able to get the support that they so badly need. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House have come across parents who do not know where to turn. A little advice and knowledge will make life much better for them.
  I turn now to the crime and probation Bill. I have always considered myself to be a civil libertarian, but I think that liberties come with responsibilities. I certainly do not think that anyone who has been incarcerated and who wants freedom should have any objection to being tagged. People will have the choice of continuing to be incarcerated or going out and being tagged, and if they are not going to do anything untoward, they should have no objection to being tagged. If I had the choice of being in jail or being tagged, I would take the chance of being tagged. Of course, nobody will be obliged to do so if they want to remain where they are.
  In view of the problems with unauthorised drug use, which leads to some very serious crime, no one who is apprehended or suspected of being involved in crime should have any objection to being tested for drugs. That is a matter not of civil liberties but of common sense. We have heard much about the common-sense revolution; the proposal is proper common sense.
  I am also delighted that, at long last, a Bill will grant access to the countryside—not unfettered access but sensible access, whereby responsibilities must go hand in hand with freedom. I very much welcome that.
  Above all, I welcome the proposed amendment to sexual offences legislation, under which the age of consent will be 16 for all citizens, regardless of their sexual proclivities. That is long overdue. I have voted for such a change for many years, but it has always seemed to fall at the final hurdle. I hope that, on this occasion, we will drag ourselves if not into the 21st century at least into the 20th century.
  As a humble Back Bencher, my first reaction to the Queen's Speech is always whether something in it will cause me a problem. As someone who has, on odd occasions, had to go against the Government line—not

  403
  with any great joy and not always with total conviction, but in trying to follow my conscience—I was very relieved to discover quite a benign Queen's Speech. The only aspect that I can envisage causing me a problem is the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. I find it very difficult to accept that it is right and proper for magistrates to decide whether a defendant should be tried by other magistrates or by a judge. I am very concerned about that. I do not rule out supporting the Bill, but I will have to hear some good arguments before I do so.
  I see that there is another prevention of terrorism Bill in this year's Queen's Speech. Since I entered the House, I have voted against such Bills—and for a particular reason. We are all human beings and we have all had personal experiences. When I was branch secretary for the National Union of Mineworkers, three of my members lost their apprenticeships because of police abuse of the prevention of terrorism Act. Those young men were prevented from seeking proper legal redress, and it took a long time to get them back to work. They had to serve almost another year's apprenticeship before they became tradesmen, yet, without doubt, they had done nothing wrong.
  I do not have time to go into great detail. Suffice it to say that, following those events, I felt that I would never accept a prevention of terrorism Bill unless it incorporated absolute safeguards that the police would behave themselves properly. The incident to which I referred occurred a number of years ago, and things might now be better, but I still remain to be convinced of the case for such legislation.
  In another disgusting incident, a friend of mine was apprehended at Stranraer as we travelled back from Ireland. He was eventually released at 3 o'clock in the morning, without being charged. There could not have been any charge because there were no grounds for suspecting him. That was yet another example of police abuse of the Act, which they cited in proceedings. Before I could support legislation that empowers the police to detain animal rights activists or others who object to a civil rights matter, I would have to be convinced that it would not be open to police abuse.
  I deal now with the pressure for locally elected mayors. I say to all concerned—some of my Front-Bench colleagues are present—that there is no enthusiasm whatever for an elected mayor on Wearside. The post is seen merely as yet another tier of government in which arguments could develop. There is nothing wrong with the present local government system, under which people are properly elected to represent a certain number of others where they reside. That works reasonably well, and cabinet systems have recently brought about improvements. Where people do not want a locally elected mayor, they should not have one foisted on them.
  I was not very pleased to read that such mayors might be able to appoint people to help them govern. That would be a negation of democracy and a very dangerous road to go down. It would be like an emperor in his court deciding who will rule. It would not be good enough if such mayors were considered above elected councillors. I have very severe doubts about the proposed process.
  In the next few days, a Back Bencher will be fortunate enough to come first in the ballot for private Members' Bills and will no doubt want to bring about the abolition
  404
  of hunting with dogs. I would love to think that it would be me, but I am not usually that lucky. I hope that the Government pull out all the stops to ensure that a Bill along the lines that the public have been promised gets onto the statute book. I am disappointed that the Government themselves have not introduced such a Bill.
  7.16 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: It used to be the custom in these debates to refer to the previous Member's speech. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on many things that he said—I do not agree with them—but I very much encourage him in his intention to vote against the Government. Such views are most admirable.
  The first part of the Gracious Speech to which I shall refer is on the future development of the European Union. It states that the Government
  "will ensure that NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security"
  and will
  "seek to continue the work of adapting the Alliance to meet the challenges and opportunities of the new century."

  I do not know what those words mean. The House has a right to know what they mean, because they raise certain worries.
  Although the Queen's Speech announces 28 Bills, it outlines the introduction of 33 different regulations. The Government obviously have a right to include such regulations, but I condemn absolutely the fact that 15 paragraphs of the Gracious Speech are nothing other than propaganda. The doctors of spin from Downing street used the opportunity of Her Majesty's speech to make political points. That ought to be condemned and stopped right away.
  One could spend ages debating the enlargement of the European Union. The Foreign Affairs Committee has been considering the six nations that are applying to join the EU. Although those nations obviously have a right to do so, I am concerned that every one of them will be takers and will not contribute one penny in dues and fees, as opposed to the very considerable amount of money that they will expect to receive. Those of us who are major contributors to the EU must realise that.
  For the major part of my speech, I shall follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in commenting on the European security and defence identity. It must be made absolutely clear that NATO has repeatedly endorsed a strong European pillar in the alliance, and that was adopted at the Washington conference. In 1996, the ESDI was declared in the Berlin communiqué. That was brought about by a Conservative Government. It was designed to enable European allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the alliance, NATO.
  We have witnessed the Labour Government move through the 1999 European Council Cologne declaration, based on the common European policy on security and defence, and the Franco-British declaration at St. Malo. The Franco-British declaration played entirely into the hands of the French, who had for ages been attempting to use the Western European Union as their instrument of defence to weaken NATO. They wanted the Americans to play a lesser role in the NATO structure and saw the WEU as a means of bringing that about.

  405
  I am therefore worried that the British Government are willing to accept and even endorse the merging of the WEU into the European Union, to work with the European Union and to ensure that the EU's implementation of the Cologne summit decision will promote a strategic perspective on transatlantic security issues that conflicts with that promoted by NATO. It will also create unnecessary duplication of the resources and capabilities provided by NATO. That will be a nonsense.
  The December 1999 NATO ministerial and EU summit in Helsinki is to call for the co-ordination and harmonisation of the roles of NATO and the EU. How do we begin to harmonise the introduction into NATO decision making of four non-NATO countries—four nations that are neutral, but are to have an input into the military decisions of NATO? That will be a weakness. It has been suggested that the negotiations will prevent such an eventuality. The Government have an obligation to tell us how they envisaged that being achieved.
  The implementation of the Cologne summit decisions will ensure that non-EU NATO allies, including Canada, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey and the United States are discriminated against and not fully involved in the EU's decisions on the work of the WEU and, therefore, of NATO. Where does that leave those nations? They will be suspicious and might not necessarily want NATO as a whole to be strengthened, because their position in NATO will have been weakened. That is a cause of great concern. If the Government are to press forward with merging the WEU and the EU, which is entirely contrary to the treaty of Rome, they must explain how the two difficulties I have described are to be overcome.
  I am greatly concerned about the world increase of biological weapons. We have a convention on biological and toxin weapons dating from the 1970s, but it contains massive inadequacies. The proliferation of biological weapons is known about and must be given serious consideration. It is imperative that this country contribute to the strengthening and extension of methods of controlling such weapons, and the responsibility to take positive action falls on the Government.
  The subject is not sexy, it does not hit the headlines and people do not necessarily worry about it, but we all recognise the effect that biological weapons can have. We should all be massively concerned about their use and the threat of their use by terrorists. We have made no progress in control or prevention since the 1972 convention, and it is about time the British Government took positive steps. If terrorist organisations began to use biological weapons—they can be quite easily constructed—the damage and the danger they could cause to a massive part of a city would be immense.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves all credit for having persuaded the Americans to agree to a Lockerbie trial in a third country. The Foreign Office is aware that, with Dr. Jim Swire of the Lockerbie relatives, I had a three-hour meeting with Ambassador Walton and his wife: we wish them well in Tripoli.
  I do not know how many Members of the House of Commons realise that they have no locus in the legal aspects of Lockerbie. They have standing in respect of the
  406
  foreign affairs aspects, but the legal aspects are now entirely a matter for the Holyrood Parliament. We ought to be careful about the sub judice rule so that we do not jeopardise a trial which, I hope to heaven, starts at Zeist in February.
  I am also delighted that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Iran early in the new year. Two years ago, my wife and I went on holiday there and we had the impression that the people there were yearning for contacts with the west.
  With just 10 minutes in which to speak, it is not the points of agreement but the points of disagreement that one must address, however. My first point of disagreement with the Government starts with a question. What is to happen in respect of the follow-up to the raid on the Al Shifa factory in Sudan? To be frank, the evidence of the 0-ethyl-methyl-phosphonoic acid and of the circumstances surrounding the factory is such that we owe the people and the Government of Sudan an apology. It emerges that the Clinton Administration, in their enthusiasm for going ahead with the attack on the factory, ignored information from the Sudanese that they had arrested two people whom they suspected of involvement in the embassy bombings; and the State Department refused to let FBI investigators take up Sudanese requests that they question those suspects.
  That is unsatisfactory, as is the lack of a proper investigation of the Al Shifa factory. It is inconceivable that nasties were made in a factory in the suburb of a capital city which had open doors and lacked the sort of security that one would associate with the manufacture of precursors or anything else.
  My second point of disagreement relates to Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) knows that I take a view totally different from hers. I have a question down for answer on 1 December, which asks the Prime Minister:
  "What recent representations Her Majesty's Government have received from (a) UN organisations and (b) Church organisations about continuing UN sanctions and military action against Iraq."
  Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, will he reflect on the situation now? It has been announced that the United States and Britain are pressing for the dismissal of Hans von Sponeck, the United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad. The push to get rid of him is driven by frustration following his public statements on the debilitating effect of nine years of UN sanctions on Iraq.
  I have had conversations with both Hans von Sponeck and his predecessor, Dennis Halliday, who resigned. They are guided by the appalling humanitarian situation in the river valleys. For God's sake, 500,000 or more children have lost their lives. We must weigh up the sheer horror of the situation. Part of my question relates to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have received from the Bishop of Coventry, and his associates who went with him, first-hand accounts of what they found in Baghdad.
  My third item of disagreement is on Kosovo. I wish to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to deal with the question on uranium shells with

  407
  which I interrupted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Under the byline of Robert Fisk in today's Independent it is stated:
  "American aircraft used so much depleted uranium ammunition during the Nato bombardment of Serbia that US officials are now claiming—to the disbelief of European bomb disposal officers—that they have no idea how many locations may be contaminated by the radioactive dust left behind by their weapons."
  I repeat my question: did NATO refuse to assist a United Nations team investigating the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I went to Serbia. I cannot convey to the House the sheer scale of the destruction. I want to ask a direct general question: is it legitimate to target chemical complexes such as Pancevo, oil refineries such as Novi Sad and the infrastructure of a country to achieve a military objective? That is a wide question. The answer, from one who has seen the effects of these things, is absolutely not.
  For many years I represented Leyland at Bathgate. There is a plant factory in Serbia seven times the size of Leyland at Bathgate that consists now only of twisted machinery; 130,000 people are out of work as a result. The situation is horrendous when one contemplates the winter. The idea that graphite bombs temporarily knock out power stations is nonsensical. The reality is that they debilitate them.
  My next question relates to the stability pact. I have been reading Misha Glenny's remarkable writings. He states:
  "The Stability Pact is washed up on a distant shore of the European Union bureaucracy…Countries like Romania and Bulgaria bent over backwards to assist the West during the bombing campaign and they expect payback, but they're not getting it. If they don't get payback their rulers will be out. And what you might get in their place, heaven knows. We are not even…giving Romania and Bulgaria reasonable access to EU markets. The Stability Pact was a good signal, but it is not happening. It really isn't moving. And yet you don't get Robin Cook coming on television every day to say the Stability Pact is in danger of being washed up, which it is. Do we hear people saying out loud: 'We're in new danger'? No."
  Misha Glenny was the person who was right in 1991, and he might be right again.
  I ask about the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs and Roma in Kosovo involving 200,000 people. That is not why men of the British Army went to risk their lives. One of the terms of the peace agreement with Serbia was that in return for Yugoslav forces leaving the area, civilians would be protected and the Kosovo Liberation Army disarmed. Neither of those things has happened. The KLA is now being installed as the legitimate police force. Is that not a clear betrayal of NATO's solemn undertaking?
  Why is NATO unable to stop the systematic destruction of more than 70 Christian monasteries and churches in what is clearly a co-ordinated and systematic campaign that is being carried out by people with knowledge of mining and explosives? They are not just a few vandals. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I have the strong impression that there is no will on the part of KFOR to protect the ethnic Serbs whose home it was and to which the area was promised. Only the Irish Guards—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall take up shortly the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Kosovo, but first I want to copy him by congratulating the Government on two policies that were announced by the Foreign Secretary today. First, in the WTO Seattle round, the Government wish to adopt a comprehensive development trade round that will benefit the poorer countries in the world, and begin to attack the protectionism developed in the European Community and the United States against products and imports from developing countries. I believe that in that way we can make a great step forward to help those in abject poverty throughout the world.
  Secondly, I congratulate the Government on their achievements on debt initiatives, which they took up at Cologne and succeeded in getting through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings at Washington in September and October. I am delighted that the United States has enacted the necessary legislation to support the initiatives.
  I lament the fact that I will not be able to herald, as I would have wished, the report of the Select Committee on International Development on women and development, which will be published on Thursday. I will have to leave hon. Members to read that excellent but alarming and devastating report. I can, however, herald the report that the Committee intends to deliver to the House on sanctions, probably in early December.
  That brings me to a serious question. The United Nations has put in place comprehensive economic sanctions cementing Saddam Hussain into power. As he has to ration food, health provision and clothing to all his people, they are all entirely dependent on him and will not revolt against him.
  We are doing exactly the same thing in Serbia, against which there are comprehensive economic sanctions. There are 800,000 refugees without proper housing. They face a devastating winter and will be entirely dependent on Milosevic and his Government to enable them to maintain life and limb, to keep themselves warm so as not to die of hypothermia, and to keep their livelihoods. The sanctions policy is a nightmare. It is completely the wrong to achieve our ends.
  The situation in Serbia is extremely serious. I shall speak about the refugees who were made homeless as a result of our bombing of Kosovo, but first I shall respond to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is not in his place. In a previous debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman challenged me on the legality of the intervention of NATO forces in Kosovo.
  Mark Littman QC has published a book for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he asks:
  "Was the Campaign Lawful?"
  The eminent QC concludes, as I warned Foreign Office Ministers at the time, that
  "the Government, while correctly accepting that the Kosovo bombing could not be justified if it involved a grave breach of international law, wrongly assured the British public that it did not involve such a breach, while refusing the Yugoslav challenge to have the point tested before the International Court of Justice."
  In other words, the intervention was and remains illegal.
  It is all very well for the Government or the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife to say that we should have a method of intervening on humanitarian

  409
  grounds, and to propose five points, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, but that is not yet international law.
  What we did was to flout the law, and we did it deliberately, as Mr. Littman says. If we call on Israel, Palestine and Russia to obey resolutions passed by the United Nations, how can we refuse to abide by clause 2.4, which makes action of the kind that we took in Kosovo illegal?
  Mr. Littman goes on to ask:
  "Was the Campaign Necessary?"
  His conclusion is:
  "It is possible that the Kosovo problem could have been settled by diplomacy and without the use of force. It is certain that NATO did not make every effort to do so: at a critical point in the discussions at Rambouillet, NATO abandoned diplomacy in favour of a package of non-negotiable demands contained in a document described by Dr. Kissinger as 'a terrible diplomatic document', as a `provocation' and as an 'excuse to start bombing'. And it is likely that, if the terms which were agreed at the end of the campaign had been put forward at Rambouillet, then the ethnic cleansing and the war could have been averted."
  Those are not my words, but the considered opinion of an eminent QC who has examined all the facts.
  The war having taken place, we must look after those who have been displaced. The UNHCR reported to the International Development Committee. Mr. O'Sullivan, who is in charge of UNHCR throughout the Balkan area, including Serbia, appeared before us as a witness and told us that UNHCR will have repaired only 50,000 houses by the time winter sets in. The winter temperature in the Balkans often falls to 20°, low enough to cause hypothermia in old people and children, and in the middle-aged population.
  Materials have been supplied to repair only one room in each of the 50,000 houses. As we heard today, more than 100,000 houses were totally destroyed. That means that people will be living in tents which, even if winterised, are thoroughly inadequate to see young children and old people through the winter.
  That is what we have produced in Kosovo, and our response is entirely inadequate, as was predictable. The Guardian of 15 October stated that the cost of humanitarian aid will be £2.54 billion, and that of reconstructing Serbia and Kosovo about £20.5 billion. What did the World Bank and other donors agree only two days ago to give to that area? One billion pounds.
  Before the bombing, Serbia already had 400,000 refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia in camps. There were Roma people among them, and the refugees were inadequately looked after, without food, shelter, medical supplies or the means of keeping themselves going during the winter. Serbia now has double that figure, most of them from Kosovo, and most having been ethnically cleansed by the Kosovars. That, too, was predictable.
  Those people have no housing and no power. They have no power because the power stations were destroyed by our bombing, and we are proposing to do nothing about it, because sanctions have been imposed and because Milosevic is still in power. Is that a humanitarian response—an ethical foreign policy—to 800,000 people in Serbia who are likely to lose many of their friends, relatives and children from hypothermia this winter? I
  410
  think not. The same is true of Kosovo. We need to redouble international humanitarian efforts in order to stop a true humanitarian disaster.
  7.45 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I start by wholeheartedly endorsing the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that there will not be a sustainable settlement in the middle east peace process unless there is a proper recognition of the rights of the Palestinian refugees in international law and as laid down by United Nations Security Council resolutions.
  The main topic about which I shall speak is Russia, and in particular the remarks in the Gracious Speech about improving the effectiveness of EU foreign and security policy, and our commitment to NATO as the foundation of Britain's defence and security.
  Russia is clearly no longer the super-power that it was, but it remains an extremely important player in Europe and the world. It has huge potential resources, once it gets its economy sorted out, but it is also a huge threat, not because it may attack the west, as used to be the case, but because it has within its territory a vast number of decaying nuclear facilities, both civil nuclear power facilities and the enormous nuclear submarine fleet that is rotting in the Pacific ocean or the Baltic sea.
  That problem not only poses a huge environmental threat to western Europe but—because security in the Russian Federation is not what it used to be—offers the possibility that some of those nuclear sources may go astray and fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Furthermore, the breakdown of order in the Russian Federation has led to a huge growth in organised crime, which is starting to be exported to the rest of Europe.
  Grave threats are posed by the Russian Federation which are much more serious to Europe than to the United States, simply because of distance. The threat is next door to us.
  The EU common strategy on Russia recognises the need for the European Union to take seriously the issues posed by the Russian Federation, and to try to co-ordinate our foreign and defence policy in relation to Russia. The common strategy is largely driven by the Nordic members of the EU and tends to focus on the northern dimension, not least because people in Finland are under immediate threat of pollution if there is an accident at a Russian nuclear power station like the one that occurred at Chernobyl. Also, Finland has a border with the Russian Federation and realises the instability that arises when there is a great economic disparity between the two sides of a border.
  The events taking place in Chechnya demonstrate the importance of developing a southern dimension to the EU's common strategy on Russia. We should be concerned about the dynamic among the European Union, NATO and Russia. I am referring not just to the Russian Government but to the internal dynamics within Russia.
  To many in Russia, NATO is a threat. It is natural that the Baltic states and others that were formerly part of the Warsaw pact should wish to join NATO. I understand the reason why they want to do that—the security that it gives them, and the symbol that NATO provides of their acceptance into the western world—but we should be aware of the way in which the enlargement of NATO is perceived from the Russian point of view.

  411
  Enlargement plays to an agenda that suggests that NATO is trying to encircle the Russian Federation. NATO is a body set up for the defence of Europe, but defence is necessary against an external threat, and the Russians believe that they are seen as that external threat. Therefore, they view NATO as potentially aggressive rather than defensive. They interpreted NATO action in Kosovo as setting a precedent for NATO to act aggressively.
  Kosovo caused several conflicts; the most obvious philosophical one was human rights versus sovereignty. To the Russians, human rights were placed above sovereignty in Kosovo. For them, that has obvious parallels with Chechnya. One analysis views events in Chechnya as the Russian military's riposte to what it believed to be the wrong decision in Kosovo, and a reassertion that, for it, sovereignty is more important than human rights.
  We in the west need to continue to state clearly the values for which we stand, and to tell the Russian Federation that its behaviour in Chechnya is neither sensible nor justifiable. Its actions do not constitute the most sensible way in which to overcome terrorism, and it is not acceptable for the Russian Federation to cause such enormous damage to civilians and the infrastructure of Chechnya in its blitzkrieg attempt to blast a few terrorists into oblivion.
  However, it is important for Britain and Europe to return Russia to the notion that it is acting in partnership with the rest of Europe. That would help to deal with threats to world security that endanger Russia and the rest of Europe. It means recognising Russian sensitivities. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that the conflict in Chechnya was popular in Russia. That is true. It is ironic that Mr. Putin is taking such action in Chechnya because Russia is moving towards a form of democracy and he needs to play to voters' sensibilities. It is regrettable that most Russian voters do not have great respect for the human rights of the Chechens, and that they applaud their Government's actions in Chechnya. We must acknowledge that it will probably help to gain Mr. Putin a bigger vote in the presidential elections than he would otherwise have had.
  In NATO, we need to take account of the balance of advantage. We gain security from the alliance and from enlarging it. We also gain from a real and effective partnership with Russia, not from the confrontation to which we seem to be returning.
  We must be especially careful in the Caucasus. The recent announcements about oil pipelines from Baku to Ceyhan have been dictated by United States political objectives, not by economics. They are part of the Americans' aim to promote Turkey and to avoid at all costs a pipeline that goes through Iran. However, the proposal is likely to create in the Russians a fear of a United States-Turkey-Israel axis and has already led to Russia shipping weapons across the Caspian sea into Iran. Iran's isolation strengthens its theocratic elements, which we do not want to back, rather than its more progressive forces, which we support.
  The key problems in the Caucasus are poverty, the lack of an effective Government in many of the countries in the region, and the fact that much power is in the hands
  412
  of warlords and criminals. Working together through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is the best way forward.
  In the Gracious Speech, there was a reference to the United Kingdom Government playing an active part in the Council of Europe conference against racism in October 2000. I would be grateful if Ministers made a note of the point so that they can deal with it. The conference is trying to present one of our key European values: tolerance of diversity and the notion that all are different but equal. I want to ensure that we will stress the importance of combating racism towards the Roma. Most European countries, including the United Kingdom, fall down on that issue. The United Kingdom should stress the need for human rights education and promoting a human rights culture in society. I hope that the Minister will tackle those points when he sums up.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I endorse much of what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, especially about reaching a more sensible accommodation with Russia. Many of us spoke about that at the end of the Kosovo conflict. It is crucial to our country.
  The Foreign Secretary's speech today was an atrocious response to the Loyal Address. It was one of the worst speeches by a Foreign Secretary that I have heard in 16 years in the House. He did not mention China's signing of a World Trade Organisation agreement with the United States; there was not a word about India—although the Foreign Secretary cannot have happy memories of that countrys—and nothing about the Gulf. He paid a chippy and insincere tribute to the Foreign Office, which I remember him caricaturing as being full of old Etonians dressed in pinstripe suits. He made a caricature of one of the finest diplomatic services in the world. From the Conservative Benches, I pay a genuine and warm tribute to the work of the diplomatic service in the past year. Wherever I go, I find people of extraordinarily high quality who do a remarkable job for our country.
  Foreign policy requires clarity and confidence at home among the public and the media. The Government have neither. The so-called ethical foreign policy is a sham. Lord Carrington brilliantly describes it in The Daily Telegraph today as
  "Cant, hypocrisy and double standards".
  The high-flown socialist sentiment has not translated into credible or practical foreign policy. If the Secretary of State for Defence could spare a minute from his lighthearted conversation on the Front Bench, he would hear me warn him that he is in grave danger of undermining the competence and authority of NATO. If he has read the violently anti-American speeches that President Chirac and Mr. Jospin made recently, he will realise that we are in dangerous waters. The Government use defence as a European bargaining chip. One of our greatest national assets is being used as a pawn in a European game. I warn the Secretary of State for Defence that he must ensure that it is not squandered on some squalid French deal.
  I want to speak briefly on defence matters, but not on strategy, about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon

  413
  (Sir P. Emery) spoke. I shall speak about simpler matters. As a former Minister for the Armed Forces, who misses his previous job every day, I pay a warm tribute to service families, wherever they are. I know that the Secretary of State will want to do that, too. He will understand that undermanning and overstretch—which is much worse than when we were in power—in all three services impose significant strain on services wives and their children. By simply keeping the home fires burning, they give their menfolk in the field an important morale boost.
  Despite the recent glossy "brochette" that has been distributed to the forces, not enough is being done for service families, given the parlous position of many of them. Families who return from overseas experience difficulties in getting the help that they need. There are housing difficulties, which are largely caused by lack of money; medical lists are often full, and service families experience problems in getting their children into the schools that they choose. The Secretary of State must deal with those issues as a matter of urgency.
  When I was Minister for the Armed Forces, I failed to do something that I would like the Secretary of State to try to achieve. He should make it the convention that a service man who leaves the armed forces, returns to the town where he was born—should he go back there to live—and has been on the housing list before will automatically, with his family, go to the top of that list. That, surely, is the least consideration that we can give to our soldiers, sailors and airmen. The right hon. Gentleman should not employ consultants to tell him what to do, but should sit down and have a good, hard think about that and come up with some bold and original activity.
  The strategic defence review promised a great deal but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows because he is trying to find a solution, it is already out of date. It was always going to be so; none of us in the House has ever yet seen the entirely fictional foreign policy baseline that was meant to be the guide of the SDR. Anyone who has worked in the Ministry of Defence knows perfectly well that the SDR was run by the MOD with the Treasury sitting on both its shoulders. As the Treasury works for the Russians, the result was entirely predictable. The problems that he has had to deal with are exactly the same as I had to deal with—recruiting, retention and commitments. The result of the SDR is that all three services are grossly overcommitted, seriously undermanned and very seriously underfunded.
  The folly of the scaling down of the Territorial Army is brutally exposed every day but, on money, the Secretary of State must stand firm. He has the confidence of the armed forces because they believe that he has the ear of the Prime Minister and they will expect him to fight most vigorously for the extra resources that they need. It is now widely known that the financial situation at the MOD is desperate. Those of us who saw Admiral Blackham's memorandum, which was leaked to The Daily Telegraph at the weekend, know that that is the case. Further financial resources must be found. I say this to the Prime Minister: the services delivered for him; he must deliver for them.
  On a personnel matter, I want to discuss ethos and political correctness in the armed forces. It has always been accepted—I hope that the Defence Secretary will understand this—that when someone joins the Army he chooses to abdicate certain liberties. The circumstances of military life are not, and cannot be, the same as those of
  414
  civilian life. A high standard of personal conduct, respect for the law, teamwork, cohesion, trust, a highly developed sense of duty and obligation and real integrity are required. The problem is that those qualities are not immediately recognised outside the armed forces. It is encouraging, however, that the comradeship, team spirit, loyalty, patriotism and the emotional, intellectual and moral qualities that lead people to put their lives on the line are still hugely admired when people bother to think about them for a moment.
  What sets the Army apart from all other institutions are the generally exceptional qualities of its leadership, but there will be real difficulties in maintaining that for the future. Potential officers will come from a British way of life that is in general intelligent, but rather unbiddable; acquisitive to the verge of selfishness; unfit; agnostic theologically and probably militarily; short-term; and inclined to immobility. Those officers will have to be converted into fit, resilient and inspirational young leaders who will accept discipline, danger, discomfort and separation and can lead in peace—and, most importantly, in adversity—with high professionalism, panache, a sense of fun and real understanding of the people they command.
  For the soldier of today—as it was for his forebears—warfare will continue to represent the ultimate physical and moral challenge. He will encounter extreme danger in rapidly changing circumstances amid conditions of chaos and uncertainty. His skills, the quality of his training, his equipment and all that he has learned will be terribly tested. Such operations are sustained only by those who have had the most vigorous military training. I hope that the Secretary of State will determine that nothing will be allowed to interfere with the remarkable training that our troops receive. It gives them the confidence to remain as they always have been—unbeaten. He must see to it that political correctness does not destroy the ethos of the services, which has given us superb armed forces whose record and unbeaten glory should earn them the right to be left alone.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Everybody agrees with the tribute paid to the defence forces by the hon. Member for Mid--Sussex (Mr. Soames). I should however like to correct something that he said—he probably missed this point during one of his lunch hours: the Treasury no longer works for the Russians and it has changed since his day.
  I particularly want to commend the Government for the proposal to take steps to ratify the establishment of an International Criminal Court, which is an important move forward. It will fill a yawning gap in international provision that has been present since the setting up of the United Nations itself. We have to bring law, order and justice to the regulation of such important international affairs as genocide. The perceived need for an international court grows and grows. Not only trade, but knowledge of the atrocities committed in places such as Rwanda, East Timor and Kosovo has been globalised. The demand for action from an International Criminal Court is present because we know what is going on, wherever in the world it is taking place, and we learn about such crimes through means that were not available in the past. We can no longer rely on ad hoc provisions such as those for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. We need to

  415
  establish an International Criminal Court with respected powers and procedures, and it needs to demonstrate quickly that it is a big hitter so that people such as Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic know that they are not safe. We need such a court not only to deal with present atrocities, but to send a clear message for the future that we have to move on this issue.
  I particularly welcome the fact that the election of the new British Government gave a strong boost to those who have worked so long for the establishment of an International Criminal Court, but there are flaws in the proposal and I hope that the Minister—either today or in writing—can give us the assurance that it will be improved. First, and most importantly, it is crucial that the prosecutor be genuinely independent. Unless he can act on his own initiative and not be subject to the control of the Security Council or anyone else, we will not be able to have full faith in the court. No one must be above the law.
  I shall give a current example. All legislation passed by the House has to be tested against the European convention on human rights. We in Scotland have been bitten by the ECHR because a judgment has been made that the practice of appointing a large number of temporary sheriffs, which grew up under the previous Administration and continued under this one, infringes the ECHR. It was not possible to show that the judges were separate, or distant, from the Government. That judgment has to be taken seriously, but we are considering the establishment of an International Criminal Court, and the decision whether or not to take an initiative may be subject to global politics and the make-up of the Security Council. We must consider that issue.
  We must also consider the provision, which was inserted by a group of nations at a late stage during the proceedings on the ICC, that a nation could be immune from action by the ICC for seven years. That just gives the go-ahead to those who commit genocide. Justice has to be rapid and it has to be done when memories are fresh. If there is a seven-year immunity, it will be a wrecking clause in respect of the carrying out of such justice.
  I would like an assurance from the Government that they are working hard on the proposals for the ICC with those important nations that have not yet signed and ratified the treaty. We must have China, India and Israel on board, but above all we must have the United States.
  Much has been said today about the United States. I am one of those who want the United States to be fully on board: we must not give way to the isolationist tendencies in the US that would seek to take it out of international relations. I am thinking of the republican right wing—the moral majority, as it would call itself, although I do not agree—which seeks to undermine the deal that was done in Cologne, and the deal that was done with the International Monetary Fund in Washington with regard to debt. It approved only half that deal last week. I am also thinking of those who say, "The United States can pay its dues to the United Nations, as long as the family-planning activities of the United Nations Family Planning Association are scrapped". We must involve the United States—or, at any rate, those elements that recognise their international duties, and do not want the US to fall into the hands of the republican right wing.
  416
  I welcome the steps that have been taken to inject an ethical dimension into foreign policy, but I do not mean "ethical dimension" simply in the sense in which we have referred to it tonight. I am also talking about trade policy, and the World Trade Organisation. I welcome the statement made in this morning's Guardian by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development that it was necessary to
  "make the next trade round a development round".
  She said that we needed
  "an agreement to discuss a broad based round, then we can organise to support real gains for the poor."
  That is what makes reality of an ethical foreign policy—when what people eat, and their ability to sell their goods, are looked after by powerful countries that can ensure that the terms of trade are fair.
  The Select Committee on International Development has recently spent a good deal of time considering the issue of sanctions. I hope that, over the next year, the Foreign Office will also devote a lot of time to considering how we are to implement a system of punishment, or discipline, to be applied to rogue nations, that will put an ethical dimension into the heart of its activities. Many of us feel uncomfortable about condemning leaders, wherever they are in the world—I will not single any out—against whom we take sanctions, in the knowledge that, as a consequence of our actions, the populations involved may experience the same horrors as they experienced under those leaders.
  We talk a great deal, saying that we must do something. It is striking that, in regard to sanctions, the United Nations does not seem to have a brain: it does not seem to have the research capability to specify the sanctions that should be employed in the relevant circumstances. It is offensive that Saddam Hussein and Milosevic should become wealthier while we are punishing them. We have not devoted enough attention to financial sanctions, and we have not ensured that, when we impose sanctions on countries, the outcome does not punish those who have already suffered heinously at the hands of brutal masters.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be extremely brief.
  I listened to the Queen's Speech with a certain amount of dismay, because some of it sounded to me like a party political broadcast. I felt that whoever had drafted it had not paid enough respect to the Queen's dignity, or to the Queen's English.
  I want to concentrate on defence, and to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). A prelude to this debate was a remarkable documentary drama shown on BBC television over the past two nights, called "Warriors". It demonstrated, most powerfully, the new dimension of soldiering—the situations in which our young men find themselves, the horrors that they witness, their courage and their dedication. I walk out of most movies about the wars in which I was involved, but this was exceptional. It was truthful—at least as truthful as any news reports of the time, including my own.
  Having seen the real soldiers, I often ask myself, "Where do we find such people?", and beyond that, "How do we treat them?" Do we treat them well enough? Is the duty of care as it should be? My experience, especially in

  417
  recent years, suggests that that is not the case, which is why I welcome the legislation concerning military discipline. It is about time that soldiers enjoyed the same human rights, within the military discipline, as civilians. It is about time we ended the situation in which soldiers, especially officers, tend to be arrested in the most high-profile and demeaning circumstances. They are court-martialled, and, following their acquittal, their careers lie in ruins.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for Defence is present, because I want to tell him that he has a problem with his police force. There are more than 30 police forces in the country, and the least accountable is that of the Ministry of Defence. It is not highly regarded by the armed forces, or by other police forces. Its procedures are unjust, and it is apparently unaccountable. I wish the Secretary of State's officials to look at the minutes of the meetings of the Ministry of Defence police board over the past two years, in order to establish which officers did not attend and which officers did not send deputies. I think that these are important matters. I have raised a specific case repeatedly in the House, and I shall raise it again.

  Problems of discipline are especially acute at times of severe overstretch, and this is a time of severe overstretch. I suggest to the Secretary of State that a new measure, or index, of that overstretch might well be provided by statistics that he may not have, but should acquire. I refer to the divorce rate among service men and women, particularly soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the rate is going through the roof, especially in engineering and reconnaissance regiments and medical units, which have had to bear the greatest burden in peacekeeping and peace enforcement. That burden has been increased by the commitment in Kosovo.
  A certain theory, or doctrine, seems to have been taking hold. It seems to be believed that there is such a thing as a cost-free military operation—that we can intervene and change circumstances on the ground with no casualties to ourselves. It is true that, between March and June, none of the air crews involved in that aerial bombardment suffered so much as a twisted ankle; but that was at a dreadful cost on the ground. We were bombing from so high up that it was sometimes difficult to tell the difference between a tank and a tractor, and, in some cases, the chosen targets were deliberately civilian. Examples were a television station, a car factory, and bridges. That is against the Geneva conventions.
  I commend to the House a remarkable article by a remarkable man in today's Daily Telegraph. The man is Lord Deedes, a front-line journalist 25 years my senior. I was with him in Kosovo in September. We toured the broken villages and the minefields, and we discovered, among other things, that most of the casualties—most of them were civilians at the time—were victims not of Serbian mines, but of NATO cluster bombs. Fourteen thousand of those cluster bombs are lying on the ground in Kosovo. Even the manufacturers admit that there is a 5 per cent. failure rate if they are dropped from the optimal height of 3,000 ft; if they are dropped from 15,000 ft and above, the failure rate is much greater. What those instruments of death and destruction have is the quality of aerially sown anti-personnel mines. Before we become involved in a moral debate about that, perhaps the MOD might ask, "Are we happy about using a weapon that does not work, that kills civilians, and that kills"—in the case of the two Gurkhas—"our own soldiers as well?"
  418
  When our weapon systems work, when the duty of care is exercised, when someone has got a grip on the Ministry of Defence, when our soldiers are fairly treated, and when we have a quality of direction of armed forces that matches the quality of the armed forces themselves, I shall believe that we have really made some progress.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am aware that many hon. Members have been present throughout the debate. If every speaker now takes his full 10-minute allocation, I shall disappoint several others, so I hope that the example shown by the last two speakers will be borne in mind.
  8.19 pm
  Joan Ruddock: A third of my constituents have ethnic minority origins, with large populations from the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent and west Africa. Many seek my help with immigration and nationality problems, but others lobby me about the conditions in the countries from which they came originally. Sade Akinsanya, from the local Oxfam group, came to see me last Friday. Before that, I had representations from the local branch of the World Development Movement.
  Also last week, I was privileged to meet a group of Indian farmers who were in the UK courtesy of the ActionAid charity and Iceland, the food retailer. They had come to lobby Ministers about the forthcoming World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. They were poor farmers practising traditional agriculture and providing much needed food within sustainable local economies. It is they, like many of my constituents' relatives back home, who are on the receiving end of the WTO agreements. What they and their supporters in ActionAid, the World Development Movement, Oxfam and others are saying clearly is that, thus far, trade liberalisation has been the equivalent of an unequal bargain. Many developing countries have undertaken substantial liberalisation under structural adjustment programmes, but developed countries have not reciprocated.
  Implementation of the Uruguay round means that the average tariff on imports from the least developed countries into the industrialised countries will be 30 per cent. higher than the average tariff on imports from other industrialised countries. Moreover, specific promises by the developed world have not been kept. Quota restrictions on textiles were supposed to be removed from 33 per cent. of imports by 2001, yet the United States and the European Union are likely to remove restrictions on a mere 5 per cent. of those products of importance to developing countries by that date.
  Another specific and vital promise has been entirely forgotten. The 1994 Marrakesh decision recognised that trade liberalisation was likely to increase food import prices for the poorest. Assistance was promised to net food-importing developing countries and to the least developed countries if food price instability and higher food import bills resulted from falls in food aid and subsidised food imports. Yet, even when cereal prices rose by 68 per cent. in 1995–96, no action was taken.
  That is the background to the Seattle talks: developing countries are losing up to $700 billion in annual export earnings as a result of trade barriers, while the United

  419
  States support for its own agricultural sector alone still runs at about $25 billion, and that of the EU runs at around $85 billion. None of that will be news to Ministers. I welcome the commitment that was made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, if the UK Government were able to determine it, there would be a strong development focus at the talks.
  The Government have much of which to be proud, particularly the leadership of Ministers on debt relief to the poorest, but implementing the agreements is costing developing countries dear. As a World bank study for the joint WTO-World bank conference in Geneva this September found:
  "implementing WTO agreements could cost more than a year's development budget for the very poorest countries, often for little benefit."
  That must give the House cause for concern. Trade is at the heart of our international relations. It is the means by which countries can lift themselves out of poverty and military conflict can be lessened, but trade liberalisation that is carried out too quickly can wreck fragile markets and distort fledgling economies.
  The scope of the agenda at Seattle is crucial. The UK position is in favour of a comprehensive round, which Ministers believe will offer the best chance of making progress in sectors such as agriculture. However, development non-governmental organisations argue that WTO members should adopt a much more limited development-focused agenda. I am sure that compromise can be found, but, whatever the agenda, the fundamental imbalances already observed in implementing the Uruguay round must be addressed.
  A commitment to review progress on liberalisation of trade in agriculture and services already exists. I urge Ministers to press for such a review of the impact of existing WTO agreements on developing countries before there is further liberalisation. WTO agreements should promote development and poverty reduction. The international development targets that have been fully endorsed by the Government provide us with the key benchmarks on which the efforts of the WTO should be judged.
  There is a need to review the trade-related intellectual property rights—TRIPs—agreement. Article 27.3(b) of the agreement requires WTO members to provide intellectual property rights over plants and animal varieties. Developing countries believe that the review of the life patent provisions should be substantive in the light of recent developments.
  Saving, exchanging and selling seeds has been the right and practice of subsistence farmers throughout the developing world for centuries. It is the basis of sustainable communities and food security for the poorest. Although the WTO agreements permit the development of a sui generis system as an alternative to patents, there is no agreement on what that means. As a consequence, developed countries have rushed headlong into patenting, with the result that the Governments of the south are bogged down financially and technically in implementing WTO agreements. India, for example, has a backlog of 30,000 patents.
  A rash of so-called biopiracy cases has come to light, the most notorious of which concerns basmati rice, one of India's fastest growing exports. Basmati is unique to the
  420
  Punjab border regions between India and Pakistan, yet, in September 1997, the Texas-based Rice Tec Inc was granted a United States patent on basmati rice lines and grains. The variety on which Rice Tec has gained a patent has been devised simply by crossing Indian basmati rice with a semi-dwarf variety. Small wonder that the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in India calls that a clear case of biopiracy—a theft of the collective intellectual biodiversity heritage of Indian farmers, a theft from traders and exporters whose markets are being stolen, and a theft of the name "basmati" which describes the aromatic nature of that rice.
  Those issues are crucial to our wider commitment to an ethical foreign policy and justice for the world's poorest. While the lead Department in these matters is the Department of Trade and Industry, the UK's unique position in the Commonwealth and Labour's good record on aid lead many developing countries to look to Foreign Office Ministers to hear their case.
  As ActionAid argues in its food rights campaign briefing:
  "The liberalisation of trade is putting enormous pressure on developing countries to intensify their agriculture to produce for export, resulting in a bias against small farmers in favour of larger producers and agribusinesses. Trade liberalisation is being accompanied by a growing number of hungry people … and marginalisation of the rights of the poor over land, seed and traditional knowledge."
  The agenda at Seattle will determine the framework within which those problems will be reduced or increased. I urge the Government to hear the case being made by developing countries and development NGOs and to do whatever they can through their good offices in the European Union to ensure that the WTO does not remain, in Oxfam's words, "loaded against the poor".
  8.29 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: A speech by the Foreign Secretary is always an entertaining occasion and today's was no exception, particularly when he expounded the merits of his ethical foreign policy. His speech was so full of contradictions, inconsistencies and laughable hypocrisy that it was difficult to know whether it was a Rory Bremner Foreign Secretary's speech or the real thing. Sad to say, we know that it is the real thing. Our country is suffering from a credibility gap in the conduct of its foreign affairs because of the Foreign Secretary's consistent harping on two themes: first, the so-called ethical foreign policy, and secondly an obsession with the European Union and all its works.
  I found it extraordinary that a Government proclaiming an ethical foreign policy should lay the red carpet out to the extent that they did to President Jiang Zemin of China and pay so little attention to the issue of Tibet and the liberties of Tibetans and freedom-loving people in the People's Republic of China. On Kosovo, our Government were firm and resolute and prepared to take military action supposedly in support of human rights, yet in Chechnya, where there are no human rights issues involved and the people are similarly determined to decide their own affairs, the Russians can get away with murder—literally—on a mass scale and with the use of weapons of mass destruction. When I asked the Foreign Secretary whether it was appropriate in the circumstances for the west to continue to give credits on a large scale, I was told that were we not to do so we would risk default

  421
  by the Russians on western loans. The inference is that we are giving the Russians carte blanche. The more that they prosecute their murderous actions in Chechnya, the more credit from the west they will need and the greater the danger of default will become.
  That is a deplorable foreign policy, giving the impression that the Russians have a free hand in what their military regard as their natural sphere of influence. The Foreign Office may regard countries or ethnic areas in the Russian Federation as fair game for military operations by the Russian armed forces, but it is a small step for the Russian military to take that logic further and pose a threat to the Baltic states and other former constituent republics of the old Soviet Union. I hope that the Government will increase their efforts to support Ukraine and build up a fruitful relationship with it. I was surprised that the Foreign Secretary failed to express his appreciation in his speech of the re-election of President Kuchma.
  I was equally surprised that the Foreign Secretary failed to mention Latin America. Perhaps he thinks that the apprehension of an 82-year-old sitting senator in his London hospital bed is a substitute for an effective foreign policy. Better to fight the cold war in Chile of 26 years ago than to do something about the extremely hot war in Colombia today, which is causing mass misery and the deaths of thousands in a campaign by Marxist guerrillas and narco-traffickers, which is a menace not just to the preservation of democracy in Colombia, but to security in the region.
  The Foreign Secretary's speech was a sorry performance, and so was the text to which he was speaking. I shall quote just one sentence from the Gracious Speech. It says that the Government
  "will promote the enlargement of the Union, support co-operation in the fight against cross-border crime and work to improve the effectiveness of the European Union's foreign and security policy and its development programmes."
  Those are all ostensibly laudable objectives and I hear Labour Members saying "Hear, hear" in loud approbation. However, any close examination of what the Government are about will make the deficiencies of their policies plain.
  On enlargement, it is noticeable that 10 years after the Berlin wall came down and eight years after countries such as the Baltic states and Ukraine regained their independence, there is no significant progress towards enlargement of the European Union. It remains the rich man's protectionist club, as demonstrated admirably in the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
  The common agricultural policy makes it too expensive easily to admit the applicant countries of eastern Europe. The common fisheries policy causes apprehensions, as we are worried that the Polish and Latvian fishing fleets will make further depredations on the common resource which is our waters. There is also the question of European law being sovereign and supreme within the EU, which means that the harmonisation process is difficult to achieve.
  The ultimate obstacle is that applicant countries must meet the conditions necessary to join the European single currency. This country, which has one of the most buoyant economies in western Europe and the existing European Union, finds it hard enough to meet the five criteria set down by the Chancellor for admission to the
  422
  single currency. How much harder it must be for the poorer and less-developed countries of eastern and central Europe.
  Two aspects of the common foreign and security policy cause me profound apprehension. Many would not develop these arguments, but I will face them head on. First, the corpus juris with which the Government are flirting—ostensibly with the laudable objective, again, of preventing cross-border crime—would, I fear, provide a precedent for interference in the law and order policies of member states.
  Secondly, the creation of a European intervention force—adumbrated at St. Malo by the Prime Minister and his French counterpart, and developed at the European Council of 15 November by the Secretary of State for Defence and his European counterparts—could provide the means for intervention by a European military force in another member of the EU to try to prevent it from seceding or pursuing policies which the EU as a whole believed to be inimical to its interests.
  I have grave doubts about a Euro corps, over and above those so well expressed by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford--on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). They made plain the degree to which the development of such a corps into a separate entity, pursuing separate political objectives from those of the Atlantic alliance as a whole, could diminish the credibility of NATO.
  Another aspect of European defence collaboration is supposed to be in armaments, but here, too, I must urge caution on the Government. We need the tools to provide that European element to NATO's intervention forces, but we do not have them. We do not have the heavy lift, and many significant joint European programmes—such as the common new generation frigate, the multi-role armoured vehicle and other similar projects—have proved to be costly failures.
  I urge the Government not to be too excited by the prospect of a European defence agency, but to put British industry first and to make sure that we as a country make a cost-effective contribution to the industrial defence base of our continent—and to do so in partnership with the United States just as much as with Europe.
  8.39 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I begin by joining all those who have paid tribute to the diplomatic services and to the British armed forces and their families. I share the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the current shortfall in the British armed forces and the strains that that can place on the forces and their families.
  The Government inherited armed forces that the previous Government had reduced by nearly a third, and they are making every effort to make up that shortfall through recruitment. I should be interested to hear what current commitments and interventions the Conservatives suggest we withdraw our forces from. I believe that developing a greater European defence capability will take some of the pressure off the British armed forces through greater commitment and action from our European partners.
  I want to tackle some of the myths being propounded about a European peacekeeping force, the European security and defence identity and European defence

  423
  capability. My understanding is that we are talking about a rapid reaction force, not a standing army; that the force would be convened by the agreement of all the countries involved within six to eight weeks; that it would be assembled only in times of agreed crisis and would therefore be very different from the current Franco-German Euro corps; and that the commitments would be made clearly within the framework of NATO.
  It is time for us to act and to do what the Americans have long asked us to do: to deliver a greater European defence commitment to NATO and to European crisis intervention and peacekeeping, and to tackle the unacceptable situation that Kosovo highlighted and the unacceptable fact that, after five months' deployment, KFOR is only now reaching its full complement of 50,000 troops.
  We all tend to focus on complaints and criticisms of the world as it is, but it is incumbent on us all to recognise the tremendous achievements of the past 50 years, including the establishment of the United Nations and its charter for human rights; the founding, operation and effectiveness of NATO and the role that it has played in the cold war and since the fall of the Berlin wall; and the formation of a European Union that, along with NATO, is seen by many countries as providing real hope of peace and prosperity for the millions of people in Europe whose experience throughout this century has been primarily of living in fear and with conflict. Our challenge must be to build on that.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to modernising the United Nations and making the Security Council more effective and representative. Everyone agrees, and has agreed for some time, that reform is needed. I hope that one of the positive outcomes of Kosovo will be that it will act as a catalyst, and that the talking will stop and action will take its place. I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in wanting reform of the Security Council and discussion about the changes that are needed to the international law on intervention.
  I very much welcome the lead that the Government have taken towards the establishment of a permanent international court and the fact that a Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech to ratify it. I hope that we will all use our contacts with colleagues in other Parliaments to encourage them to do the same. I hope that, in particular, the United States of America will be encouraged to sign up to and ratify an agreement on a permanent international court and—dare I say it—to pay its outstanding debt to the United Nations.
  In connection with the attempts to develop an effective UN peacekeeping force, I also welcome the standby agreement that Britain has entered into, which earmarks forces that are prepared, in principle, to provide an emergency peacekeeping force. Other countries have already done likewise, and I hope that more will join them.
  We have all recognised that, however effectively our armed forces have prepared, and however well they work together through partnership for peace, UN peacekeeping and other initiatives, it is politicians, whether on the UN Security Council, the EU Council of Ministers or in national Parliaments, who hold the key to choosing
  424
  whether we have unity and inaction in the face of genocide, as was the case with Rwanda, or division and regional action, as was the case with Kosovo.
  That leads me to the issue of the European security and defence identity and the common foreign and security policy. By developing an effective European defence capability, we will strengthen NATO, not weaken it. Why should we expect the United States to bear the brunt of dealing with the conflicts and ethnic tensions that have developed in Europe over decades, if not centuries? It is time for us to deliver more European defence capability and to make the ESDI a reality. There could not be a better time than now, as we move into the next century and recognise the shift of focus from common defence to collective intervention. Our military will need not only professional military skills, but—as the BBC series "Warriors" showed so effectively—the skills of diplomacy, law enforcement, building, engineering and humanitarian relief.
  I welcome the suggestion that the time is right to consider a Europe-wide defence review and to bring together all the separate reviews that are taking place. We must promote greater co-ordination and co-operation, not the narrow nationalism and isolationism promoted by the shadow Defence Secretary in his recent speech to the US congressional committee on international relations.
  I shall conclude by quoting the Secretary-General of NATO, who said:
  "ESDI does not mean 'less US'—it means more Europe, and hence a stronger NATO. Strengthening Europe's role in security is about re-balancing the transatlantic relationship in line with European and American interests."
  Let us build on the partnerships developed in the past 50 years and ensure that, when we leave this century, we leave behind the millions of deaths that have occurred through conflicts and move into a peaceful and more prosperous future for all.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I wish to draw out the aspects of the Gracious Speech on the ethical foreign policy and relate them to the control of instruments of torture. A few years ago, the Foreign Secretary told us, in reply to a written question, that the Government were
  "committed to preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture".
  He added that he would
  "take the necessary measures to prevent the export or the transhipment from the UK"
  of, among other things, leg-irons, gang chains and shackles. He continued:
  "We are examining how to…ban the manufacture and possession"
  of those items, and said that the Government
  "sought views on the extent to which any new legislation should seek to control trafficking…and brokering of such deals."— [Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c.65–66W.]
  That was two years ago. Yet only last week, British-made leg-irons could be purchased openly in the United States and on the internet. It is a tale of two or perhaps three companies: the Hamburger Woollen company and the Hiatt-Thompson company, both of the United States, and the United Kingdom's Hiatt, of Birmingham.

  425
  The Hamburger Woollen company is a specialist in police equipment, and has been since 1940. It advertises for sale equipment supplied by Hiatt-Thompson, which claims to have been established in 1780, and specialises in nickel-plated steel heavy-duty leg-cuffs, with heavy-duty 14-in chains, and lead chains, belly chains, leg and handcuff connectors and chains. Those instruments of torture are distributed in America by Hiatt-Thompson.
  Although Hiatt-Thompson is a separate company from Hiatt of Birmingham, it proudly claims to have been "simply the best since 1780"—the very year that Hiatt of Birmingham was established as
  "makers of prisoner handcuffs, felons leg irons, gang chains and collars to the `Trade'".
  The House may be interested to know that the trade referred to was the slave trade.

  When the company was challenged about the presence and provenance of those instruments which, although they are banned in Britain, clearly bear the imprint "made in Birmingham, UK", it said:
  "These are old stock, made in the 1980s."
  However, the New Jersey shop selling the leg-irons said that it had been received in a recent delivery. The leg-cuffs and chains were bright, shiny and seemingly new.
  When Hiatt-Thompson, of the United States, was challenged on the manacles and chains, it claimed that they were made at its own premises, which turn out to be a warehouse that is barely the size of the average high-street shop.
  Thus a British company seems to be manufacturing components of banned instruments and implements of torture—oversized cuffs and separate chains—which, subsequently, are assembled overseas. Moreover, the practice is perfectly legal under current legislation. Customs and Excise officers have seen components in packing cases, but are powerless to intervene in their export. According to the Government's own annual reports on strategic arms exports for 1997 and 1998, outsized handcuffs were exported at least to Egypt, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates.
  It is, therefore, still legal in the United Kingdom to broker leg-irons, gang chains and shackles. It is still legal to make leg-irons, gang chains and shackles in the United Kingdom and to export them, provided that they are in component form. The only legal change since the Foreign Secretary's July 1997 statement has been the change in the wording of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 to include electroshock equipment.
  The House and the public are still waiting for the Government to introduce an effective ban on United Kingdom involvement in the manufacture, brokering and export of instruments of torture. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to tell us that, at last, some progress is being made.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I shall be very brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) wants to speak. The Government Whip has also promised me that, although I have only 10 minutes in which to speak and must hurry, he will not report that my speech was rushed or overlooked major issues.
  426
  Today's debate is on foreign and defence policy. It is often said that people are not particularly interested in that policy sphere, as it does not deal with bread-and-butter issues. However, today's debate—and the increasing amount of correspondence and number of surgery appointments with constituents who are concerned about foreign affairs and international matters reported on television—has demonstrated that foreign and defence matters are becoming increasingly important to our constituents. Young people, especially, recognise that global interdependence rules out isolation as an option. The way in which the Government have worked with international organisations in dealing with some of the difficulties confronting us has the general support of the population.
  The Government's declaration that ethics is central to their foreign and defence policy is important. It is easy to scoff at the idea of an ethical defence or foreign policy. However, it is not particularly helpful to be 100 per cent. pure about such matters. In the real world there is an element of compromise and of trying to do one's best. Taking a cynical view of any political decision, and believing that only 100 per cent. will do, leads to an underestimation of the very real achievements of all Governments, whatever their political party.
  I should like to highlight some of the Government's achievements since they came to power in 1997. Signing the Ottawa treaty and banning land mines was a major step forward. Our role in Kosovo, pursuing humanitarian goals and putting human rights centre stage, is something of which we can all be proud. We now have a code of conduct on arms control, and annual reports are produced about its effectiveness; we have made statements on the restoration of democracy in Pakistan and the importance of the Commonwealth; and we are looking to reform the European Union to make it a more effective organisation for good in the world.
  I do not think that anyone has yet mentioned the nuclear safeguards Bill included in the Queen's Speech, which will put into law international agreements on nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Government have controlled the number of nuclear warheads on Trident submarines.
  We can also be proud of the role of British troops at the forefront of many peacekeeping operations and missions around the world. The way in which our armed forces operate is changing. We no longer live in a time of cold war; our troops will increasingly be sent to places such as Bosnia and Kosovo, as we saw recently, and perhaps, in future, they will be sent to Africa. Many hon. Members have mentioned the stress and strain that the new type of operation places on our troops. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen to the real concerns about the pressures that the new role puts on our troops. Any change in the role of the armed forces must be considered.
  Much has been said about human rights. Again, there are no absolutes. One could ask why the Government talked to China, Indonesia and certain African states and did not impose sanctions. To be fair, all Governments have to make a judgment about how best to promote human rights. One has to make a judgment about China. I think the Government were right to invite the Chinese Premier here, to try to influence him and promote human rights in discussions with him. Not to do that would not have helped the cause of human rights in Tibet or China. Again, it would be easy to take the purist line and say that the Government should not have entered discussions.

  427
  I was pleased to see a mention in the Gracious Speech of the 10th anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I have the honour and privilege to be a parliamentary friend of the United Nations Children's Fund and have travelled with it to Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro. The convention sets important standards by which children should survive, grow and be protected. It offers a yardstick by which we should all be judged. The plight of children around the world moves us all, and we should use the convention and work with international organisations to make a real difference to the lives of those children.
  It is easy to be cynical when we consider all the conflicts around the world. It is easy to feel despondent, and that nothing can be done. As the lines between civilians and combatants are blurred, cynicism becomes even easier. None the less, we must remain optimistic—or else we will merely sit around saying that nothing can be done. I urge the Government to continue to try to put ethics at the heart of their foreign and defence policies. They must continue to promote and encourage human rights. I urge them to work with the international organisations, and to try to modernise the European Union and the United Nations. Only through such organisations can we offer hope to people across the world who desperately need a new world order and a framework for development.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I want to discuss two areas of foreign and defence policy where the Government seek credit but deserve blame: enlargement of the European Union and the handling of the Kosovo crisis.
  I shall be briefer on enlargement than I might have hoped since I must contain my remarks within less than 10 minutes. The next historic function of the EU is its enlargement to the east. It is sad that the EU, the Commission and the Government talk the language of enlargement but engage in policies that make it more difficult. If the poorer, less developed economies of the former Soviet bloc are to become members of an enlarged EU, as we all hope will happen, we have a moral obligation not to erect huge barriers to their entry. High social costs, inflexible labour laws and the single currency are such barriers. At the very least, those barriers will make entry as painful as is humanly possible.
  As Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I am painfully aware that the common agricultural policy is probably the biggest barrier of all to enlargement. Britain along with the Commission has been the strongest advocate of reform but, at Berlin, at the last moment, when our support was most crucial, we gave in, to coin a phrase, to the forces of conservatism. As the final session dragged on into the small hours, the Prime Minister gave in to the French president. His diplomatic and negotiating skills failed him, and that will cost the United Kingdom and Europe dear. That happened despite the pledge in the Gracious Speech that the, Government
  "will promote the enlargement of the Union".
  The very next paragraph of the Queen's Speech discussed the future of NATO, saying that it
  "remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security."
  428
  The speech referred to the need to adapt the alliance to meet the challenges of the new century and said that the Government would work to make the Security Council more effective. How can such claims be taken seriously against the backdrop of the Government's appalling mismanagement of the wretched Kosovo affair?
  A myth is being established on the Labour Benches that the NATO intervention should be treated as a model to be followed elsewhere. It is not so. The myth must be challenged. The intervention in Kosovo should instead be treated as a textbook example of what not to do. I am no apologist for Milosevic and I have only praise for the achievement of our armed forces. Milosevic is an evil man who must be removed from power as soon as possible. Our armed forces performed magnificently.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has made clear, however, an interesting and important document entitled "Kosovo: Law and Diplomacy" by Mark Littman QC confirms that NATO's intervention in Kosovo was unlawful, unnecessary and unsuccessful. If his judgments are correct—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) can contain himself, I shall deal with that in a moment.
  If Mr. Littman's judgments are correct, as I believe them to be, we must never again blunder into this kind of action out of a misguided sense that something must be done. As Littman puts it, respect for international law by countries such as ours is crucial. Without it,
  "we would be back in the condition in which we were 100 years ago when all wars were lawful."
  What message does NATO's flouting of international law send to other states whose behaviour we may want to criticise?
  Could the crisis have been resolved by diplomacy? It seems that it could and should have been solved without the dropping of a single bomb. A negotiated peace was on the table at Rambouillet. As Littman said:
  "At a critical point in the discussions at Rambouillet, NATO abandoned diplomacy in favour of a package of non-negotiable demands contained in a document described by Dr Kissinger as 'a terrible diplomatic document' as a 'provocation' and as 'an excuse to start bombing'."
  The sad truth is that by 23 February this year, a statement issued by the office of the high representative for the Contact Group noted that the efforts of all the parties had
  "led to a consensus on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, including on mechanisms for free and fair elections to democratic institutions, for the governance of Kosovo, for the protection of human rights and the rights of national communities, and for the establishment of a fair judicial system."
  The statement continued by pointing out that the groundwork had been laid for
  "the modalities of the invited international civilian and military presence in Kosovo."
  Even at that most encouraging stage, it seems that the Government and NATO were prepared to wrench war from the jaws of peace by tabling aggressive, non-negotiable proposals for the military aspects of the agreement. Those terms were unreasonable, and NATO must have known that they would be rejected. Indeed, at the end of the bombing, NATO made precisely the type of concessions that it was not prepared even to discuss when the bombing began.

  429
  As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made clear during his impressive speech, the bombing did not make things better for the ordinary people of Kosovo and Serbia. The ethnic cleansing accelerated as a direct response to the war; it continues to this day, although now it is Albanians who are ethnically cleansing Serbs. To say that is not to be an apologist for Milosevic, but to say that the UK's analysis should be sophisticated enough to work out the likely response of an evil man to provocation.
  What is even worse is that the whole situation in the Balkans is now less stable than it was before the bombing, and much less stable than if negotiations had been allowed to run their course. Furthermore, the campaign played fast and loose with our relationship with Russia. The Kosovo Albanians now seek full independence. The risk must be that they will seek union with Albania, forming a greater Albania that could then express an interest—shall we say—in the Albanians of Macedonia. Quite what Greece will make of all that, I think we can safely predict. Only by maintaining a significant military presence in the region for the foreseeable future, can that be prevented—and perhaps not even then.
  That leads to the question of cost. There is a cost to Britain's reputation; to the social, economic, environmental and cultural fabric of Kosovo and Serbia; and to the British taxpayer. That money could have been so much better spent by the Department for International Development; for example, in Orissa or dealing with the street children of Mongolia—whom I saw on a visit there in September.
  We must remember that, previously, the west and NATO had declined to become involved in Sierra Leone, Sudan or Rwanda. The message that we conveyed to the world is that lives in Europe are worth more than those in Africa.
  If the Government believe that they will make the Security Council more effective by ignoring it; that they will ensure that NATO remains the foundation of our defence by discrediting it; and that they can meet the challenges and opportunities of the new century by intervening ineptly in the Balkans, then woe betide us all. Woe betide the armed services especially, who—overstretched and undermanned as they are—look set to bear yet again the burden of the Government's incompetence, in some other, as yet unknown, theatre where the Prime Minister decides that something, no matter how illegal, inappropriate and counter-productive, must be done.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The debate has been lively. As it has not taken the usual form of a debate on the Gracious Speech, because it was split, with defence at the back end and foreign affairs at the front, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer only to those Members who have spoken on defence; otherwise, we shall be here all night.
  Many hon. Members made powerful comments and statements. Not least, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), early in his speech, made a powerful reference to overstretch. I hope to discuss that subject shortly. He said that we were at the delicate point of trying to figure out whether things are doable within the budgets that have been set. I agree that there are considerable doubts about that.
  430
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in a contribution that was short by most standards but no less powerful for that, spoke about the European defence initiative—a subject that I shall discuss later. He made some very clear points about what Strobe Talbott said, to try to place some of the issues, and the way in which they are observed from the United States, in context.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) spoke about the operations of the defence initiative within NATO, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who spoke movingly about political correctness and the fact that, if allowed to travel too deeply into the psyche of the military, it will destroy their capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) also spoke about the defence initiative, and pointed out that it is heading outside NATO.
  There were other speakers, too. I must mention the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who referred to my comments in the United States. It is always good to have publicity. None the less, she did not agree with me, and I promise not to agree with her. On that basis, we can probably move on.
  All in all, we have had a very good debate, as evidenced by many comments on foreign affairs, but those on defence went to the heart of some of the major problems that I wish to mention, such as overstretch, and the issues regarding the Government's policy on NATO and the European defence initiative.
  I do not want to remember for long the experience of listening to the Foreign Secretary today. His speech was not especially good. He missed an opportunity to speak, in line with the Gracious Speech, about what the Government were going to do. Instead, he spent a huge chunk of his speech trying to guess what the Opposition might be doing. He sounded like a man whose greatest fear was the Opposition's return to power.
  The Foreign Secretary made the accusation that, during the Kosovo saga, the Opposition had not supported early deployment into the surrounding region. [Interruption.] In the emergency debate on 11 February, the Opposition's position was made absolutely clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said:
  "The Opposition support the Government in their attempts to find a peaceful solution to this protracted problem. We know that what the Secretary of State announced makes good military sense. It leaves many difficult issues for him and for us."—[Official Report, 11 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 566.]
  I hope that that puts the record straight, so that ludicrous comments are not made about what people are supposed to have said when clear statements were made at the Dispatch Box at the time.
  The new Secretary of State for Defence is now in his place for the first time. This is the first opportunity that either of us has had to debate defence. Defence is probably the most important subject of all—the most important requirement for any Government is the defence of the realm—and we have had no big defence debates in the past six or seven months. We lost two days of defence debates at the end of the last parliamentary Session. Apparently, we had time to discuss vellum, but not time to discuss the defence of the realm. I condemn the Government for that.
  We also had no defence estimates, which are usually produced during the year. There has been no White Paper. We are still trying to figure out where the Government

  431
  are going. Perhaps we do not have a White Paper because the Government have not figured out where they are going, either. Yet, since the last Queen's Speech, our forces have been in new operations in the Gulf, in Kosovo and in East Timor, to mention but three locations. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that we owe our service men, not just in those operations but around the globe, a huge debt of gratitude for the dedication and professionalism with which they carry out their duties. I say that, not just as a politician, but as someone who, previously, in active service positions, had to do politicians' bidding. I know that service men cherish the support that they receive from politicians. I am sure that the House will join me in giving that support.
  I do not want to dwell on what has happened in the past, but the House must consider carefully the strategic defence review, the underlying assumptions that were made when it was introduced and how and on what basis it is constructed. It goes without saying that two of my predecessors made the areas on which we agree—particularly the emphasis on power projection—quite clear. I do not intend to go into detail on that now, because that would simply be to repeat what my predecessors said.
  The Secretary of State for Defence appeared to confirm in a recent GMTV interview that the assumptions made by his predecessor about the forecast level of commitments have not been borne out. Therefore, the whole basis on which the defence review was carried out when the Government took office has now collapsed. The problems associated with overstretch have created a crisis. The Government inherited a position that was, in itself, unsustainable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said in his excellent speech, but they have turned a difficult position into a crisis. Changing the proportion of men on active service from 28 to 47 per cent. will create nothing less than that. Even their current efforts—laudable, it must be said—to reduce overstretch will not make it possible for our forces to sustain operations for a lengthy period.
  The problem is not just about commitments. The Government have met some success with their recruiting initiatives, but retention remains singularly the biggest problem. The armed forces are losing far too many experienced people. Simply replacing them with inexperienced recruits will not help the problem; it will remain just as bad. Each month, we have a net loss of 100 men from the Army, which is the equivalent of two battalions a year. The armed forces face an internal crisis with their most experienced and best men and women leaving; their replacements will not make up the skills gap.
  Part of the problem lies with the basis on which the strategic defence review was conceived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex pointed out, the Government did not enter the review with an open mind. They entered the review process with the Treasury sitting on their shoulder and looking for a significant saving in the defence budget. At the last election, the Conservative Government made it absolutely clear that, if we were re-elected, we would ensure a period of stability and calm for the armed forces. There were no cuts laid down in our
  432
  figures and we would have seen the armed forces through the changes that had already been made.
  The Government came in and initiated the strategic defence review. In essence, they have allowed for savings each year of £685 million from 2001-02. That has put huge pressures on the Army alone. As we have discovered, 18,000 men have been axed from the Territorial Army and many more will find their jobs in jeopardy. However, it is increasingly evident from the figures that the £685 million saving is frankly an optimistic assumption. In reality, in the coming years, even deeper cuts are likely to be imposed on the defence budget.
  The Treasury will take—it has already got its hands on it—a real cut of nearly £1 billion in 2001. It will get its £1 billion regardless of what the Ministry of Defence does and any savings that it makes.
  Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is, in fact, worse than that? It is a saving not just of £600 million, but of £600 million plus 3 per cent. efficiency savings per annum, and those savings are not takeable.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is exactly the point that I am making. The Treasury has already got its hands on nearly £1 billion of savings a year. The Government put forward the figure of £600 million as the net saving, but, to achieve that net figure, savings have to be made through efficiency and on the procurement process, and the forces will have to make significant asset sales.
  I shall deal first with asset sales, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex refers. The Public Accounts Committee has already warned the Department that it is selling off its assets far too slowly to meet its targets. The Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said:
  "The financial contribution underpins operational planning. It must be realised or operational ability will be impaired".
  In its inquiry into the strategic defence review, the Defence Committee said that
  "we remain to be convinced of the realism"
  of the projected levels of receipts from asset sales. The Government have published no figures on that. We have no idea how those sales are meant to proceed or whether they are achieving their targets, but we have a serious sense that there is something wrong with the estimates that were made.
  Furthermore, the House of Commons Library points out that the previous Government set themselves targets on asset sales, but the problem was that they achieved those in double the time in which they had originally planned to make the savings. At least, therefore, the Government may be facing the serious problem that they may not even make the savings on time, and that in turn creates other problems.
  s Squire: I have the statistics that 1 believe that the hon. Gentleman quoted in his speech to the UN congressional committee. They reveal that the proportion of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product spent on defence was 5.2 per cent. in 1985 and had been reduced

  433
  to 2.8 per cent. in 1997, which represents a cut of nearly 50 per cent. under his Government. Would he like to explain that to the House?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that it is easier for Labour Members to discuss what went on before the election because what they are doing now is so bad. The hon. Lady may really think that that cut was too great, but why are this Government cutting the figure even further? The figure that I quoted will be reduced dramatically by her Government's actions under the strategic defence review. That all adds up, but maybe she failed her maths.
  I know that the right hon. and learned Member for North--East Fife was, in part, referring to the smart procurement programme. That programme concerns the way the Government will make significant savings that will allow them to make the net budget saving of some £600 million. Notwithstanding the optimism about that programme expressed by the Minister for the Armed Forces early in the summer, we later saw the premature move of a senior general who said that the planned defence savings from the smart procurement initiative would not be made on time.
  We were promised that smart procurement would generate up to £2 billion in savings, whereas Lieutenant-General Sir Edmund Burton, a Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, was reported as saying that achieving the savings had proved to be a slow process. He is believed to have told civil servants that the big savings envisaged on the timings that were given were simply not possible. What was the Government's response? He found himself moving to another job rather sooner than he had anticipated. The sign of a Government in difficulty is that they try to deal with the messenger but do not deal with the message. The Government will be put under pressure by the costs that they must face up to because they will not make the necessary savings.
  We may be facing a cut to the MOD's annual budget that is much greater than anticipated. Those savings are vital. As I said, the Treasury will be happy whatever happens because it has the money. The real point is how that cut, if it is worse even than the Government's official figure, will affect service families.
  We know, for example, that far too many service families are living in sub-standard accommodation. I understand that some 30,000 MOD homes are now classed as sub-standard. There was to be an extensive refurbishment programme, but we now learn that the likelihood of its going ahead is about zero. The programme is about to be scrapped, and it appears that the reason may be money. Whether or not that is the case, the refurbishment programme for those homes was left in place by the previous Government; it has already begun to slip, and there is a question about whether it will go ahead at all.
  The Sunday papers contained quotes from internal briefing papers produced by Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham. He said that the ambitious plans in the SDR and its supporting essays were in danger of coming to grief for want of resources, and concluded that, unless more resources were forthcoming, any pretence that we are putting people at the heart of our policy and that we have turned over a new leaf must be abandoned. The real issue is how the policy effects families.
  434
  In less than 18 months after the review set the financial position in stone, how can the MOD be having huge difficulty finding the money to sort out accommodation? That is a critical element of a policy for people.
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): What about your policy of sales?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Our policy had at its heart the refurbishment of the homes that this Government are going to curtail.
  I discovered that, in Hohne, the German Government have refurbished a block of flats to house refugees. Our service men are now living in the next-door block in accommodation that is below the standard of that provided for the refugees. I have mentioned the problem of retention. When service men and women find the quality of their family life falling and falling, they can hardly be encouraged to remain in the armed forces.
  There are other programmes, too. We are still waiting to discover when the Government will buy the short-term strategic heavy lift package that was originally anticipated. That seems to have been shelved.
  Probably the single most desperate decision in the strategic defence review was to slash the Territorial Army by some 18,000 men. It goes without saying that those in the TA are bewildered. During a Remembrance day service the other day, they told me that they had never been in more need, that their signalmen are serving in Bosnia and Kosovo, and that some signal regiments could not meet at weekends because their equipment is being used by the Regulars in Kosovo and Bosnia. Some of the TA are needed in Kosovo and Bosnia, and are welcome out there with the Regulars. Yet, the Government seem to be making up policy on the TA as they go along. First, they cut the numbers. Then, before the ink has dried on the paper, they say that they might have to change the entire strategy behind the TA and perhaps deploy it as units due to problems of overstretch.
  Then, with the armed forces under pressure and our service men and women spending less and less time with their families, what does our Foreign Secretary do? He signs a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations that says, "Don't worry because, ultimately, we can produce any level of armed forces that you require." It is a wonderful document. It says all sorts of things about units on 10 days' notice, naval logistic support, amphibious platforms and aircraft carriers—it goes on.
  In a note at the bottom, the memorandum even says that only 10 days' notice is required for three strategic air transport heavy lift aircraft, yet we have not even bought them. That is the absurdity of what the Government are about. It is no wonder that the armed forces ask, "What is this all about?" It is no good the Government saying that such a document is a wish list because they have given an undertaking to the United Nations.
  We have the ridiculous spectacle of the Government playing political games. They are saving money and putting pressure on our armed forces, yet, for political reasons, they take decisions that cost money. For example, the refit of HMS Spartan was condemned by the Defence Committee as not representing value for money, but the work went ahead—only two or three years before it will be taken out of service. In whose constituency did it

  435
  happen to be refitted? The Chancellor of the Exchequer just happened to get the project. Then, there was the transfer of the Army headquarters from York.
  Ms Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The fact is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must know by now that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Through a boundary change, the Government managed to please both the Chancellor and a Labour Back Bencher and I am sure that that suits them very well.
  Ms Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I am not giving way.
  The hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), now the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, received an assurance about the transfer of Army headquarters all the way to Edinburgh. He was told by the Prime Minister that it was all about cost effectiveness and military expediency. However, a document written for the Government by Colonel Curran Snagge reveals that operational efficiency and cost effectiveness were not behind the move. In fact, we know that it was about helping the Government to fight the Scottish National party up in Scotland before the last election. For that, the Government used our service men and women and transferred them up to Scotland.
  The biggest political nightmare that the Government have created is in Europe. I come to that subject at the end of my speech because it shows the nature of the Government: they care nothing about the armed forces, other than as a tool to further their own political ambitions. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, at the 1997 Amsterdam summit the Prime Minister said that Europe's defence should remain a matter for NATO, not the EU. That was apparently the Government's view until October 1998, when the Prime Minister made it clear that he was prepared to drop those long-standing objections.
  At St. Malo and Cologne, the Government joined their European partners in moves to establish European military structures outside the NATO framework. There can be no doubt that there is a strong trend in Europe to create an independent EU defence capability as part of the drive towards a European superstate. Mr. Chirac said:
  "European Union cannot fully exist until it possesses autonomous capacity for action in the area of defence".
  At the time of St. Malo, even though the Government told the Americans not to worry because European defence would not go outside NATO, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said:
  "the development of the European security and defence identity, another pillar of the process of European unification."
  That is the reality. We hear the Government's soft words, but others believe that there is a different agenda.
  The evidence is clear. All the processes that were bound in at Cologne have given a voice to those who would have NATO divided and broken. The Government have said
  436
  one thing and done another: they started out saying that they loved the pound and believed in a defence policy based on NATO; yet, within two years, they have reversed both of those key policies. It is ridiculous for the Government to pretend that their current policy will strengthen NATO, when in fact it will weaken it. The worst part is that they have succeeded in giving power to those in Europe who would break NATO and those in America who would see their country isolated. That is the result of Government policy.
  In conclusion, as I have made clear, our armed forces are in crisis, facing huge pressures and massive cuts. Troops do not know when they will next see their family, or how they are to combine both operational duties and family life. The promised savings are nothing but a wish list—in all probability, they do not exist. Finally, there is a serious problem with the Government; the Foreign Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Defence, set out on a policy that will ultimately divide NATO.
  The epitaph on the Government at the next election will be that they never, ever told the truth, but saw politics first and defence second. The Government will break NATO and break our defence forces before they are finished.
  9.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to have the opportunity to come before the House this evening to make my first speech as Secretary of State for Defence. I have listened with great interest to the various contributions of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House during today's debate.
  The Government are engaged in carrying out the ambitious and radical plans that my predecessor set out last year in the strategic defence review. It is a significant modernisation that affects every aspect of the armed forces as well as those who support them. It is not a quick fix for financial or political reasons, nor is it change for change's sake. It is a far-reaching programme of modernisation that is designed to improve our ability to carry out operations successfully. That is, of course, the test by which everything we do will be judged.
  At the same time, we have been committed to operations as never before. Earlier this year we were heavily involved in Kosovo. I look forward next year to reporting to the House on the results of the various studies currently under way into the lessons that we can learn from that campaign.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make a little more progress, I shall give way to him.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) raised the question of the defence White Paper, which I hope will be published before Christmas.
  I wish to pay tribute to George Robertson, who carried out his duties as Defence Secretary during a difficult time with great authority, clarity of purpose and unswerving commitment to the achievement of a successful outcome. Members who have read the account that he published in October setting out the background to the conflict will realise the extent of what was achieved under his

  437
  leadership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said, he is now in a role where he can continue to contribute to these enormously important matters. I am sure that the House joins me in wishing him well.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have concentrated on European defence. It is important that the House understand what we are proposing, and crucially what we are not proposing. We are not proposing a European army. We are not proposing a standing force with a European badge under European command and exclusively earmarked for tasks agreed within the European Union. That has never been part of our thinking. Only national Governments and national Parliaments have the right to take decisions on how and where national armed forces are deployed. Moreover, we have no intention of carving up security tasks between the European Union and NATO. That would break the link between Europe and north America which is at the heart of the NATO alliance.
  We are proposing that European forces—the forces of fully sovereign nation states acting in co-operation—should make a greater contribution to NATO, and that we should be in a position, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to carry out European crisis management operations, drawing on NATO's assets and capabilities when necessary. What was set out at St. Malo was the need for Europe to make its voice heard in world affairs while contributing to the vitality of a modernised Atlantic alliance.
  Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how in particular the structure that he describes will be different from the already extremely efficient and effective structure of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which has done very well on the past two occasions it has been called upon?
  Mr. Hoon: I can deal with that when I deal with the institutional matters in a moment.
  The Kosovo campaign brought home to us clearly the limits of our existing capability. Our airmen performed with their customary skill and bravery. But the United States provided most of the aircraft and flew most of the missions. On the ground, too, while more than 40 per cent. of the force that first entered Kosovo was British, Europe as a whole was hard pressed to deploy a force amounting to only about 2 per cent. of the 2.5 million troops theoretically available on paper. A number of hon. Members have emphasised that point.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: In a moment.
  We have found that, with all too few exceptions, Europe's armed forces are still structured to meet the predictable requirements of the cold war rather than the complex challenges of the next century. They are hampered by their reliance on national fixed infrastructure, when their forces need instead to be sustainable for long periods in a range of different theatres of operations. In short, they need to be more flexible. It was clear to us even before Kosovo that fundamental change was necessary. We needed to enhance our capability to decide, and enhance our capability to act.
  438
  Our ambition is that the European nations should be able to make foreign and security policy decisions underpinned by credible military capability, and that they should be able to take control of European crisis management operations. To do this, we need new machinery that supports competent defence decision making inside the European Union.
  Mr. Dalyell: The British Army went to war, supposedly, to stop ethnic cleansing. How is it that, as we understand it, 40,000 NATO troops are palpably unable to stop the most brutal ethnic cleansing of the Serbs and the destruction of 70 of their monasteries? Is it true, as I previously asked, that only the Irish Guards do night patrol?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sorry, but I do not recognise the picture portrayed by my hon. Friend. I was in Kosovo in August and I have examined, for example, the crime rates and particularly the murder rates, which have been steadily falling since that time. The murder rate in Kosovo and particularly in Pristina is lower than in certain European capitals, so I do not recognise the picture that my hon. Friend describes.
  I return to the structures for decision making and defence in the European Union. At Berlin in 1996, the North Atlantic Council said that European allies should
  "make a more coherent and effective contribution to the mission and activities of the Alliance as an expression of our shared responsibilities; to act themselves as required and reinforce the trans-Atlantic partnership."
  The alliance further endorsed the concept, and the need to strengthen Europe's contribution, at the Washington summit in April this year.
  We have heard a great deal of what I can describe only as alarmist nonsense from the Opposition on the subject of European defence. If they are right that the European security and defence identity threatens the very existence of NATO, why did all 19 members of NATO, including the United States, sign a statement at the Washington summit welcoming it?
  If the European security and defence identity threatens the very existence of NATO, why did the US deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, say in his speech at Chatham house on 7 October that
  "the US is for ESDI. It's in our interest for Europe to be able to deal effectively with challenges for European security"?
  I was grateful for what was described as the fair reading of that speech by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. I have tried hard to put on it the construction for which the hon. Member for Stratford-onAvon (Mr. Maples) and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) argued, but so far the phrase
  "the US is for ESDI"
  defies any interpretation other than the obvious one.
  Mr. Howard: As I pointed out to the Secretary of State earlier, the speech that Mr. Talbott made drew a distinction between what had been said at Washington and what was said at Cologne. Cologne came after Washington, and what Strobe Talbott said in his speech was that the signals that came out from St. Malo and the signals that came out from Cologne were different from the signals that came out from Washington and Berlin.

  439
  Why does the Secretary of State fail to recognise that glaring concern, which is deeply felt on both sides of the Atlantic?
  Mr. Hoon: Because senior representatives of the United States Administration continue to make fairly basic statements, such as
  "The US is for ESDI".
  It was the previous Conservative Government who signed up to the idea of a European security and defence identity—[Interruption.] That was at Berlin in 1996.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have hon. Gentlemen shouting across the Chamber. It has been a quiet night up till now, so let us continue to have one.
  Mr. Hoon: No prizes for guessing who was Defence Secretary at the time.
  Hon. Members have kept shouting from a sedentary position that that refers to NATO, not the EU. They should remember what they signed up to in the Maastricht treaty. They called for the framing of a common defence policy in the context of the European Union. Right hon. and hon. Members who were part of the Government who signed up for that should remember what they were doing.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: If what the Secretary of State says was so critical to the formation of policy subsequently, why did the Prime Minister come back from Amsterdam crowing about the fact that he had stopped the plans to wind the Western European Union into the European Union, only to allow that to happen at Cologne?
  Mr. Hoon: We clearly recognised the need for Europe to play a more effective part even before the full lessons of Kosovo had been learned. We accepted and have continued to argue for a proposal that the Conservative Government set out when they agreed to frame European defence policy in the context of the European Union.
  Mr. Maples: Do your homework.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman tells me to do my homework, but the policy is established in a European Union treaty, which the previous Government signed. I am sorry to have to make my point so comprehensively, but if the Conservative party opposes the European Union having an autonomous defence capability, why did Chris Patten, the former Conservative party chairman, say in a submission to the European Parliament:
  "What we need are credible military forces that can be brought together quickly and in a flexible manner which would allow the European Union to initiate autonomous operations while avoiding duplication of effort within NATO"?
  The Cologne European Council in June began the process of building necessary structures in the European Union. We shall take further steps at the Helsinki European Council in December. Last week, Defence Ministers from European Union member states met for the first time alongside Foreign Ministers in the European Union's General Affairs Council to discuss plans for
  440
  European defence arrangements. We are beginning to establish the defence culture that will be needed to allow Europe to fulfil its security and defence responsibilities.
  It is not simply a matter of organisational structures, however. As my predecessor was rightly fond of pointing out, it is not much good deploying a wiring diagram in a crisis. It is important that we should have at our disposal forces of the right quality and in the right quantity. Much of the responsibility for reform lies with individual nations. However, the United Kingdom and Italy have launched an initiative, which will result in establishing concrete performance goals for improved and strengthened Europe-wide and national defence capabilities.
  Again, we look for progress at Helsinki. We want member states to commit themselves to deploying forces in sufficient numbers, with the right skills and equipment, in time to make a difference and to sustain them in theatre until their job is done.
  Sir Peter Emery: The Secretary of State makes a great point of saying that the Americans are happy about what is happening. However, only last week in Amsterdam, 12 Members of Congress from both the Republican and Democrat parties made it clear that they were worried about their role if Western European Union became part of the European Union. Lord Robertson spoke and made it clear that many worries had to be tackled when dealing with the seven nations that are not part of the European Union. What are the Government doing about that?
  Mr. Hoon: The United States is a vigorous democracy. I do not pretend that the right hon. Gentleman will not find Members of Congress who have doubts and anxieties. A wide range of opinions is expressed on the Hill in Washington. Sadly, some of those opinions are stirred up by the scaremongering of the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. Nevertheless, the United States Administration have made it clear that they support ESDI. I have quoted the views of a senior member of that Administration.
  In a national context, we have also continued to improve the way in which our forces work with each other. We have formed a joint helicopter command and a new air assault brigade; we have established the joint nuclear, biological and chemical defence regiment, and set up a joint doctrine centre. Those are key steps in implementing the strategic defence review.
  Of course, the SDR was not just about the purely operational front. It also aimed to bring about a step change in the way in which we organise ourselves, and in the efficiency with which we acquire and support equipment. To that end, we have launched the new Defence Procurement Agency and set up a new logistics organisation.
  In addition, we are committed in Bosnia and the Gulf, as well as in Kosovo, East Timor and elsewhere. I make no apologies for British forces being committed in that way. There is crucial work to be done to safeguard our interests, and to make the world a safer place. We must be involved in that work. We should be proud that we are able to do that. We cannot stand idly by in the face of the appalling behaviour of Slobodan Milosovic and Saddam Hussein.

  441
  I commend to the House the excellent work of the Indict campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), about which she spoke so well.
  Those Conservative Members who suggested that we are overcommitted and have been involved in too many operations must answer a simple question: which operation or operations should we have refused? Until they can answer that basic question, they cannot complain about our levels of commitment. Our armed forces have responded magnificently to all that we have asked of them. We might have preferred to ask less, but we have had no choice about being involved. Our armed forces recognise that, and it is unfortunate that too many Opposition Members fail to do the same.
  Mr. Tom King: I am not sure whether that last remark was meant to be offensive to the House and those of us who care very much about the armed forces. The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that the armed forces always will respond magnificently to any charge and request made of them, but the House, some of us who have knowledge of the armed forces, some of us who have served in the armed forces and some of us who have friends who are still serving know that we are on the edge of a precipice. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has only recently taken over this tough responsibility, but the armed forces will not be able to respond—or they will respond in an untrained, ill-equipped, inadequate manner and we will put people in harm's way because they will not be able to cope with the challenges that they face—unless he shows that he understands how difficult the problem of overstretch is.
  Mr. Hoon: I was about to deal with overstretch. I certainly was not being offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, but Conservative Members have questioned the commitments in which the British armed forces are engaged. Unless those Members—I am not referring to him—can say which commitments we should not be involved with, they are simply making a rhetorical flourish and are hardly deserving of concern.
  I have consistently acknowledged that overstretch is a problem—I listened carefully to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—which is why the Government are prepared to take the tough decisions needed to reduce those commitments. We do not need lectures on overstretch from a party that left the Army 5,000 under strength in the first place and cut the defence budget by a third when in power. We are addressing overstretch by reducing deployed force levels wherever we can, consistent with security and our international obligations. In Bosnia, our force levels will go down from more than 4,000 now to about 3,300 by the end of the year. In Kosovo, we have recently announced changes that will bring home more than 1,000 people over the next few months, and we have reduced our force levels in the Gulf from a peak of 3,000 to 1,200.
  All those measures are significant in respect of returning our men and women to more stable patterns of service and family life, and I entirely agree with the warm tribute paid by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex to the tremendous contribution made by service families; but I again counter the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith): the
  442
  refurbishment of service homes will go ahead. We have looked hard at the conditions of service of those who are deployed and have introduced a number of significant improvements, including a fourfold increase in the time for telephoning home and better arrangements for leave on return from operations. All that will help to reduce the demands on our people and the stresses and strains that they face.
  There has been some misleading talk lately about the nature of overstretch. Recruiting to all three services is satisfactory and that to Army is at its highest level for nine years. It was sometimes said that it was difficult to recruit to the armed forces when the economy was doing well, but we now have a healthy economy as well as healthy service recruiting. That can only be because people's image of our activities is, quite rightly, attractive and positive. At the same time, rates of retention, particularly in the Army, have been disappointing. The armed forces, by comparison with other careers, rely on people serving for comparatively brief periods, so there must always be a throughput. However, more people are leaving earlier than we would wish. We are already addressing that issue and are beginning to see signs of improvement.
  There has been much misleading talk also about our reserve forces. We are absolutely committed to having high-quality reserves that are useful and used. The point is not what size the reserves are on paper, as so many Conservative Members seem to believe, but the punch that they can deliver and our ability and willingness to deploy them in support of our operational objectives. We have seen reservists playing a full role in former Yugoslavia, where up to 10 per cent. of our deployed forces are from the reserves. We have improved our call-out arrangements and are looking hard at deployability. In that, as in all other matters, we will be judged on our ability to deliver operational capability where it is needed. The reserves will play a big part in that.
  Conservative Members say that they want to return the Territorial Army to its former role; in other words, they want to take the TA backwards, not forwards. They want to restore the old role of the TA in defending the United Kingdom against a Soviet invasion. We want to give the TA a new, much more significant role as a fully integrated part of the regular Army, in Bosnia, in Kosovo or elsewhere.
  In regard to numbers, the Conservative party says that it wants to restore the TA to its pre-SDR establishment. Even the Conservative Government did not do that: just as they left the regular Army undermanned, they left the TA undermanned.
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Mr. Hoon: I will not give way.
  I have mentioned a range of deployments. It is important for us not to forget that we are deployed here in the United Kingdom as well. We still have 15,000 troops in Northern Ireland, and I am confident that the House will join me in paying tribute to their work.
  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement to the House about political progress in Northern Ireland, and I join

  443
  him in wishing the process well. As he said, the security situation in the Province has been transformed since the Good Friday agreement. We will, of course, watch developments closely, but our forces will remain at the level required to preserve the peace, and to support the civil powers in maintaining law and order.
  So far, I have described our participation in operations. We are always able and willing to act with great force when that is necessary, as we have shown again this year; but across the world the wide-ranging abilities and experience of the armed forces are being put to good use to promote security and stability in other ways.
  We are actively engaged in helping to restructure armed forces around the world in ways that allow them to play their full part as a component of a democratic society. That is what we mean by defence diplomacy. We are well placed to do that work: the professionalism of our people is rightly held in the highest regard. Our work will complement the excellent work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
  We are expanding our outreach programme of bilateral co-operation and assistance. For example, following the return to civilian rule in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, we are actively engaged—along with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—in reforming the security communities in both countries. In the United Kingdom, we launched a defence diplomacy scholarship scheme last month to help overseas officers and officials to develop the skills needed to lead and operate democratically accountable armed forces.
  444
  This is an enormously exciting time to be involved in such activities. The revitalisation of international organisations, and the greater willingness of many countries to play a part, mean that when crises occur the international community can act swiftly and decisively to halt aggression, to maintain or restore peace or to deal with human suffering. We are fully engaged not just in participation in such operations, but in developing the institutional framework that will ensure that we never return to global confrontation.
  Let me make clear what a privilege it is to work alongside the men and women of the armed forces, and the men and women who support them. I know that the whole House will join me in recording its appreciation of their skill and courage, their talents and abilities and the support given to them by their families. As we look to the future, they are our greatest asset.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Social Security Committee
    That Miss Julie Kirkbride be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Laurence Robertson be added to the Committee.
    Treasury Committee
    That Dr. Vincent Cable be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Edward Davey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Chechen Hostage Victims
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: On 8 December last year, the remains of three British subjects—Mr. Peter Kennedy, Mr. Rudolph Petschi and Mr. Darren Hickey—along with those of a New Zealander, Mr. Stanley Shaw, were found on the roadside in Chechnya. The four had been kidnapped in Grozny, the Chechen capital, on 3 October that year, and held in unspeakable horror. The four men had been starved, regularly beaten, and then one night woken from their sleep, kicked, beaten about the head, taken outside and beheaded. Their end was videoed. I am sure that the House will want to extend its condolences to their families. Chechnya is still in our thoughts, but, as was mentioned in the previous debate, the events there which relate to our country are still very much in the thoughts of those families.
  I shall concentrate on one of those hostages, Mr. Peter Kennedy.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Mr. Keetch: Mr. Kennedy lived in Herefordshire. I shall discuss the reasons why he went to Chechnya, the conditions that he expected, the reasons why his stay was so long delayed and what happened after he was kidnapped and eventually murdered.
  On 9 December, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), answered my private notice question. He said in the presence of the Prime Minister that a company called Granger Telecom
  "communicated with those responsible for taking the hostages".
  He also said:
  "Granger Telecom took the lead on the ground"—[Official Report, 9 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 322–4.]—
  during the negotiations, but my constituent, Mr. Peter Kennedy, was not working for Granger Telecom, as I believed during that debate. He was working as a self-employed sub-contractor for one of Britain's largest companies, British Telecom. It is BT's involvement in this tragic affair that I wish to highlight.
  On 9 July 1998, Granger Telecom wrote to our ambassador in Moscow asking for support in installing a mobile phone network in Chechnya, but it stated in the letter that, although it could provide the internal system, it could not link that system to the outside world. That had to be part of a separate contract—an international gateway. It was BT that, against stiff competition from Deutsche Telekom, finally won the contract.
  The Government were aware from July that BT was involved. They were told again of BT's involvement at a meeting with Granger Telecom in September and told later that month that a BT engineer would have to travel to Chechnya. The first question is: why at no stage during the private notice question debate was BT's involvement not stated by the Government?
  446
  I can understand why BT wanted to keep its involvement in the affair quiet. It understood the risk of Chechnya. When it bid for and won the contract, it knew that two British aid workers, Camilla Carr and John James, by some tragic chance also constituents of mine, were being held in Chechnya.
  BT nationally had what it described as an on-going relationship with Control Risks, a leading international security company. BT had already decided that it did not want to send one of its own staff to Chechnya. Indeed, it tried to train Granger Telecom staff to install the link instead, but to no avail. Therefore, BT nationally, a company that recently announced profits of £105 per second, decided to pass the decision of how to install the international link to its satellite station at Madley in Herefordshire in my constituency.
  After being advised not to sent its own staff, BT in Herefordshire was asked to find someone else. Enter Mr. Peter Kennedy, a former member of staff who had taken early retirement from BT some years earlier. The staff at Madley in Herefordshire were as disturbed as anyone at what subsequently happened. They knew Peter and, in giving him that job, they thought that they were doing him a favour.
  Peter had done some work overseas before. He had been to Russia on several occasions. He was approached to do the work. He was told that it would take just four days and he was offered £350 a day, plus expenses, to do it. When he was told that he would get a bodyguard, he joked about it to friends and to his wife. He thought that he was going back to Russia.
  On 22 August, Peter Kennedy agreed to go, but I believe that he never knew the full risk that he was taking. I believe that he was not told exactly what the Foreign Office had told Granger Telecom, what Granger Telecom had told BT and what BT knew from its sources. That information was never passed down. One e-mail that was sent to him before he left said:
  "They say it is safe enough, but very boring".
  Another e-mail that was recovered from Peter Kennedy's computer after he died and had been sent for him to read when he returned said:
  "just a bit of info as to what was going on whilst you were sunning yourself in Grozny."
  I have spoken to senior managers and ex-managers at Madley, who tell me privately that BT nationally never told them about the risks that Kennedy was taking. We must ensure that if our major companies send their staff—semployed directly or indirectly—overseas, they fulfil their responsibility to pass on Foreign Office advice, particularly if people are being sent to a dangerous place. If they then choose to go, fair enough, but Peter Kennedy's ex-colleagues, his widow, his daughter and I firmly believe that he never understood the dangers, in which case it was wrong for him to go.
  When Peter Kennedy arrived in Grozny, things began to go very wrong. He was not able to begin the installation immediately. Instead, there was a dispute as to the exact location where he was to install the satellite equipment. Should it be on the building of Granger Telecom, as he originally believed, or should it be on a hill? When that was decided, he had to prepare a base on the side of a hill to install the equipment. There then followed another dispute with Chechen television, which was worried about the potential interference as a result of the installation.

  447
  Finally, Mr. Kennedy completed the installation, not after four days, as he originally believed, but after 10. His final act was to start a 24-hour test of the equipment on a link back to Herefordshire. He was due to fly out after that test, but during those 24 hours he was kidnapped.
  Had those responsible at BT taken the installation more seriously, had they bothered to understand the situation on the ground, had they wished to ensure that he could do the work in the time scale that they believed was possible, he would not have been kidnapped. That is of no consequence to the others who were kidnapped, but in the case of my constituent it meant his life.
  After seeking various meetings with BT, my constituents, who were already in touch with me, asked me to get involved. After some delays, I eventually spoke to Mr. John Steele, British Telecom's group personnel director. Peter's daughter, Sarah, and I attended a meeting with him on 13 April this year. I asked him some questions and expected some answers, as did Peter Kennedy's daughter. We asked him how many guards Peter had. He did not know. We asked him whether Peter had been told of the risks. He did not know. We asked him where Peter was staying in Chechnya. He did not know. We asked him why he had left Granger to make the arrangements. He told me that that company's staff had been in and out so often that he thought that it knew the risks.
  British Telecom felt that if the kidnappers knew that BT was involved, a possible ransom would be increased. However, we have discovered that when Peter Kennedy went to Chechnya he carried with him British Telecom equipment. He was asked to sign and have signed by the local people a handover document stating that he had completed the work. The antenna that he carried had a BT symbol on it.
  As the delays continued while Peter was out there, alarm bells began to ring at Madley in Herefordshire. One e-mail from a member of staff whom Peter knew well said:
  "To all concerned, whilst people are casually passing the onus of this problem around, please have a thought for the person who is, at this moment, in Chechnya trying to get this system up and running for BT."
  I believe that those responsible at BT acted disgracefully. They did not give the local staff in Herefordshire or their one-time employee Peter Kennedy any idea of the dangers that he faced. When the kidnapping happened, it was BT, not Granger, as the Government said, which led the negotiations. I was told that Granger could not cope and Control Risks conducted negotiations via Granger. Those at BT claimed to me in a meeting that they could not remember ransoms, but they were in regular negotiations. The Foreign Office and the Government must have known about that. The Foreign Office must have kept an eye on what Control Risks, Granger and BT were offering. Was a ransom on offer? What was said in the telephone conversations with the men before they were killed? Was a rescue planned?
  The answers to these questions never came out fully at the recent inquest, and they will not bring back those who have died. However, the families should not have to resort to legal action against Granger or BT to find out what happened. I believe that Parliament should answer their questions for them.
  448
  I have always believed that the Government acted honourably in this incident. They knew the risks, and they passed them on to companies. Granger, and BT nationally, also knew the risks, but failed to pass them on. I hope that the law will be strengthened to ensure that companies have a duty of care to ensure that Foreign Office advice is passed on in the future.
  Why did BT nationally fail to lay on adequate security for one of its own? Why, corporately, did it hide in London, allowing a local satellite station to take control? In a letter to me, John Steele from BT lists some of the ways in which he felt BT had supported the family. The list includes lending a mobile phone, providing a chauffeur to bring the family to London and attending Peter's funeral. BT also continued to pay Peter £350 a day until he was murdered.
  In The Sunday Times yesterday, more came out about this tragic incident. The account of Raul, aged 36, who was held with the three Britons and the New Zealander, was published. In it, he tells of how the foreigners were beaten about the heads with rifle butts. Although it was dark, he said that he believed that they were already dead when they were decapitated. The video that he was shown the following day showed several figures cutting off the heads of the hostages. Afterwards, two of them were lying still; two had convulsions. Nothing can bring back those men, but we must learn from what happened.
  Hereford is well known as the home of the Special Air Service regiment, and we have more than our fair share of ex-members of that regiment working in international security. We are proud of that, and we must say that at no time did Peter Kennedy ever work for the SAS. None of those involved worked for the SAS or were spies—that suggestion, made privately, and in Russia, is wrong.
  I have spoken to a number of people involved in security, and I have asked how much it would have cost to provide Peter with some security. I am told that the first thing one does in international security is to send out a reconnaissance group to identify what is on the ground. Local support and a way of getting the person out is then provided. That could have cost between £20,000 and £25,000. BT could have provided that for Peter Kennedy. I should have thought that that would be a small price to pay in a multi-million pound deal. Instead, BT left a small company to cope.
  It is no wonder that BT is making the profits that it has made. In the time it has taken me to make this speech, it has made £94,500 in profit. I wish that some of that money could have provided adequate security for my constituent.
  10.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for raising this matter and for the way in which he raised it. He referred to the dreadful practice of hostage taking in Chechnya, and particularly to the tragic incident involving his constituent. Wider issues and questions of international affairs have emerged following this case, and that is what these Adjournment debates should be about. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case in an exemplary manner.
  The timing of the debate is poignant, as it is almost a year since the deaths in Chechnya of the three British citizens and the New Zealander who were kidnapped in

  449
  Grozny in early October 1998 and whose remains were found on 8 December. I extend my condolences to the bereaved families. Our admiration goes out to them for their courage and fortitude over the past year.
  As the House is well aware from our earlier debate and from the international news, the security situation in Chechnya was highly precarious at the time of the murders. It has deteriorated sharply since August, when Islamic militants from Chechnya invaded the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan. The Russians responded with air, artillery and ground attacks in Chechnya, which is now a combat zone. The Government are deeply concerned about the human suffering caused by the operations. There is little reliable information, but we believe that about 200,000 Chechens have fled to other regions, with many more displaced within Chechnya.
  I want to use this opportunity to bring the House up to date on our efforts to get to the truth about what happened to the four murdered men. Despite the deteriorating security situation in Chechnya, we remain determined to press for those responsible for their murders to be brought to justice. Kidnapping is a crime; murder is a crime. We have repe,atedly emphasised to both the Russian and the Chechen authorities their responsibility for investigating the kidnap and murder of the men and for bringing their murderers to justice. The Metropolitan police and the British embassy in Moscow have done everything in their power to establish what happened, but ultimately we have to rely on the Russian and Chechen authorities to enforce the law.
  Both the Russian and the Chechen authorities have opened investigations into the kidnaps and murders. We are in close touch with the Russian authorities and have encouraged them to share information on the progress of their investigations, but the fact remains that they did not exert control in Chechnya at the time of the kidnapping, and the current hostilities mean that Russia has no formal contact with the Chechen authorities.
  The Chechen authorities have claimed to be making progress in their investigations. They informed us in March that they had resolved the kidnapping part of the case and that four Chechens had been charged. They said that the murder investigation continued. Despite all our efforts, we have not been able to obtain any further information from the Chechen authorities, and there does not appear to have been a trial. As the security situation worsens, the prospect of getting to the truth must be increasingly remote. A face-to-face meeting with the Chechen authorities is now all but impossible; nor can we rely on local media reports.
  We will continue our efforts; the matter will not rest unresolved. We want more headway to be made, but any further progress in the investigations by the Russian and Chechen authorities at this time is highly unlikely. We will continue to keep the case open and to press for information.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the subject of BT's involvement in this tragic affair, but I must correct any mistaken suggestion that the Government did not recognise BT's involvement. From the time when the Department was informed of the kidnap, it was recognised that Mr. Kennedy was subcontracted to BT.
  The division of responsibilities and tasks between Granger and BT is a matter for them, but our understanding is that Granger did indeed take the lead, as
  450
  my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman's private notice question on 9 December 1998. It was Granger's contract and it had the high-level contacts at Chechen Telecom and in the Government.
  If the Government's public comments at the time emphasised Granger's role, there was a good tactical reason. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Government's overriding concern at such times is to safeguard the lives of the hostages, and it is important to minimise the risk of a ransom demand and to avoid raising their value in the eyes of the hostage takers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether a ransom was on offer in negotiations between Granger and the kidnappers. That is an important point. The House is well aware of the policy of successive Governments. We do not pay ransoms and we do not condone the payment of ransoms, which ultimately only encourages further kidnaps and puts more lives at risk. Families and companies do not always follow Government policy; that is their right, but we do not condone it.
  In the case of Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues, we were aware that Granger had discussed a ransom with the hostage takers. We actively discouraged that and made it clear that the Government could not be associated in any way with the payment of a ransom. Both companies were fully aware of Government policy and that we disapproved of paying a ransom.
  The inquest at the Westminster coroner's court on 3 November into the death of the four men reached a verdict of unlawful killing. At the inquest, the Metropolitan police gave their assessment of the available evidence. They have concluded that there is no evidence to confirm or rebut any of the various explanations given for the deaths.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many rumours and theories have circulated about the reasons for and circumstances of the men's murder. Some of those rumours and theories have surfaced in the press, and my predecessor reported to the House on 25 March our best assessment at the time. We have been careful to pass on to the families any report that might shed light on why their relatives were killed, but I must emphasise that we have no evidence. The best that we can do is to speculate on the basis of rumour and report—but, I might add, we must be circumspect in doing so out of respect for the families' feelings. It should not come as a surprise to the House that there is so little reliable information, given the nature of Chechnya, but I wish to stress that every report and every rumour relating to the murdered men was, is and will be closely examined by officials here and in the region.
  The security situation, dangerous at the time, has worsened considerably since that dreadful crime. I cannot stress enough the importance of companies and individuals heeding the FCO's travel advice. The advice for the Russian Federation has warned clearly and unambiguously against travel to Chechnya since 1994. My predecessor quoted the travel advice in full during a previous debate on the subject on 25 March and I shall repeat it. It reads:
  "We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic because of the unstable security situation. Kidnapping for financial gain is common. Westerners are particularly vulnerable. Those who travel to Chechnya despite this advice are taking severe risks, and must accept that the ability of the FCO and British Embassy in Moscow to render assistance is severely limited".

  451
  That is the current advice. FCO officials brought that advice to the attention of Granger Telecom in both July and August 1998. Granger has told us it shared that advice with its staff. BT has also told us that it was aware of the FCO travel advice and of the dangers of visiting Chechnya.
  I wish to draw particular attention to the last part of the advice about the ability of the FCO and the British embassy in Moscow to render assistance being severely limited. Travellers and their employers should not overestimate the ability of the FCO to help them if they get into trouble in a place such as Chechnya. British officials do not and should not travel to Chechnya—rightly, in view of the security situation. In view of our severely limited ability to render assistance, it is all the more important to heed our clear travel advice against travelling to Chechnya.
  The advice applies to all who may wish to visit Chechnya, whatever their motive. Travel advice is aimed not just at tourists, but applies equally to business travellers, journalists, humanitarian aid workers and others. The deaths of the men whom we are discussing tonight should act as a tragic and sobering warning. Unfortunately, individual travellers and their employers, and other organisations, continue in some cases to ignore FCO warnings against travelling to certain dangerous parts of the world and, in doing so, put themselves at risk.
  The hon. Gentleman raises many questions for BT to answer. He believes that BT never told Mr. Kennedy of the risks. That is clearly an issue for BT. For my part, I can only repeat that the FCO travel advice was clear and unambiguous and that both companies were aware of it.
  What lessons can we learn from that tragic event? The hon. Gentleman suggests that companies should be obliged to warn their staff of the security situation in a country before they are posted there. I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made
  452
  a similar proposal in the House on 25 March. I fully agree that employers have a moral responsibility to provide such information to their staff, including showing them the FCO travel advice. That is part of employers' duty of care towards their staff. It is not for us to become directly involved in the personnel operations of private companies, but we do expect UK employers to take our advice into account before posting their staff overseas. The individual also bears a responsibility to find out about the security situation in a country to which he or she is being posted.
  The FCO takes every possible action to ensure that our travel advice is seen by companies and individuals. The advice is disseminated widely—it is circulated to the travel industry and is even accessible on BBC 2 Ceefax. It is also accessible worldwide on the internet and is available at any of our posts overseas. Our diplomatic missions overseas circulate all appropriate advice to resident Britons who are registered with them. It is up to each individual company to ensure that its employees are properly informed and that our advice is taken seriously.
  As we all know, Chechnya is currently a dangerous place where the safety of British nationals cannot be guaranteed. British citizens should simply not go there. I hope that that advice will be heeded by both individuals and companies.
  The House owes the hon. Gentleman a debt for the way in which he has taken the particularly tragic case of one of his constituents and highlighted how there may be flaws in structure and approach, leaving some individuals at great risk. Questions have been asked in this debate that will be for other people to answer, and I suspect that this debate will not mark the end of the case. The FCO will do what we can to examine all the available evidence and to discover what happened. We will continue to demand answers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Kosovan Refugees (Costs)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date councils which incurred costs in respect of Kosovan refugee reception centres(a) will receive details of the revised format for the submission of costs, (b) be expected to make their submissions and (c) receive reimbursements; if reimbursements to councils will include loss of interest; and if he will make a statement. [98533]

  Mr. Straw
  Proposals for a Special Grant to reimburse English local authorities for additional expenditure incurred in connection with the acceptance of displaced persons from Kosovo under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme, were circulated to local authorities for consultation on 17 November.

  The consultation period will end in December. The aim is that the Grant Report will be laid before Parliament around the turn of the year. On current plans, local authorities would submit claims to the Home Office by the end of February 2000 for relevant expenditure in the period to December 1999. Those claims will be paid in the current financial year. An audited claim for the full financial year will be submitted as soon as the authority is in a position to do so at the end of the financial year and any outstanding balance of grant will then be paid. The Special Grant will meet all relevant expenditure which the authority demonstrates was additional but it will not meet claims for loss of interest.

  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his planned timetable for the revision of the Immigration Rules and the publication of revised rules following the passing of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [98757]

  Mrs. Roche
  We intend to phase implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 over the next 12 to 18 months, giving priority to the new asylum support arrangements and the civil penalty for carrying clandestine entrants. Amendments to the Immigration Rules will be published as necessary when specific provisions are implemented. A major consolidation of changes to the Rules is likely to be required at the end of the implementation process.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what services are provided for asylum seekers for help with shopping; and at what cost to public funds. [98638]
  18W
  Mrs. Roche
  No information on costs specifically relating to any assistance to asylum seekers for help with shopping is available to the Home Office.

  Asylum seekers who claim asylum at their port of entry may be eligible for social security benefits. Those who do not claim at their port of entry may be supported by local authority social services departments. In addition, local authorities may provide various means to enable asylum seekers to obtain essential living needs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  De Beers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with leading British diamond purchasers, with particular reference to De Beers, as to what controls they have put in place to ensure that they are not purchasing Angolan diamonds without a certificate of origin. [99158]

  Mr. Hain
  On 5 October, De Beers announced an embargo on the purchase of all diamonds from Angola by its buying offices world-wide. I applaud this decision and hope that others will follow their example to put pressure on UNITA and bring them to the negotiating table. We continue to hold regular discussions with De Beers, representatives of which I met recently.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position on the FCO Policy Document 148, 1986, in relation to NATO intervention in Kosovo. [98534]

  Mr. Vaz
  FCO Policy Document No.148 was a paper prepared by the FCO Policy Planning staff in July 1984 as a basis for discussion. It was not a statement of government policy.

  As we have stated on many occasions, we are clear that the NATO action in Kosovo was justified in the light of overwhelming humanitarian need.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack (Safety)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the Rail Regulator requires Railtrack to improve its safety standards. [98667]

  Mr. Hill
  It is for the Health and Safety Executive, as the sole regulator for railway safety, to ensure that Railtrack meets, and where necessary improves, its safety standards. The Health and Safety Executive have a memorandum of understanding with the Rail Regulator to facilitate liaison between the two organisations.

  Road Trains
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the use of road trains in town and city centres. [98633]

  Mr. Hill
  Goods vehicle road trains, ie a lorry towing a trailer, meeting the technical requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, and the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 are generally allowed to operate in the UK. However, they may be subject to local restrictions.

  There are also in existence some small vehicles that carry passengers in trailers which cannot meet the definition of a public service vehicle and cannot be used as such. They are individually authorised, generally to operate on limited sightseeing routes.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the economic strategies of the regional development agencies are consistent with emerging regional planning guidance in each region. [98528]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 on "Regional Planning" (PPG 11) and the statutory guidance to the RDAs on the formulation of their strategies set out the relationship between Regional Planning Guidance and the strategies.

  Both draft PPG 11 and the statutory guidance to RDAs emphasise the complementary nature of the guidance and strategies and stress the need for the regional planning bodies and the RDAs to work closely together.

  This is already happening. The RDAs and the planning bodies are talking to each other and mapping a way forward with the benefit, for example, of joint working parties. In some regions RDA board members are also members of the regional planning body.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the regional development agencies have given due regard to the views of their designated voluntary regional chambers. [98531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have given each Regional Development Agency (RDA) a direction under section 8(2)(a) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 requiring them to have regard to the views of their designated regional chamber in formulating and keeping under review the regional strategy that they are required to produce under the Act.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require regional development agencies to publish a list of changes that were made to each of their draft strategies as a result of the findings of a sustainability appraisal. [98526]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Regional Development Agencies received a wide range of comments on their draft Regional Strategies. They have taken account of 20W
  these in their own ways and have made their own publicity arrangements. The draft Strategies and the revised versions, which were presented to the Government on 26 October, are public documents.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Regional Development Agencies which have published an appraisal of how their economic strategy will foster effective protection of the environment, as required by the statutory guidance to the Regional Development Agencies. [98525]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance on the formulation of the strategies was issued to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on 31 March 1999. This specifies that an appraisal of the contribution the strategy will make to sustainable development should be produced. The appraisal should cover social, economic and environmental sustainability.

  All RDAs carried out a sustainable development appraisal of their draft strategies which informed the development of their final strategies. The following RDAs have already made these appraisals publicly available, and copies are available from the RDAs directly:

  Yorkshire Forward

  One North East

  East of England Development Agency

  East Midlands Development Agency

  South West of England Development Agency

  South East of England Development Agency.

  The North-west Development Agency has now commissioned a further appraisal of the final version of its strategy. This, together with the appraisal of the draft strategy and the agency's response to this, will be available as a single document by the middle of December 1999. Advantage West Midlands have commissioned consultants to undertake an appraisal of their final strategy which will be available in the middle of December 1999.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sanctions may be applied to the Regional Development Agencies if they fail to act in accordance with the commitments made in their(a) published strategies, (b) action plans and (c) corporate plans. [98530]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The RDAs have to operate within the standard framework which applies to all non-departmental public bodies. They are accountable to Ministers and, through them, Parliament. Performance against delivery of the RDAs' strategies, action plans and corporate plans will be an important factor in decisions on the allocation of future resources.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the Regional Development Agencies have, in their strategies, properly addressed their responsibilities in relation to rural areas. [98532]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance on the formulation of the strategies was issued to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on 31 March 1999. This outlined how the RDAs should seek to meet their statutory duty under
  21W
  Section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, which states that the RDAs' purposes apply as much to the rural parts of their areas as the non-rural parts.

  Supplementary, non-statutory, guidance on the formulation of the strategies was issued at the same time, which included a chapter on rural issues.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the Regional Development Agencies' duty to promote sustainable development is adequately reflected in their strategies. [98529]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance on the formulation of the strategies was issued to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on 31 March 1999. This outlined how the RDAs should seek to meet their statutory duty under Section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK, where it is relevant to its area to do so.

  The guidance specifies that an appraisal of the contribution the strategy will make to sustainable development should be produced.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the information technology projects undertaken by his Department and agencies responsible to his Department, including(a) start date, (b) planned completion date, (c) expected completion date (d) planned costs and (e) the expected costs; and if he will make a statement. [98642]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information that the hon. Gentleman requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  London Eye
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive for the evacuation of the London Eye in the event of an emergency; and if he will make a statement. [98634]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no requirement for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to approve emergency evacuation procedure for the London Eye under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Executive has produced industry guidance for Safe Practice at Fairgrounds. The responsibility for the safe operation and the emergency arrangements belong to the operator. The Executive is in discussion with British Airways London Eye, the operator of the wheel, about escape procedures including the need to practise them before the wheel is used.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the savings which could be made in the management and maintenance of public sector housing by a programme of installing energy efficiency measures in order to end fuel poverty in public sector housing. [99115]
  22W
  Mr. Meacher
  Under my Department's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, the Building Research Establishment commissioned some limited studies in the early 1990s. The studies estimated that public sector landlords could expect to save of the order of £300 and £400 per dwelling per year as a result of applying comprehensive energy efficiency improvements to public sector housing. These savings resulted from reductions in management time dealing with rent arrears, lower management costs associated with handling fewer complaints, voids and vandalism, and lower maintenance costs. The studies are available as published Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme case studies (numbers 186, 187 and 189) and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Green Ministers Committee
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Green Ministers Committee last met; if he will publish the minutes of the last meeting of the Green Ministers Committee; and if he will publish the agenda for the next meeting of the Green Ministers Committee. [99201]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers Committee met on 9 November. The minutes and agenda are not made public, but the House is advised of what happened at each meeting. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), with regard to the outcome of the Committee's last meeting, which follows.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the last meeting of Green Ministers was; what was discussed; and if he will provide a list of Ministers who now sit on the Green Ministers Committee. [99516]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers Committee met on 9 November. Baroness Young, of English Nature, gave a presentation about biodiversity and a lively discussion followed.

  The Committee: agreed a checklist on biodiversity that Departments will use to consider what action they can take in this area; considered how to raise awareness in Government of sustainable development and the Greening Government Initiative; agreed to take an active role in next year's review of Government spending; reviewed the proposals the Committee should make on new energy targets for the Government estate from April 2000; and agreed to consider what strategic approach should be taken to the Committee's work at the next meeting.

  Following recent changes in Ministerial responsibilities, the full list of Green Ministers is as follows:

  Department

  Minister

  Chairman

  Michael Meacher MP

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Elliott Morley MP

  Cabinet Office

  Graham Stringer MP

  Chancellor's Departments

  Stephen Timms MP

  Culture, Media and Sport

  Janet Anderson MP

  Defence

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Education and Employment

  Jacqueline Smith MP

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Beverley Hughes MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Peter Hain MP

  23W

  Department

  Minister

  Health

  Yvette Cooper MP

  Home Office

  Mike O'Brien MP

  International Development

  George Foulkes MP

  Law Officers'

  Ross Cranston MP

  Lord Chancellor's

  David Lock MP

  Social Security

  Hugh Bayley MP

  Trade and Industry

  Patricia Hewitt MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  The Lord Dubs

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what projections he has made of road miles travelled on UK roads for each year between 1999 and 2010 by(a) domestic cars, (b) commercial vehicles, and (c) public transport vehicles; [99184]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on road congestion of increases in road fuel duties since May 1997; [99166]

  (3) what projections he has made of the number of vehicles on UK roads in each year between 1999 and 2010. [99183]

  Mr. Hill
  Revised assessments of future traffic levels, taking into account the potential impact of the Integrated Transport White Paper are being prepared to inform the Government's first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, which will be published shortly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  "Consents to Prosecution"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General how the Government proposes to respond to the recommendations contained in the Law Commission report, Consents to Prosecution (Law Com No. 255). [99521]

  The Solicitor-General
  We are grateful to the Law Commission for a very careful and thorough report. The proposals contained in the report are accepted in principle, subject to the following points. There is a clear need for rationalisation of the consent provisions which attach to certain criminal offences. In particular, the separation of investigation and prosecution effected by the establishment in 1986 of the Crown Prosecution Service reduces the need for consent provisions. The careful analysis of the consent regime, the justification for its existence and the way in which it has been applied to a wide variety of offences provides a useful basis for further work, which the Law Commission identifies.

  The Government recognise that the current consent requirements are in need of reform and agree with the Law Commission's view that a consent provision must attach to a particular offence not to a particular defendant or class of defendants.

  The Government share the Law Commission's view that further consideration will need to be given to the categories of case in which consent should be required. The categories set out in the report create a useful guide for analysing the offences which require consent, and
  24W
  these will need to be applied flexibly. In particular, the Government wish to leave open the possibility of requiring consent provisions where reasons of public policy make this appropriate. The Law commission recognises that the category which relates to controlling the prosecution of offences where the prosecution of offences Where the prosecution may violate convention right may not be confined to Article 6 cases, and that further consideration will be required. The report acknowledges that further work will need to be carried by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers aimed at identifying the scope of the necessary reform.

  The Government welcome the Law Commission's view that some consent provisions should be retained. It may be appropriate at some future date to examine more widely the issues concerning the ability to bring private prosecutions.

  The Government recognise the importance of the DPP's role in relation to taking over proceedings and discontinuance but, as the Law Commission acknowledges, there are a large number of designated authorities specified in consent provisions. Further consideration will need to be given to the position of the DPP in relation to those other prosecutors.

  The Government welcome the proposal that, as regards existing legislation, provision should be made to enable, in appropriate cases, transfer of consent provisions by statutory instrument; and as regards future legislation, provision should be made to enable transfer of consent provisions by statutory instrument. Such statutory instruments will be made under the affirmative resolution procedure to facilitate scrutiny.

  As acknowledged in the report, the report concentrates on guiding principles, and further work will need to be done before changes can be made to the existing consent provisions.

  Work will begin on:

  (a)identification of all the offences which require DPP or Law Officers' consent;

  (b) further consideration of the scope of the first category, concerning possible violation of convention rights;

  (c) further consideration of the position of the DPP in relation to other prosecutors including other Government Departments and agencies who are designated prosecutors;

  (d) consideration of which consent provisions should be retained, applying in a flexible way the criteria set out in the Commission's report.

  With regard to future proposals to create consent provisions, the Government's policy will be informed by the criteria set out in the report.

  The Government accept this is an area in which change is needed and will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Law Officers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement concerning the role of the Law Officers in prosecutions which are conducted by Government Departments and agencies whose prosecuting responsibilities are not subject to their formal superintendence. [99522]
  25W
  The solicitor-General
  The Government have decided that, with effect from the date of this answer, the Law Officers should have a more formal role in respect of prosecutions by Government Departments and agencies that are not subject to their superintendence. In future, the Law officers will examine cases raising important matters of particular difficulty. They will have regular meetings with senior representatives in each Department or agency to discuss such cases, and prosecution issues more generally; and will receive regular written information on casework of particular concern.

  The focus of the new arrangements will be on prosecution cases rather than the allocation of resources or determination of prosecution priorities, which must be a matter for each Department and agency. In cases in which the Law Officers do express a review, the final decision will remain with the responsible Minister or office-holder, but the Law Officers' views will be taken fully into account.

  I should like to make plain that this initiative is prompted by a desire to strengthen the current arrangements, it is not a response to the handling of any particular case. The new arrangements are intended to enhance decision making within the prosecution process, and should lead to worthwhile improvements in the quality of such decision making. No legislative measures will be necessary to put the arrangements into effect.

PRIME MINISTER

  Christie Hospital
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he or his office have made to(a) the Department of Health, (b) Christie Hospital NHS Trust and (c) NHS Executive North West relating to the future designation of the Christie Hospital as a regional cancer centre. [98830]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been no representations to either the Department of Health or the Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust concerning the designation of a regional cancer centre other than to seek advice on correspondence received in my office.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he or his office have made to(a) the NHS Executive North West or (b) the Department of Health recommending the merger of the Christie NHS Hospital Trust with another NHS trust. [98831]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

DEFENCE

  Defence Advisory Notices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his proposals to revise the terms of DA notices. [98759]
  26W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, which has a mixed official and media membership, and which is currently revising the terms of the Defence Advisory Notices, is chaired by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence.

  The six existing DA Notices were last revised in 1993, and can be found in Open Government Document 93/06. They are now being revised again, partly so that they reflect changes to policy since then, for example on the release of certain additional information about nuclear weapons; partly to ensure that no unnecessary security restrictions are imposed; and partly, at the request of the media members of the committee, to give as helpful guidance as possible to editors, broadcasters and publishers.

  Changes to some of the details of the terms of the Notices will not affect any other aspects of the DA Notice system, which is advisory and voluntary, and leaves responsibility for what is published with the editor or publisher.

  The aim is to complete work on the revision of the Notices by early next year, when a new Open Government Document will be issued.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  ONE Service
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has relating to the operation of the ONE service. [99517]

  Angela Eagle
  Regulations have been laid today containing provisions to support joint working between the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and local authorities within the ONE service.

  The present system requires claimants to deal separately with different parts of the welfare system for each individual benefit they want to claim. It also requires them to provide similar information in support of each claim.

  These regulations support the operation of the ONE service by enabling all a customer's benefit needs to be dealt with in a single location and their information to be collected just once. The ONE service is a major step forward in modernising the benefit system giving people of working age a personal adviser who can help deal with all their benefit needs, and provide advice and support on how they may become more independent.

  These regulations also support the operation of our other main welfare-to-work measures.

  Incapacity Benefits
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to collect additional information about people's work-related capacities through the medical assessment process for incapacity benefits. [99518]
  27W
  Mr. Bayley
  Regulations have been laid today giving effect to provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which will enable the All Work Test to play a more positive role in helping people claiming incapacity benefits to return to work.

  The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1999 allow additional positive information about what people can do in spite of their illness or disability to be collected through the medical assessment process. A new "Capability Report" will be prepared by the doctor who assesses the person for benefit purposes, and sent to Personal Advisers to help them give advice and support to sick and disabled people who want to work. The benefit decision-maker will not see the Capability Report and it will have no effect on people's benefit entitlement.

  These provisions will come into force from 13 December, to allow the new "Capability Report" to be piloted in the 12 ONE areas.

  In addition, the regulations rename the All Work Test the Personal Capability Assessment from 3 April 2000.

  These regulations do not change the entitlement criteria for benefits paid on the grounds of incapacity. People will continue to be assessed against a set of functional medical criteria. However, many disabled people who would meet the criteria for benefit are in work; and many more want to work and could do so with the right help and advice. ONE is starting to give people that help and the new Capability Report will make a constructive contribution to this.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of disregarding invalid care allowance in assessments for means-tested benefits. [98545]

  Mr. Bayley
  The estimated cost of disregarding all Invalid Care Allowance in the assessments for means-tested benefit is £450 million.

  Notes:

  1. The costs are derived from the June 1999 Pensions Simulation Model based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey updated to 1999–2000 prices and adjusted using the May 1999 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  2. All costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Benefit Claims (Internet)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities are available for the submission of completed benefit claim forms over the Internet. [99197]

  Angela Eagle
  Currently, the Department does not have the facility to process claim forms submitted over the Internet. However, the Department is undergoing a review of its website, which includes providing facilities to submit benefit claim forms on the Internet in the future.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending the minimum income guarantee to carers who provide at least 35 hours of care a week. [98546]

  Mr. Bayley
  Bringing Income Support (IS) for those on the Carer Premium in line with the minimum income guarantee would set the Carer Premium to £23.60. The cost of this £9.65 increase in the Carer Premium is estimated at £100 million.

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are derived from the 1999–2000 Pensions Simulation Model based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices with IS administrative adjustments.

  2. The costs given are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for a first appointment with a consultant in the West Sussex health authority area on(a) 1 April and (b) 1 October. [98618]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on the NHS waiting list for treatment in the West Sussex health authority on(a) 1 April and (b) 1 October. [98620]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of people waiting for treatment in the West Sussex health authority area is contained in the table.

  Number of people waiting for elective admission in West Sussex health authority

  Date

  Total waiting

  31 March 1999

  19,046

  30 September 1999

  20,230

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if waiting times for hearing aid installations are included in official NHS waiting list figures. [98617]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on waiting times for fitting hearing aids is not collected centrally.

  Patient Costs (Reimbursement)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how, by whom and over what time period hospitals will be reimbursed for patients receiving out-of-area treatment. [98503]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Out of Area Treatment (OAT) arrangements, each National Health Service trust has a main commissioner. The main commissioner health authority is funded for OATs through a non-recurrent adjustment to allocations as part of the overall process for setting cash limits for the financial year. NHS trusts are funded by their main commissioners.

  Christie Hospital
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received seeking the merger of the Christie NHS Trust with any other NHS trust. [98834]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no such representations and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to merge the Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust with any other NHS trust in the North West region.

  NHS Trust Chairmen
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria are used by his Department to determine if the chairman of an NHS trust should be appointed for(a) three years and (b) a shorter period; [98833]

  (2) which NHS trust chairmen have been reappointed for a second term of office of (a) three years and (b) two years in the last six months. [98832]

  Ms Stuart
  The length of appointment for members of National Health Service boards will depend upon a range of factors, including the length of time already served by a re-appointed candidate; when the terms of office of other board members are due to come to an end; and any plans relating to the future of the body involved. Each case will be looked at on its merits, the decision taken depending upon the different circumstances involved.

  During the last six months, a total of 65 National Health Service trust chairs have been appointed, of which 25 were re-appointments. Of those chairs who were re-appointed, three were appointed for three-year terms and nine for two years. Details are shown in the table.

  Chair

  NHS trust

  Appointment period

  Three year appointments for re-appointed NHS Trust Chairs

  Anthony Woodbridge

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare

  1 November 1999–31 October 2002

  Dianne Jeffrey

  Community Health Care Service (North Derbyshire)

  1 November 1999–31 October 2002

  Peter Mount

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  1 November 1999–31 October 2002

  Two year appointments for re-appointed NHS Trust Chairs

  Peter Bagnall

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Alan Connolly

  Rockingham Forest

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Christine Field

  Mid-Sussex

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Peter Suddock

  Dudley Group of Hospitals

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  John Wells

  James Paget Healthcare

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Audrey Stenner

  Papworth Hospital

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  John Hemingway

  Dewsbury Healthcare

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Brian Nelson

  Hereford Hospitals

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Helen Busteed

  Trafford Healthcare

  1 November 1999–31 October 2001

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients have had to sleep overnight in beds in accident and emergency bays at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford, in the last 36 days; [98521]

  (2) how many patients have had to sleep overnight on trolleys in the Accident and Emergency Department of Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford, in the last 36 days; [98520]

  (3) what has been the (a) longest time and (b) average time patients have had to sleep (i) on trolleys or (ii) in beds in the Accident and Emergency Department at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, in the last 36 days. [98522]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to ensure no patients have had to sleep(a) on trolleys or (b) in beds in the accident and emergency department of Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford. [98523]

  Ms Stuart
  The winter plan developed by the North Essex health economy has been assessed as low risk by Eastern Regional Office in all areas monitored. This indicates that plans are in place to ensure that there is adequate provision to deal with anticipated demand. The National Health Service trust is working closely with social services and primary care to ensure that this is implemented.

  An important part of this is an assessment unit funded from accident and emergency modernisation funds which the NHS trust is to open in its accident and emergency department. Total allocation to Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust is £845,000.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds and high dependency beds there were within the NHS in each of the last three years; and how many of each category he expects to be maintained over the next two years. [98755]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on the average daily number of beds by ward classification is included in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England" copies of which are available in the Library.

  A ward classed as 'intensive care' may contain high dependency beds and general beds depending on the arrangements for critical care services within individual National Health Service trusts. The figures therefore overstate the number of intensive care beds. For this reason, we have piloted a new census focusing on adult intensive care and high dependency beds, the results of which we will publish in due course.

  Health authorities and NHS trusts are finalising plans for more adult intensive care and high dependency beds for this year than last, particularly over the crucial winter period.

  Drug Tariff
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the drugs for which he proposes to set a
  31W
  maximum price using powers under the Health Act 1999; and if orders will be preceded by a period of consultation. [98753]

  Mr. Denham
  The powers to control prices of National Health Service medicines are contained in sections 33 and 34 of the Health Act 1999. Section 33 may be used where there is a voluntary scheme, such as the new Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, to limit the prices charged by members of such a scheme. There are no proposals to set any maximum prices under this provision. The powers in section 34 may be used only in respect of those suppliers and manufacturers who elect not to become members of a voluntary scheme.

  A formal consultation with the industry body as required by the Health Act has been completed with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. In addition, we are also consulting the Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and the British Association of Pharmaceutical Wholesalers. We will be introducing secondary legislation to give effect to the powers contained in section 34 of the Health Act 1999. Such powers will ensure equity of treatment for those companies who choose to join the 1999 PPRS and those who do not.

  So far all but two companies affected by the price reduction in the voluntary scheme have elected to join the 1999 PPRS. It remains open to those companies to change their elections and join the 1999 PPRS. Otherwise they will be subject to the provisions of the statutory price control measures which will be introduced.

  Statutory powers to control NHS prices are not in place and it is not certain which, if any, companies will be subject to them. In the case of a company falling within such powers there will be additional consultation with the company. Therefore I am unable to list the drugs which would be affected by any statutory price control. If specific drugs do become subject to statutory price control then we will publish the details of those drugs at the earliest opportunity.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the Statutory Instruments introduced by his Department since May 1997 have had the EU as their legislative source. [98754]

  Ms Stuart
  Sixteen Statutory Instruments introduced by the Department since May 1997 have had the European Union as their legislative source.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing (North-West)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage manufacturing industry in the North West Region. [98669]

  Mr. Caborn
  Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a number of new initiatives which will assist in the 32W
  creation and development of companies: Regional Capital Venture Funds; a Phoenix Fund, the UK High Technology Fund and Enterprise Grants.

  In addition, the new Assisted Areas map will also play a major role in encouraging manufacturing industry in the North West Region.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been submitted in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and when he expects all claims to be settled. [99210]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 14 November the Department's claim handlers, IRISC, had received 89,206 claims from former miners and their families for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and 52,157 claims for vibration white finger.

  On 24 September we signed the Handling Agreement with the solicitors representing the miners, which sets out the procedures for settling 100,000+ expected respiratory disease claims. On 5 October the contract to deliver the full Medical Assessment Process was awarded to Healthcall. The first full medical assessments should begin in the next month. We expect all claimants to have been assessed within the next three years.

  In July we awarded a contract to SEMA Group for the delivery of the VWF medical assessment process. Tests began in September, seven centres are now open, and SEMA plan to have 12 centres in operation across the mining regions by January. We expect the majority of claimants to have been assessed by the end of next year.

  As at 14 November we had made payments to both respiratory and VWF claimants totalling some £90.7 million.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the locations, dates of opening or proposed dates of opening are of centres for medical assessment of claims for vibration white finger. [98683]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are currently seven centres in operation in Barnsley, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Mansfield, Newcastle and Sheffield. We expect a further five centres to be up and running by January 2000 in Kent, Manchester, Nottingham, Swansea and Wakefield. The locations for this initial tranche of centres were determined by balancing the geographic distribution of claimants against the availability of the medical resource needed to undertake the testing. We are assessing the options for opening further centres early next year.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims his Department has received in respect of respiratory disease; and in respect of how many claims spirometry has been completed. [98744]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 14 November the Department's claim handlers, IRISC, had received 89,206 claims from former miners and their families, of which 28,000 are from widows and dependants.
  33W
  As at 16 November 26,114 claimants had undergone spirometry tests, with a further 14,400 having been invited to make appointments.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by county of residence the numbers of(a) claims received in respect of respiratory disease,

  Region

  Respiratory claims received

  Amount paid in respect of interim/expedited offers (£)

  VWF claims received

  Amount paid in respect of interim and general damage offers (£)

  Anglia

  301

  111,511.45

  128

  127,545.81

  Midlands

  16,641

  9,234,386.60

  10,538

  7,655,014.00

  North East

  33,195

  15,119,472.88

  26,745

  27,833,543.41

  North West

  5,629

  1,801,594.42

  2,374

  1,317,027.87

  Northern Ireland

  8

  2,000

  4

  0.00

  Scotland

  7,687

  2,909,873.85

  3,714

  4,172,361.99

  South Central

  134

  51,727.15

  37

  20,876.74

  South East

  1,368

  354,182.59

  472

  94,816.39

  South West

  599

  70,308.35

  50

  17,578.21

  Wales

  23,414

  9,300,331.58

  7,998

  5,639,601.83

  London

  277

  48,000.00

  87

  12,610.88

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been made for respiratory disease where the claimant has since died. [98685]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 14 November IRISC, the Department's claim handlers, have registered 28,249 claims on behalf of the widows or dependants of former miners. However, IRISC have been notified by solicitors of the date of death in only 21,087 cases. 2,980 of these deaths occurred after the date of claim.

  Utilities
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that price reductions on prepayment meters are passed on to the consumer. [98492]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Markets, who has recently proposed new price controls for the Public Electricity Suppliers, to come into force in April 2000, and with average price cuts of 10 per cent. The Director General is currently considering the price control for British Gas Trading, and will announce that soon. Prepayment meter customers should benefit, as do other customers, from general reductions in prices. In addition, the Director General has proposed that the prepayment meter surcharge, which reflects the additional amount these customers pay, should not exceed £15 a year (at present it varies by company, and is up to £27 a year). Second-tier electricity suppliers and competitors to British Gas Trading are not subject to price control, because they operate in a competitive market, in which the price-controlled incumbents set the benchmark price; and consumers are free to seek a new supplier if they wish.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to give utility regulators a duty to protect the interests of low-income consumers. [98491]
  34W
  (b) interim and expedited awards in respect of respiratory disease, (c) claims in respect of vibration white finger and (d) interim and general damage awards in respect of vibration white finger. [98681]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A county of residence breakdown is not available. However, the regional breakdown is as follows:

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are determined that disadvantaged consumers in the utility sectors should be properly protected, and that they should enjoy a fair share of the reduction in prices resulting from increased competition.

  We shall introduce a Utilities Bill in this session, and a requirement to consider the interests of people on low incomes will be an important feature of the regulators' new primary duty to protect the interests of consumers, wherever possible and appropriate, through promoting effective competition.

  We also intend, as part of the Bill, to give regulators a duty to have regard to statutory guidance issued by Ministers on social objectives relevant to their particular sector.

  Employment Relations Act 1999
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long the current allocation to the partnership fund under the Employment Relations Act 1999 is projected to last. [98467]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Up to £5 million is to be made available in a series of calls, over a period of four years. The fund will support projects which either develop partnerships in the workplace or disseminate the benefits of workplace partnership more widely.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the second commencement order under the Employment Relations Act 1999 to be made; and if the order will include section 18(1–5). [98626]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The second commencement order (S.I. 1999/2830) under the Employment Relations Act 1999 was made on 14 October. It included sections 18(1)—(5). For further details of the provisions covered by both the first and second commencement orders, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 613W.
  35W
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the closing date will be for the second round of bids for resources from the partnership fund established under the Employment Relations Act 1999. [98468]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The timing of the second round has not yet been set but will be decided and announced in the light of the take-up of the first round, which closes on 26 November 1999.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to promote the textile industry; and if he will make a statement. [99206]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government work closely with the textiles industry on a number of key areas, including trade policy, education and training, exporting and industrial sponsorship.

  On the latter, my Department is currently funding over 20 projects targeting specific areas for future development, including product innovation, design, marketing, benchmarking and the development of supply chain partnerships.

  In addition, I met with the industry-led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group in October to discuss their progress on the development of a national strategy for the industry. I am impressed with the positive steps this Group has made and look forward to seeing the outcome of its work.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of visible exports were accounted for by identified military equipment, including aerospace equipment, in each year from 1995 to 1998. [98489]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  UK exports of military equipment, as a percentage of exports of goods, were:

  Percentage

  1995

  1.4

  1996

  2.0

  1997

  2.7

  1998

  2.3

  Sources:

  UK Defence Statistics, Ministry of Defence

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, Office for National Statistics

  EU-funded Programmes
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of EU-funded programmes in(a) Southampton, (b) Newcastle, (c) Hull, (d) Sheffield, (e) Manchester, (f) Rotherham, (g) Dover, (h) Bristol, (i) Bath, (j) Sunderland, (k) Birmingham and (l) Leicester. [98574]
  36W
  Mr. Caborn
  It is not possible to give figures specific to each town, nor for all European funding since UK accession. The following table gives the value of 1994–99 EU-funded programmes available in the areas containing the towns mentioned.

  Programme

  Value (£ million)1

  Towns contained

  Objective 3/4

  2,691.7

  Nationally available

  Objective 5a2

  282.3

  Nationally available

  NE England Objective 2

  494.1

  Newcastle and Sunderland

  Yorkshire and Humberside Objective 2

  536.5

  Hull, Sheffield and Rotherham

  Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire Objective 2

  539.1

  Manchester

  West Midlands Objective 2

  595.2

  Birmingham

  1£ = 1.534 euro

  2Objective 5a is a rural programme and therefore unlikely to have funded projects in urban areas

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in producing high level targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities. [99380]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to announce the publication, today, of more comprehensive targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities and a further elaboration of the Environment Agency's supervisory duty. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  The targets are designed to assist in developing a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response as well as a more certain delivery of Government policy towards flood and coastal defence. They follow recommendations, which the Government accepted, in last year's Agriculture Committee report on flood and coastal defence and in the Independent Report on the Easter 1998 floods. The targets take effect from 1 April 2000, building on and developing the interim targets which we published in May.

  These targets will, among other things, require flood and costal defence operating authorities to produce policy statements on their plans for achieving the Government's policy aims and objectives; flood and coastal defence assets to be recorded and inspected, and flood and erosion risk assessed, There are targets for the Environment Agency to develop its flood warning service, for emergency exercises to be held, and in relation to development control in areas at risk of flooding or erosion. Three are also targets for taking forward initiatives on Shoreline Management Plans, Water Level Management Plans and Coastal Habitat Management Plans, and for monitoring the impact of flood and coastal defence on habitats covered by Biodiverstiy Action Plans.

  These targets, and elaboration of the Environment Agency's supervisory duty, have been developed in full co-operation with the Agency, the Association of

  37W
  Drainage Authorities and the Local Government Association and in consultation with a wide range of relevant organisations. I have been impressed by the strong support we have had both for the overall approach we have adopted and for the particular measures we are introducing.

  The Government attach great importance to these targets. We will be monitoring achievement and keeping them under review. There are significant reporting requirements and I shall ensure Parliament is kept informed of relevant developments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (West Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all primary and secondary schools in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency. [98517]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is as follows:

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency

  Address

  Primary

  Kings Road Junior School

  Kings Road

  Chelmsford

  Kings Road Infant School

  Dixon Avenue

  Moulsham Junior School

  Princes Road

  Moulsham Infant School

  Princes Road

  Trinity Road Primary School

  Trinity Road

  Great Leighs Primary School

  Aragon Road

  Highwood Primary School

  Loves Green

  Oaklands Infant School

  Vicarage Road

  Mildmay Junior School

  Robin Way

  Mildmay Infant and Nursery School

  Robin Way

  Perryfields Junior School

  Lawn Lane

  Writtle Infant School

  Lodge Road

  Perryfields Infant School

  Lawn Lane

  Boreham Primary School

  Juniper Road

  Lawford Mead Infant and Nursery School

  Trent Road

  Lawford Mead Junior School

  Trent Road

  Nabbotts Junior school

  Forsythia Close

  Nabbotts Infant School

  Forsythia Close

  Barnes Farm Junior School

  Henniker Gate

  Tyrrells School

  Tavistock Road

  Melbourne Park Primary School

  Melbourne Avenue

  Westlands Community Primary School

  Beeches Close

  Barnes Farm Infant School

  Henniker Gate

  Writtle Junior School

  Margaretting Road

  Great Waltham Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  South Street

  Ford End Church of England Primary School

  Main Road

  Margaretting Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Pennys Lane

  Ingatestone

  Roxwell Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  The Street

  Chelmsford

  Stock Church of England Primary School

  Swan Lane

  Ingatestone

  Little Waltham Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Little Waltham

  Chelmsford

  St. Pius X Catholic Primary School

  Tennyson Road

  The Bishops' Church of England and Roman Catholic Primary School

  Beardsley Drive

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  Dickens Place

  The Cathedral Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Chelmdford

  Victoria Road

  Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Primary School

  New London Road

  Broomfield Primary School

  School Lane

  38W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency

  Address

  Secondary

  Moulsham High School

  Brian Close

  Chelmsford

  St. John Payne Catholic Comprehensive School, Chelmsford

  Patching Hall Lane

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Broomfield Road

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford

  Broomfield Road

  The Boswells School

  Burnham Road

  Chelmer Valley High School

  Court Road

  Rainsford High School

  Fox Crescent

  Hylands School

  Hatfield Grove

  In addition, there are two maintained nursery schools, two maintained special schools and five independent schools within the West Chelmsford constituency.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for contracts concluded by his Department since May 1997 with external consultants and advisers not covered by his answer of 23 July 1999,Official Report, columns 691–92W, (a) the total number of contracts concluded, (b) the number and total value of those contracts that have been awarded following a competitive tendering process, (c) the number and total value of those contracts that have been awarded without a competitive tendering process and (d) the names of all companies with which contracts not put out to competitive tender have been concluded. [98643]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Funding (Shropshire)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants have been made by his Department in addition to revenue support grant for each of the years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to date to(a) Telford and Wrekin Council and (b) Shropshire County Council. [99058]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the grants, in addition to revenue support grant, made available by the Department for Education and Employment in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council are shown in the tables. For the Standards Fund, the figures shown include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Grants made available to Shropshire County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Shropshire

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  1,255,500

  School Improvement Initiatives

  50,000

  National Curriculum Assessment—Verification KS1

  74,300

  National Curriculum Assessment—Supply Cover KS1

  111,500

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  59,500

  KS3 Non-core Teacher Assessment

  18,600

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  160,700

  39W

  Grants made available to Shrophsire County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Shropshire

  Special Educational Needs

  123,300

  Qualifications—GNVQ Provision

  95,900

  Qualifications—Part One GNVQ Pilot

  46,000

  Pupil Behaviour and Discipline Centres

  54,500

  Bilingual Pupils

  27,900

  Drug Prevention and Schools

  44,200

  Training for Careers Teachers

  36,700

  Youth Service

  12,700

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  41,500

  School Security

  195,300

  Child Protection

  26,000

  Specialist Schools

  115,600

  Baseline Assessment

  86,500

  Primary Performance Tables

  5,600

  Books for Schools

  232,996

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  185,000

  Total

  3,059,796

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  922,707

  473,347

  School Leadership: NPQH

  60,307

  29,250

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  20,102

  9,750

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  32,150

  16,493

  Early Years Training and Development

  80,150

  25,025

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  —

  291,000

  Baseline Assessment

  63,632

  32,044

  Assessment: Verification KS1

  26,194

  23,088

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  69,059

  45,732

  Training fro KS2 Teacher Assessment

  38,516

  21,398

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  40,786

  19,902

  National Literacy Strategy— Primary

  303,225

  181,723

  Summer Literacy Schools

  18,000

  20,000

  Family Literacy

  28,000

  28,000

  Special Educational Needs

  122,720

  —

  Qualifications: GNVQ, AS/A Level, Key Skills etc.

  92,141

  24,701

  Qualifications: Part One GNVQ Pilot

  10,000

  —

  Work Related Learning at KS4

  —

  50,000

  Improving Attendance

  —

  99,250

  Improving Behaviour

  —

  117,000

  Improving Attendance and Behaviour

  36,100

  —

  Behaviour and Discipline Projects

  —

  54,600

  Drug Prevention

  40,080

  21,098

  Youth Service

  12,807

  5,000

  School Security

  128,600

  65,972

  Specialist Schools

  116,900

  —

  National Grid for Learning

  672,000

  322,792

  Books for Schools

  152,911

  81,739

  Children's Parliament

  190

  110

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  94,449

  46,980

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teachers

  3,740

  1,870

  SEN Portable CD-ROM Systems

  24,000

  24,000

  Study Support and School Travel

  2,215

  —

  40W

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Capital Work to reduce class sizes

  342,328

  320,760

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  329,725

  —

  Energy Management

  70,693

  40,025

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  823,348

  442,200

  Total

  4,777,775

  2,934,849

  Grants made available in 1999–2000 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Standards Fund

  School Improvement

  1,450,020

  818,988

  School Leadership: NPQH

  124,794

  63,504

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  53,483

  27,216

  Advanced Skill Teachers

  58,500

  10,500

  Early Years Training and Development

  81,170

  26,010

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  263,470

  180,516

  Summer Literacy Schools

  33,000

  33,000

  Summer Literacy Schools—Conferences

  12,000

  9,000

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  340,265

  173,125

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  20,000

  20,000

  Family Literacy

  28,000

  28,000

  Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  55,880

  42,824

  Qualifications

  88,986

  33,951

  Work Related Learning at Key Stage 4

  0

  37,500

  Special Educational Needs

  218,916

  248,152

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  260,884

  255,790

  Drug Prevention

  40,715

  23,879

  Youth Service

  10,765

  6,313

  National Grid for Learning

  622,035

  1,950,000

  School Security

  135,149

  76,335

  Specialist Schools

  109,040

  160,440

  Protecting LEA Music Services

  110,000

  67,000

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  —

  216,498

  Access Fund for Post 16 Pupils in Schools

  11,566

  9,949

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  308,189

  171,420

  Asset Management Plans

  49,760

  25,540

  PCs for Chairs of Education

  2,000

  2,000

  Education Action Zones

  20,000

  20,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,000

  1,000

  Working Environment Fund

  124,657

  68,727

  Administrative Support in Small Schools

  248,887

  73,068

  Books for Schools

  305,821

  163,477

  Class Sizes

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes (Revenue)

  540,000

  468,000

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes (Capital)

  493,653

  110,000

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  1,902,287

  217,000

  Total

  8,124,892

  5,838,722

  41W
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide estimates for(a) Shropshire County Council, (b) Telford and Wrekin Council and (c) the Wrekin constituency in respect of the impact of additional Government funding since 1997–98 on the number of (i) additional teachers appointed, (ii) infant school class sizes reduced to 30 pupils or fewer, (iii) children who have benefited from smaller class sizes, (iv) schools which have benefited from new buildings or major repairs and (v) extra books for schools. [99109]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have pledged to reduce infant class sizes for all children aged 5, 6 and 7 to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest. Recent figures show that the number of children in large infant classes has halved since September 1998 from 354,000 (22 per cent.) to 181,000 (11 per cent.) in September 1999 and that over 300,000 children have benefited since January 1998. A total of £620 million has been made available to implement the pledge early in virtually all schools by September 2000.

  Table One sets out the information requested by local education authority.

  Table One

  Total funding to reduce infant class sizes (£)

  Extra teachers

  Extra classrooms

  Children in large classes in September 1998 (%)

  Children in large classes in September 1999 (%)

  Shropshire

  1.3 million

  42

  10

  1,105 (15)

  62 (1)

  Telford and Wrekin

  934,000

  45

  3

  719 (15)

  251 (5)

  Table Two shows the number of schools benefiting from new buildings and major repairs under the New Deal for Schools. All Shropshire schools have benefited from a risk assessment for asbestos.

  Table Two

  Number of schools

  Amount of expenditure supported (£ million)

  Shropshire

  158

  2,380

  The Wrekin

  6

  0.821

  Since 1997–98, Shropshire LEA has received £691,733 for books for all maintained schools and Telford and Wrekin LEA has received £245,217. A further allocation of £128,725 for Shropshire LEA and £63,223 for Telford and Wrekin LEA was made in 1998–99 to support the National Literacy Strategy in primary schools. In total, the allocation for books for schools to the two authorities was enough to buy around 225,780 books.

  It should be noted that Telford and Wrekin Council has been in existence as a unitary authority only since April 1998, and that the figures for Shropshire include sums allocated before that date. It is not possible to provide figures for the Wrekin constituency.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he provides regarding inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. [98762]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs points out that LEAs have a qualified duty to secure that children with special educational needs, including children with statements, are educated in mainstream schools. The Code emphasises that, if parents express a preference for a mainstream school, the LEA must comply with that preference so long as the placement is appropriate to the child's needs, while also being compatible with the interests of other children already in the school and with the efficient use of the LEA's resources. The Code also points out that parents may express a preference for a maintained special school, and that if they do so the LEA no longer has a duty to secure a mainstream education for the child.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish his proposals for the education of children with special needs. [98635]

  Jacqui Smith
  We announced our intention on 17 November to introduce legislation in this Parliamentary session to improve the education of children with special educational needs. The Bill would take forward proposals set out in the document "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to raise the profile of the special educational needs of children with autistic disabilities. [98636]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our SEN Programme of Action highlights the importance of improving provision for all children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders. To support the Programme we virtually doubled, to £35 million, targeted support for SEN under the Standards Fund in 1999–2000 and I recently announced a further substantial increase to £55 million for 2000–01. The Department is also funding Regional Collaboration Projects which are looking at provision for particular special needs, including autism.

  We are committed to working with partners in the interests of children with autism. I hosted an Autism in Education Seminar on 21 September this year which brought together interested parties within and outside government to discuss future autism provision in the context of the Programme of Action. Following the seminar, we will be collecting examples of good practice and looking at ways of disseminating them. I was also pleased to speak at the launch of the National Autistic Society's current Autism 99 Internet conference, adding to the messages of support from my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. The conference, which the Department has been helping to publicise, has a practical focus on meeting the needs of children and adults with autism and their families.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people completing the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in the West Sussex Coastal Plain Unit of Delivery have secured unsubsidised employment. [98637]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest statistics to the end of August 1999, show that 238 young people in the West Sussex Coastal Plain Unit of Delivery have left New Deal for unsubsidised employment. Many others will have found work without telling the Employment Service.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's latest estimate of the proportion of young people in England entering higher education at the beginning of the academic year 1999–2000 from(a) semi-skilled and (b) unskilled family backgrounds and (c) from disadvantaged localities; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last three years. [97153]

  Mr. Wicks
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 November 1999, c. 321–22W]: I apologise that the figures for 1999 in my original reply related to all students, including mature students, whereas the figures for the years 1996 to 1998 covered students aged under 21. The following is a revised table showing the figures for under-21s in 1999.

  Accepted young1 home domiciled applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses—United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Year of entry

  Proportion from social class2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19993

  IIIM—Skilled manual

  16.4

  16.7

  16.9

  17.0

  IV—Partly skilled

  7.5

  7.6

  7.6

  7.7

  V—Unskilled

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  2.0

  1Aged under-21

  2The classification system used to assign social class to undergraduates is that used in the National Census—the Standard Occupational Classification published by the Office for National Statistics

  3Accepted applicants as at November 1999

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Litigants (Fees)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the decision of some county courts to charge fees to litigants for the staying of cases in accordance with the guidance of Sir Michael Scott after Dimond v. Lovell. [98544]

  Jane Kennedy
  If a party makes a formal application to the court to stay a case on the grounds of Dimond v. Lovell, a fee will automatically be charged. If the application is granted on the basis of the guidance by Sir Richard Scott, the Vice-Chancellor, the party may ask the court to refund the fee. Only in those cases where the court stays a case of its own motion will a fee not be payable.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Chief Executive of the Courts Service to respond to the letter of 5 October from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about the case of Ms Lorna August, which was referred to the Chief Executive on 11 October. [98756]

  Jane Kennedy
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 5 October was sent on 18 November. A copy of the transcript of the trial involving the hon. Member's constituents has been placed in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reasons the list of ministerial responsibilities has not been published since the changes to the Government in the summer; and if she will set a target date for its publication. [98640]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  An updated list of Ministerial Responsibilities was published last week. It is available on the Internet at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/central/index/lmr.htm, and hard copies are available to Members at the Vote Office.

TREASURY

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate (1) the average tax, VAT and AMLD on different types of cash prize machines in(a) 1997 and (b) 1999; [99164]

  (2) the ratios of tax to turnover on (a) £6 jackpot machines, (b) 2p/10p coin pusher machines and (c) higher prize machines in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1999. [99163]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available. The VAT on machines' takings is not recorded separately on VAT returns, and Amusement Machine Licence Duty records do not identify the receipts from specific types of machine.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take 2p and 10p stake machines out of licence duty. [99165]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government keep duty rates under constant review. It would not be prudent to comment on specific Budget measures at this stage. Two penny stake machines are already exempt from duty.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons he intends to exempt kerosene as an industrial fuel from the climate change levy. [98584]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 10 November 1999,Official Report, column 644W.
  45W
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that the price differential between liquid petroleum gas and hydrocarbon oils should not be widened to the disadvantage of liquid petroleum gas as a result of the climate change levy. [98585]

  Mr. Timms
  The price of competing fuels is a commercial matter in which the rates of duty or tax play only one part. The Chancellor has announced his intention to increase rates of duty on fuel oil and gas oil, and this is likely to mitigate incentives to fuel switching after the introduction of the climate change levy.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for concessionary rates of climate change levy on liquid petroleum gas. [99167]

  Mr. Timms
  I have no such proposals. Liquid petroleum gas will be subject to climate change levy at the same rate as natural gas.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the climate change levy will be revenue neutral for the private sector, as set out in his pre-Budget report. [99170]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy will be revenue neutral for the private sector because the amount of levy paid by the private sector will be broadly equivalent to the amount private sector businesses gain from the proposed cut in employers National Insurance Contributions and the additional support for energy efficiency measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Pre-Budget Report (Cm 4479).

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the projected two million tonnes of carbon emissions saved as a result of the proposed climate change levy, as set out in his pre-Budget report, is constituted. [99168]

  Mr. Timms
  The carbon savings projected to arise from the climate change levy are based on estimates produced from the DTI energy model. They arise from reduced energy consumption and from the encouragement of renewable energy sources and combined heat and power systems.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he described the proposed climate change levy as revenue neutral between manufacturing and services in his pre-Budget report. [99193]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy is expected to be broadly revenue neutral between manufacturing and services because, taking into account the 80 per cent. discount for energy intensive sectors that enter into energy efficiency agreements, the amount of levy paid by the manufacturing and service sectors is likely to be broadly equivalent to the amount each gains from the reduction in employers' National Insurance Contributions and the additional support for energy efficiency measures.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for concessions in respect of the climate change levy for businesses which have invested in energy efficiency measures over the last five years. [99169]
  46W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government welcome the improvements in energy efficiency made by businesses in recent years. All firms that have already made energy saving investments will benefit from lower energy bills—and consequently a lower tax liability—than otherwise would have been the case. And the many firms that have invested in combined heat and power (CHP) plant will benefit from the proposed exemption of electricity generated in CHP plant from the levy.

  The Government have also made clear that previous investments in energy efficiency measures will be taken into account in setting future targets for improving energy efficiency under the negotiated agreements with energy intensive sectors.

  VAT (Energy Efficiency)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission and other European Union member states concerning the introduction of lower rates for VAT on energy-saving materials and installation. [99104]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no such discussions within the last year.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the Government's projected spending levels over the planning period for(a) income subsidies aimed at assisting people with fuel bills and (b) investment programmes aimed at improving energy efficiency for the fuel poor. [99112]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Personal subsidies made from the Social Security social fund provide one-off single payments to vulnerable people most likely to be at risk from the cold. There are two separate programmes:Winter Fuel Payments were increased to £100 for every eligible pensioner household in Budget 99. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Statement earlier this month that this payment would be made every year. The increase in the payment will mean annual expenditure of around £800 million. Almost £3 billion has been committed over the lifetime of this Parliament to provide winter fuel payments.
  Cold Weather Payments of £8.50 are made to vulnerable people receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance when the average temperature over a seven day period is recorded as, or forecast to be at or below freezing point in their local area. The total expenditure in any particular year will depend on temperatures.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review announced a significant increase in resources for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. Spending on this scheme will rise from £75 million in 1999–2000 to £125 million in 2000–01 and £175 million in 2001–02.

  A significant number of those suffering fuel poverty live in local authority housing. The Comprehensive Spending Review allocated an additional £3.6 billion for local authority housing capital over the review period. Central government support for local authority housing is planned to almost double over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02, from £1.4 billion to £2.7 billion. Decisions about the composition of their housing capital programmes are for local authorities to determine. On the basis of data collected to monitor the impact of the Capital Receipts Initiative, around one third of capital spending

  47W
  on local authority housing is likely to be spent directly or indirectly on measures which will improve energy efficiency.

  Vending Machines (Euro)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of converting UK slot machines and coin handling machines to accept euro currency. [98761]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Should the UK decide to join EMU, conversion costs across the economy would depend on how businesses and other organisations approach the changeover: how effectively they plan ahead and the extent to which changes could be included in routine systems upgrades. That is why the Government published an Outline National Changeover Plan as a planning tool for future preparations. The Automatic Vending Association of Britain is represented on the relevant Treasury groups which are taking work on the Plan forward.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures he will take to ensure that ring-fenced revenues from real terms increases in fuel duties can be identified as additional to normal departmental spending on public transport and roads; [99189]

  (2) which real terms increases in fuel duty will be ring-fenced in a fund for public transport and road modernisation, as set out in his Pre-Budget Report. [99188]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that the revenues from any real terms increases in road fuel duties will, in future, go straight to a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network.

  Ring-fenced revenues from any real terms increase in fuel duties will be additional to the spending plans set for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in spending reviews.

  Additional ring-fenced spending will be identified as such in future DETR Annual Reports and Expenditure Plans.

  Building Society Deposits
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have taken place in total private building society deposits since (i) April 1998 and (ii) April 1999. [R] [99176]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Retail balances held by individuals in building societies were as follows:

  £ billion

  April 1998

  98

  April 1999

  102

  September 1999

  108

  Combined Heat and Power Plants
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define good-quality combined heat and power plants, as set out in his pre-Budget report for exemption from the proposed climate change levy. [99192]

  Mr. Timms
  I would refer the hon. Member to HM Customs&Excise Technical Briefing No.2 which will be placed in the Library later this week.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the introduction of a pesticides tax. [99190]

  Mr. Timms
  On 9 November, the Government published a summary of responses to a consultation on ECOTEC research which looked at the design of a tax or charge scheme for pesticides. The majority of the respondents opposed introduction of such a measure.

  The Government are currently exploring with the agrochemical industry whether its objectives can be better achieved through a partnership approach between the Government and the industry.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the simplification of the capital gains tax system for private investors. [R] [99194]

  Mr. Timms
  I cannot anticipate any changes that my right hon. Friend might wish to make in future Budgets.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the anticipated net loss to the Exchequer from his proposed changes to capital gains tax on treatment of business assets. [R] [99196]

  Mr. Timms
  As announced in the pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend is consulting on the detail of a number of possible changes to the capital gains tax treatment of business assets. No costing can be produced until the detail of the measures is settled.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in which year fuel poverty will be eliminated at the present levels of Government expenditure and resource commitment and under current policies; and what plans he has for further steps which could bring this date forward. [99113]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) announced on 11 November that she and Lord Whitty will jointly chair an inter-Ministerial group to examine the way ahead on fuel poverty. The group will consider the impact of Government programmes to tackle the causes of fuel poverty, as well as the liberalisation of the energy markets which has substantially reduced the cost of keeping warm. In this way, the group will gain a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem and how quickly it can be addressed.

  Savings
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new savers there have been since the start of ISAs; and what criteria are used by his Department in calculating the number of new savers. [R] [99175]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 764.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he is considering for encouraging a greater take-up of ISAs; [R] [99179]

  (2) what proposals he is considering for overhauling the current range of ISA accounts available; [R] [99178]

  (3) what proposals he has for streamlining the existing forms of PEP investment. [R] [99195]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  ISAs have got off to a very promising start. There will be no review of the current rules until ISAs have run for a full year (that is, not before April 2000).

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received calling for the simplifying of ISAs. [R] [99177]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have received a number of representations covering various different aspects of ISAs.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of a 5 per cent. real terms rise in tobacco duty on(a) the number of smokers in the United Kingdom and (b) the level of cigarette sales per head in the United Kingdom. [99198]

  Mr. Timms
  I have made no such assessment. Since higher tobacco prices are likely to lead to lower consumption, there is a strong public health case for year-on-year real term increases in the price of cigarettes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear in his Pre-Budget Report that additional revenue raised from such an increase would go to further investment in the National Health Service.

  Tax Credit (Carers)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost and number of beneficiaries of introducing a tax credit scheme for carers and care recipients on the same basis as the working families tax credit. [98459]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimates requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Firework Safety
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many fireworks imported into the United Kingdom have been seized by HM Customs as unsafe in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [99295]
  50W
  Mr. Timms
  None. Control over the safety of fireworks imported into the UK and sold to the general public has since 1993 been the responsibility of Local Trading Standards Officers. The Health and Safety Executive authorises general retail fireworks for storage and supply in the UK.

  Pensions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of disregarding the basic state pension for the purposes of tax. [98512]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for the cost of disregarding the basic state pension for tax purposes, because survey data on personal incomes do not distinguish between basic state pensions and earnings related elements such as SERPS.

  Business Taxation (EU Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the final report of the EU Code of Conduct (Business Taxation) Group. [98735]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Code of Conduct states that it is for ECOFIN to decide whether to publish the final report.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax measures affecting the UK and Crown dependencies which have been identified as requiring amendment by the EU Code of Conduct (Business Taxation) Group. [98734]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 182W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Institute for Sport
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on establishing the British Institute for Sport; and if he will make a statement. [98981]

  Kate Hoey
  We have made significant progress in recent months, with the announcement on 7 October of up to £120 million of Lottery funds for the English element of the UK Sports Institute and the introduction of a number of essential support services for athletes and coaches.

  School Sport
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote sport in schools. [98982]

  Kate Hoey
  School sport is vital to the health of UK sport, at all levels, and is an essential component of a rounded education. I am working closely with the schools Minister to deliver a step change in the range and quality of school sport, in terms of both curriculum PE and after-school sports activities including competitive team games.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to improve public awareness of digital technology. [98983]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government believe it is important to promote public awareness and understanding of digital broadcasting. They are working closely with industry to establish a public information campaign which will explain simply, clearly and objectively what digital television means for the public and sets out fully the choices available to them.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefits he expects to secure for the public from the new funding agreement with national museums and galleries. [98984]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funding agreements place clear responsibilities on our sponsored museums and galleries to deliver against demanding targets guaranteeing high standards of public access, educational activities and management. The Agreements detail the outputs which each of the bodies has agreed to achieve in return for public funding.

  Disability Sport
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase his support for disabled sport. [98985]

  Kate Hoey
  I am keen to see all sports offering a wide range of opportunities to people with disabilities and we are working closely with the Sports Councils to ensure that this happens.

  I was pleased to be able to launch the English Federation for Disability Sport (EFDS) on 19 October, which will provide a united voice for sport for people with disabilities.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to simplify the procedures for small voluntary organisations to apply for grants from Lottery funding bodies. [98986]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Awards for All scheme, which involves Lottery distributors working closely together to provide a one-stop shop, has already made procedures much simpler for community groups seeking grants of up to £5,000. To build on this we are working with distributors to find ways of simplifying the application process generally to ensure that it is user-friendly and that forms are written in plain English. I have also asked the independent Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team which I established to look at the costs associated with making a Lottery application.
  52W
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefit he expects to secure for the public from the new funding agreement with the Heritage Lottery Fund. [98992]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Heritage Lottery Fund is not subject to a funding agreement, since it does not receive money voted by Parliament. The Fund's grant-giving activities are controlled through financial and policy directions issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the operation of the National Lottery Act 1998. [98989]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given earlier today by the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey),Official Report, column 326.

  Sport (Educational Establishments)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Scottish Executive on Government funding for sport in educational establishments. [98987]

  Kate Hoey
  No specific discussions of this sort have taken place. However, under the Chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I attend meetings of the Sports Cabinet along with representatives of the other Home countries. This forum discusses a wide range of issues related to sport.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to bring forward measures to reform the law in respect of religious broadcasting. [98988]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of religious broadcasting. [98990]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are contemplating new broadcasting and communications legislation, to be introduced early in the next Parliament, to ensure that a suitable regulatory framework is in place in the light of technological and other developments. Current statutory provisions relating to religious broadcasting will be considered in that context.

  Green Spaces Initiative
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if funds from the new opportunity fund's green spaces initiative will be available for playing fields. [98991]

  Kate Hoey
  Yes. In line with its policy directions the New Opportunities Fund will spend at least 75 per cent. of the £125 million allocated to the Green Spaces and
  53W
  Sustainable Communities initiative on projects including urban and rural green spaces, children's play, organised and informal sport, playing fields and access to the countryside. As also required by its policy directions the New Opportunities Fund exploring with Sport England ways of collaborating with other initiatives in these areas.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the benefits to children of the green spaces initiative funded by the new opportunities fund. [98993]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The emphasis in the initiative on urban and rural green spaces, children's play, organised and informal sport, playing fields and access to the countryside will provide opportunities that will greatly improve the health, happiness and social well-being of children, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation.

  Media Regulation and Ownership
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote public confidence in his Department's political impartiality with regard to media regulation and ownership. [98994]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Provisions on media ownership and regulation are set out in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. The media industry is also subject to general competition law such as merger control under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Implementation of these provisions is a matter for the relevant independent regulators, not the Government. Political impartiality in broadcast content is provided for by the regulators through a range of mechanisms such as the BBC Charter, licence conditions and programme codes.

  Tourism
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government plan to take to improve the attractiveness to businesses of tourist areas. [98995]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are taking a number of steps to ensure that businesses are attracted to tourism areas. My Department's tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism" outlines many initiatives in, for example, training, improved access, more readily available information. Additionally, we now have the English Tourism Council, a more strategic body which leaves more money free for the support of tourism in the regions. Tourism areas also benefit from other spending such as lottery funding, the Single Regeneration Budget and European Regional Development Budget.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list of assets sold by his Department and the value realised in 54W
  each case, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99, together with an estimate of the value of asset sales planned in the (a) current and (b) next financial year. [98646]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Asset Register for my Department covers the Government Art Collection (GAC), Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (RCHM), the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) and the ex-Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC) (until 31 August 1999) and ex-Historic Royal Palaces Agency (HRPA) (until 31 March 1998), in addition to the Core Department (DCMS). The DCMS Asset register was introduced in March 1999 as a result of the need for improved assets records for the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting. Information on assets sold prior to the introduction of the register may therefore be incomplete. The available information on assets sold is set out in the following table:

  Financial Year

  Body

  Asset1

  Total Value£

  1991–92

  RPA

  RPA "ground maintenance" was contracted out and the in coming contractor purchased various items of equipment, a breakdown is not readily available

  128,750

  1992–93

  RPA

  As above

  326,056

  1993–94

  —

  None

  Nil

  1994–95

  —

  None

  Nil

  1995–96

  RPA

  2 horses

  5,300

  1995–96

  RPA

  2 electric trucks

  2,500

  1996–97

  DCMS

  House originally providing accommodation for craftsmen working at Windsor Castle

  122,500

  1996–97

  RPA

  2 horses

  5,400

  1997–98

  DCMS

  Computer equipment

  45,000

  1997–98

  RPA

  Radio and telecommunications equipment

  2,226

  1997–98

  HRPA

  Tractor

  2,500

  1998–99

  DCMS

  2 houses originally providing accommodation for craftsmen working at Windsor Castle

  162,000

  1998–99

  RPA

  Horse

  2,800

  1999–2000

  DCMS

  Computer equipment

  7,000

  1999–2000

  RPA

  Building

  120,000

  2000–01

  DCMS

  Building (6 Burlington Gardens)

  Under negotiation

  2000–01

  DCMS

  Computer equipment

  Unknown

  1A materiality minimum of £2,000 has been applied per item.

  Elgin Marbles
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) Greece and (b) academic institutions in the UK regarding the Elgin Marbles. [99174]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In the last 12 months, the Department has received 70 representations on this subject originating from Greece, and representations from 56W
  individuals in five academic institutions in the UK. This includes e-mails where we have been able to identify the source.

  Tate Modern (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with the Tate Gallery regarding the introduction of admission charges at its new London gallery. [99171]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There have been no discussions relating to admission charges at Tate Modern.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Lord Hennessy
The Right Honourable David James George Lord Windlesham, having been created Baron Hennessy, of Windlesham in the County of Surrey, for life, took the oath.

Newspaper Success Fee Contracts
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to outlaw the practice of national newspapers offering "success fee" contracts to wit nesses in criminal trials; and what discussions have taken place with the Press Complaints Commission about the matter.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Government's overriding concern is to maintain an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the due and fair administration of justice and, on the other, freedom of speech and of the press.
On 27th February 1998, by Written Answer, I announced that the Government accepted in principle the recommendation of the National Heritage Select Committee that there should be legislation forbidding payments to witnesses in criminal proceedings. That remains the Government's position. Legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.
By "success fee", I take it that the noble Lord refers to a promised payment to a witness, contingent on the conviction of the defendant. That would certainly be covered by the legislation. As for the Press Complaints Commission, officials maintain a regular dialogue with the commission on a range of issues. DCMS officials discussed the Gadd, (Gary Glitter), case with PCC officials to ascertain whether they intended to investigate the circumstances surrounding it. The PCC—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is sitting in his place—has since announced its own inquiry into whether there was a breach of the press code of practice. We await with interest the outcome of that inquiry. To my knowledge, no Ministers have spoken to the PCC on this subject.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for that reply, which is welcome as far as it goes but lacks urgency. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that circumstances in which Mr Max Clifford is free to pimp his stories around Fleet Street, Fleet Street editors are seemingly willing to ignore the code of the Press Complaints Commission with impunity and juries are now taking
170
evidence so tainted as evidence really put in jeopardy our whole system of justice? Can I urge the noble and learned Lord not just to promise legislation some time in the future but to bring forward urgent legislation to deal with a real problem about public confidence in our system of justice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it begs the question to say that the press treats "with impunity" the decisions made by the Press Complaints Commission. There is an inquiry taking place and it is not for me to anticipate what the outcome will be. However, I have no reason to suppose that a newspaper would not abide by a decision of the PCC.
It is true to say that the circumstances surrounding the Gary Glitter case are very serious. On 18th November I wrote to the trial judge, Mr Justice Butterfield, asking him to report to me. He did so fully on that very day. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the jury was shown the agreement of 20th November 1997, brokered on behalf of the complainant, Miss Allison Brown, by Mr Max Clifford with the News of the World. Clause 1 promised £10,000 for a story about her relationship with Gary Glitter to be published on Sunday 23rd November 1997, and—I quote from the agreement—
"a second payment of £25,000 to be made on publication of a story should Gary Glitter be convicted of possessing child porn or any other charges relating to sex with under aged girls".
The jury was shown that contract, along with the News of the World story that had been published on 23rd November 1997. The complainant was cross-examined at trial almost exclusively on the basis that she was a gold-digger giving false evidence for reward. The jury acquitted. I do treat this as a grave matter.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right to state that the commission is conducting a very serious investigation; indeed, if it is a breach of the code it will be a very serious breach. We shall reach a conclusion very shortly. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that, on a number of occasions, I have made it quite clear that the considerations of justice are more important than any code of the Press Complaints Commission?
If there is evidence to show that justice has in any way been mis-used in the matter, I believe it right for legislation to be brought forward. However, I should point out to the noble and learned Lord that, as far as I know, this is only the fifth case in the past 40 years where such an allegation has ever been made. The other cases were those of Brady, Thorpe, Sutcliffe and West. To my knowledge, each case was investigated by the Law Officers, who found that there had been no interference with the course of justice. That does not mean that this is anything other than a very serious matter, but we ought to recognise the perspective in these cases.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the first half of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, will be as welcome to your Lordships as

171
it will be welcome in the country. However, I am not in a position to confirm how many proven cases there may have been in time past. I am sure that everyone would agree that any case of interference by cheque-book journalism in the due administration of justice, risking perhaps a miscarriage of justice, is one too many.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that because of the seriousness of his remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and because the payment was at least in part contingent on a guilty verdict, he might advise the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to consider taking proceedings under the present common law of contempt of court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have read reports in the press but I have no actual knowledge that certain inquiries by a police force may be under way. I intend to say nothing that could in any way prejudice any proceedings that may occur. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General needs no advice from me.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can comment on this question: what confidence can the public have in the Press Complaints Commission when the code of practice is drawn up by a sub-committee consisting of the editor of the News of the World, the editor of the Daily Mail and the chairman? Is this not a case in which newspapermen are making the rules for newspapermen, of the regulations being written by the regulated, who then proceed to break those rules with impudent insouciance? I have one further question to ask. In this Gary Glitter case would the noble and learned Lord have expected—or perhaps, like me, he would not have expected—the editor of the News of the World to have resigned from the commission following the comments by the judge on this matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as far as I am aware, the Press Complaints Commission has a majority of lay members upon it. I am not in a position to say whether the drafting of the current code of practice was confined to press men or extended to the lay members, but I should rather have thought that it was the latter. In fairness to the Press Complaints Commission it has strengthened Clause 16 of the code in this area. Whether it is sufficiently strong remains to be seen. We await the outcome of the current inquiry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us will welcome his strong words about this issue which strikes at the very heart of the system of justice in this country? Is he further aware that some of us feel that
172
certain editors of newspapers will never abide by codes of conduct but they might just abide by the law of the land?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with his customary economy puts the case for legislation.

Nuclear Power Plants: Year 2000 Compliance
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom are fully year 2000 compliant and whether adequate emergency measures are in place in the event of power failures affecting cooling systems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, as the independent safety regulator, has been working with UK nuclear operators on the issue of year 2000 compliance since 1997. The inspectorate is satisfied that UK nuclear power plants will continue to operate safely over the millennium period and that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place to deal with power failures affecting cooling systems.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply but given that disasters in the nuclear industry happen so quickly can the Minister tell us whether the emergency generator systems have been tested regularly over the past two years and how many times they have failed during that period? Further, as we have learnt from the Chernobyl disaster that nuclear disasters know no national boundaries, does the compliance apply to our neighbours in Europe, eastern Europe and Russia? Is the Minister satisfied that all nuclear power plants throughout Europe are year 2000 compliant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me two questions. First, as regards emergency testing, I can assure her that it is virtually continuous and has resulted in Ofgem, the regulator, classifying the nuclear industry, like the rest of the electricity industry, as 100 per cent. "blue" in the jargon; in other words, clear of danger. As to the number of occasions where faults have been found in testing, I do not have that information but I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point. As regards Chernobyl and other power stations in eastern Europe, my understanding is that the expert view is that if there is any risk it is a risk of power failure causing blackouts in the area concerned rather than a risk of nuclear accidents, the effects of which may cross national boundaries.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that experience suggests that power

173
failure and nuclear accidents are not separate things and the one can cause the other? Is he confident that other countries are sufficiently advanced in their arrangements to ensure that this country may not become subject to an accident occurring in another country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, power generation failure happens from time to time in any nuclear industry. On average, it happens twice a year in our 39–40 nuclear sites. The inspectorate has ensured that there are adequate back-up generators. It has given an assurance that the back-up is sufficient to enable the nuclear power stations to operate for a week following any failure. The average down-time for power failure is a matter of hours; therefore, a week seems a very sensible precaution.
As to similar safeguards in other countries, I cannot give comparable figures, particularly in general terms. I am assured that there is more danger of a localised power failure than of a nuclear accident of the kind to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this kind of problem never arises with coal-fired power stations? Can he say whether the Government intend to approve any further coal-fired power stations, particularly when there is a good supply of reasonably-priced coal available in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remember being in an airport in Chicago when a representative of the Nuclear Workers Union said that more people died in Chappaquiddick river than at Three Mile Island. I accept that the same kinds of accidents do not occur in coal-fired power stations, but horrible accidents have occurred in coal mines. The nuclear power industry in this country has an enviable safety record.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to widen slightly his Answer to this Question? With approximately 40 days and 40 nights to go to the millennium, can he indicate whether there are any areas where the Government remain concerned about the operation of the millennium bug?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without acknowledging at this Dispatch Box now that there are any such areas, I can assure the noble Lord that the Millennium Date Change Committee of the Cabinet, of which I am a member, has been trawling over all of the essential infrastructure of this country, including its energy infrastructure. It is satisfied that very good progress is being made. That is not to say—no one could—that nothing will go wrong at the time of the millennium date change. The noble Lord is asking for a very unqualified assurance, which I am not able to give.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his Answer to the Question, the Minister spoke of contingency
174
arrangements to deal with failures of cooling systems. Surely there are other failures which may occur. Why did the Minister pick on cooling systems?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, because cooling systems were specified in the Question.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister recall that radioactive rain precipitated from the clouds which arose from the Chernobyl disaster? This caused serious problems for livestock farmers in the north of England and in North Wales. In the event of a similar disaster, can he say whether any procedures are now available to farmers to let them know when a radioactive cloud is about to precipitate on their land? This will enable them to take in their livestock, prevent it from grazing, and to sell it within 10 years, which, in some cases, was the limitation imposed in the Lake District and Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was exactly because of the problem to which the noble Countess refers that I assured myself, before answering her question, that expert opinion was that any risk in Eastern Europe, the Ukraine or Russia was of local power failure rather than of a nuclear power accident of the kind that took place in Chernobyl. The matter of adequate notice to farmers is very wide of the Question. I cannot give the noble Countess an absolute assurance that there would be adequate notice. That would clearly depend on the speed and direction of the wind, which is not under the control even of Her Majesty's Government. The issue is a serious one. I am sure that those who suffered from the fall-out from Chernobyl have made their case clearly to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Chechnya
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken or intend to take to restrain Russian violence against civilians in Chechnya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns with Foreign Minister Ivanov at the summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Istanbul on 18th November, urging that Russia should reach a negotiated political settlement to the conflict. The Prime Minister has also written to Prime Minister Putin.
The European Union General Affairs Council on 15th November condemned all disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force and urged the Russian Government to observe their commitments under international humanitarian law.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. In relation to the Government's ethical

175
foreign policy, first, will she tell the House what is the distinction between Kosovo and Chechnya? Secondly, will the Minister say what information the Government have, and what view they take, about the role of Islamic fundamentalists throughout the Caucasian region?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in relation to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, there is no comparison between what happened in Kosovo and the situation now in Chechnya. Unlike in Kosovo, we have no evidence of a deliberate Russian policy of ethnic cleansing. Russia has a genuine need to respond to kidnapping, banditry and the militants' invasion in September of neighbouring Dagestan. Our concern is that this response should respect international humanitarian law. Therefore, the distinction between the two is quite stark.
As far as concerns our policy, we have made it absolutely clear that in relation to each of these regions we shall do all in our power to ensure that humanitarian matters are fully respected.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, why do the Government not recognise the Chechens' right to self-determination but acknowledge that right for the Falklanders?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that since the end of the war in 1996, Chechnya has been internationally acknowledged as being part of the Russian Federation and remains so. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the Chechens and Russians resolve this issue between them. At the moment, internationally, Chechnya remains part of the Russian Federation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I and a number of other people are quite amazed by her Answer to the original Question? Is it not a fact that Kosovo is part of the Yugoslavian federation and that Yugoslavia had every right to put down what it termed to be a rebellion in that country? Further, is it not quite clear that the levels of attacks, injuries and deaths were very much overstated, as is now becoming clear from the United Nations' investigation because far from finding that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, it has as yet found fewer than 2,500?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall not take issue with my noble friend about figures, which we can discuss later. It is quite clear that every single effort was made in the Kosovo position to try to ameliorate the situation; to try to get Milosevic to the table; and to try to broker some form of proper response. Milosevic deliberately refused. Your Lordships will know that a number of people have said that we waited far too long before responding. We had to have a balanced response. We are starting the process. It is only when a negotiated settlement shows
176
no realistic prospect of success that other alternatives must be sought. That position has not been arrived at as far as concerns Russia and the Chechens. It would be quite wrong for us to go down a road from which we would find it difficult to come back.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to talks held by the Foreign Office Minister in the margins of the Istanbul Summit. What was the point of merely reaffirming in the Charter for Europe the commitment of OSCE-participating states to the code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security and the Copenhagen document of 1990, both of which have been flagrantly and persistently violated, not only by Russia but also by the host nation, Turkey? Does she not believe that it is time that the OSCE found a means of ensuring that participating states comply with the commitments to which they have signed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course it is of the utmost importance that we obtain compliance in relation to those issues. However, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of discussion in obtaining confirmation of the parameters. The OCSE Charter for European Security sets the basis for future security co-operation in Europe. It improves the OSCE's operational capabilities, particularly in response to crises. It reaffirms the legitimate interest of all participating states in national implementation of OSCE commitments, particularly with regard to human rights and preserving the security and stability of all OSCE states. It has adapted the platform for co-operative security, which establishes a non-hierarchical basis for co-operation among the various international organisations operating within OSCE areas. Those important issues cannot be sidelined. The Government believe that it is important to continue those conversations; they do have value.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I work with the organisation Medical Emergency Relief International, which has worked in Chechnya and that we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian problems and suffering there? Does she agree that the fundamentalist Islamist terrorists who began the war in Chechnya also initiated the conflict in Dagestan and have declared their intention to extend it to other peaceable Islamic nations, as well as to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh? Therefore, does she agree that the Islamists need to be restrained at least as much as the Russians?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that the whole situation demands restraint. The noble Baroness is right to say that the situation became particularly acute in August when the militants entered Dagestan very much against the hopes of the people of that country. Their hopes and aspirations in relation to their own security were dashed. The Russian response to that incursion was obviously understandable. This is a difficult situation which requires balance and we need to respond in a measured

177
and co-operative way. We do not need an hysterical response which leads us down a path from which we cannot turn back
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Economist the war in Chechnya is costing the Russian Government 4 billion roubles per month, which is equivalent to £100 million per month? Can my noble friend tell the House how much of that comes from IMF funds and whether the Government will support the suspension of aid and IMF funds to the Russian Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, IMF funds are currently being used in terms of rollover. No IMF funds are being expended in relation to the current difficulties in this area. Therefore, there is a separation between the two.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am well aware that the matter is to be raised later this week, but can the noble Baroness tell the House to what extent all that she has had to say today relates to the Government's ethical foreign policy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government have made it plain that in relation to their foreign policy they will do all in their power to make sure that humanitarian interests internationally are upheld. We respond in a way that meets the precise needs of the circumstance. If your Lordships were to examine the way in which Her Majesty's Government have responded, I hope that you would agree that we have done so in a balanced way, addressing the issues that are presented in each particular country, and encouraging all of those participants to respond in a proportionate and humanitarian way. This Government make no apology for their foreign policy; it is balanced; it is sure and, if I may respectfully say so, it is right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is any substance in the suggestion made about a fortnight ago by the respected journalist, Anne Applebaum, to the effect that it was the Russian secret service—the successor to the old KGB—which had murdered the four British telephone engineers in Chechnya in order to discredit the Chechen cause?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can give no answer to that question. We have no information to indicate that the noble Lord's supposition in relation to that matter is right. There is no indication whatever that that is so.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Dubs will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on political progress in Northern Ireland. It may be for the convenience of the
178
House to know that the Statement is likely to be taken immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, given the fact that the fourth Question on today's Order Paper unhappily was not asked, is there any indication that the Government will take an early opportunity to reply to the substance of the Question, because I believe there is a great deal of interest in the House as to what is the answer?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should be entirely happy to provide a six-hour debate on the subject.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.5 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Baroness Pitkeathley—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament",
and on the amendment moved by the Lord Strathclyde, at the end of the Address to insert,
"but regret the failure of Your Majesty's Government to reduce the burden of taxation and regulation and deplore the incoherence and the lack of vision of the measures proposed by Your Majesty's Government for the coming Session of Parliament".
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, as we approach the millennium we have a responsibility to protect and enhance our society and environment so that the country that we hand on to our children and our grandchildren is a better place in which to live.
The Bills on transport, education, environment and local government in this Queen's Speech will all play their part in transforming the quality of life for all of the people of this country, widening opportunity and liberating talent.
Our transport Bill must be seen in the context of the Government's wider transport strategy and our aim of securing a better transport system for everyone. Large-scale, long-term investment, allied to advances in technology, will step by step deliver an improved road network, more and better public transport and improved choice for travellers.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the legacy of problems that this Government inherited in 1997. There were high and increasing levels of road traffic

179
congestion, under-resourced and uncoordinated public transport, and significant under-investment in road maintenance.
Last year's Integrated Transport White Paper set out, for the first time in some 20 years, a coherent strategy to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution. It provided a realistic vision for the future which is already being translated into reality through the action that we have taken by investing an extra £1.8 billion in transport, including an extra £400 million on road maintenance, by salvaging the £6 billion Channel Tunnel Rail Link deal, by providing an extra £170 million for rural buses, delivering an extra 1,800 new and enhanced rural bus services, by getting the Jubilee Line extension running, despite the disarray we inherited on that great project, by further reducing pollution from cars and lorries and, by continuing to ensure that our roads, already among the safest in Europe, become safer still.
In addition, as announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-budget Statement in another place, revenue from future increases in fuel duty will be ring-fenced to improve public transport and modernise the road network. We can already point to signs of improvement: a 14 per cent increase in passenger rail journeys in two years—to the highest level of patronage for 40 years—and 1,000 more trains are being run daily to meet this demand; increases in rail freight over the past two years; a halt to the decades of decline in the number of bus passengers; and more people travelling on an expanding and upgraded London Underground.
But more needs to be done. We want to see a transport system that serves the motorist better, reducing congestion and pollution, where public transport can complement the car, giving people a real alternative. This will require further investment in public transport and in our road networks, recognising that the car and road transport will remain essential for most journeys, and investment in technology to make traffic flow more freely, cleanly and safely.
Integrated transport can work only if it is planned properly at the local level to address local issues. One hundred and sixteen local authorities have already drawn up five-year local transport plans which identify their transport priorities. We have set aside an extra £700 million to fund the priorities identified in local transport plans over the next three years. Our transport Bill will enable local authorities, if they choose, to introduce road user charging and workplace parking levies where appropriate to local conditions. Fourteen local authorities or groups of authorities—27 authorities in total—have expressed an interest in doing so. The money raised will be used exclusively for investment in improving their transport systems.
We need to ensure that the very different needs of rural areas are addressed, recognising that the car and bus will remain essential and the predominant mode of travel for many people living in rural areas. That is reflected in our investment of £170 million over three
180
years, funding 1,800 new or enhanced rural bus services. At our recent bus summit, local authorities and bus operators were encouraged to build on this achievement.
The transport Bill will establish a strategic rail authority on a statutory basis, ensuring a clear and coherent strategy for developing the railways and bringing together the needs of passenger and freight services for the first time. For too long, our railway network has been under-funded and under-valued. The re-franchising process which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is undertaking gives the train operators a unique opportunity to improve investment and efficiency and to deliver a better deal for passengers and the taxpayer.
Following the Ladbroke Grove tragedy, there has rightly been much attention on railway safety. The Government have put in hand a number of urgent actions to achieve a more open, responsive and rigorous safety culture across the rail industry. We have ensured that there will be scope in the Bill to deal with recommendations emerging from public inquiries and other work on railways safety. The railway clauses of the transport Bill have had the advantage of thorough scrutiny by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee in another place. We welcome its comments and support for our proposals.
Safety is also a primary consideration in our proposal for National Air Traffic Services. This will deliver a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future, separating the operation of air traffic control and its regulation, something that has been long called for by the Transport Select Committee among others. But our proposal will achieve more than that. The level of investment—more than £1 billion in 10 years—and the efficiency we need in NATS can best be met through partnership between public and private sectors. This will give us access not only to private sector capital but also to private sector management skills, allowing us to upgrade systems and deliver safety objectives while maintaining accountability and protection of the public interest. The transport Bill is a significant step towards our aim of delivering a better transport system for everyone—the modern transport system which Britain so clearly needs and deserves as we approach a new millennium.
The challenges of the new millennium are equally strong in the field of education. Education is this Government's number one priority. All children must have the opportunity to ensure that they have the skills to succeed in the 21st century. We inherited an education system that was failing too many children, because it concentrated too often on the needs of a minority at the expense of the rest. That could not be allowed to continue. The abolition of the assisted places scheme demonstrates this. The £62 million cost of that scheme has been re-directed towards reducing class sizes at primary school level. There were 500,000 infants in classes of more than 30 when we gained office. Today there are fewer than 185,000 infants in large classes, and no child in this age group will be in

181
a class of over 30 by 2001. For the first time all children are being guaranteed a good education in their crucial years of learning
Driving up standards, tackling disadvantage, unlocking potential—those are the key themes that underpin our education crusade. In the first two Sessions of this Parliament we have developed a strategy for raising standards in education, including the introduction of literacy and numeracy strategies and targeting support for vulnerable families with children under four years of age. This transforming vision will be carried forward through the next Session by two Bills. The post-16 learning and skills Bill is designed to take our modernising agenda beyond the school gates and into the world of work, by raising standards, promoting skills acquisition and reinventing training provision. The special educational needs Bill will put into effect the proposals contained in Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action, published in November 1998.
Our generation and the generations yet to come are dependent on the integrity of the environment. The countryside amenity and conservation Bill will fulfil our manifesto commitments to give people greater access to the countryside and to improve protection for wildlife. The Bill will meet the aspirations of millions of people who wish to enjoy the freedom of walking across come of our finest and wildest countryside. The Bill will give people a new statutory right of access to some 4 million acres of mountain, moor, heath and down, and registered commons. People will be able to exercise the new right provided they do so responsibly. Just as our access proposals will create more opportunities to enjoy and appreciate the countryside, we shall be doing more to conserve the huge wealth of wildlife in it. Our 5,000 or so Sites of Special Scientific Interest are a rich and diverse national heritage. While most sites are well-managed, too many suffer damage or are in poor health. The Bill will include measures to help secure positive management in these cases but will also provide further penalties for damage, where this occurs.
We will also consult on a draft Bill which will promote more efficient water use. The water summit, held directly after the election in 1997, has already had a major impact. The Bill will deliver the remaining commitments, which include the overhaul of the system of water abstraction licensing, and requirements for companies to produce drought plans, and for water companies and other abstractors to conserve water in their own operations. The Government are reviewing the scope for promoting competition in the water industry. If the legislative framework needs to be changed, the Bill would provide the opportunity.
During the coming Session my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will publish a draft Bill to introduce a new form of land tenure, commonhold, and to reform the current leasehold system to give leaseholders a fairer deal. The Government also intend to transform the structure of political management in local government so that councils will be able to create separate and accountable executives to provide clear
182
and imaginative leadership to their communities; local government elections can be held more regularly; and local people can decide how they are governed and have a directly elected mayor if they want one. But your Lordships know—the press this weekend has clearly shown it—that nothing erodes people's confidence in democracy more rapidly than lapses in standards. Your Lordships would not tolerate it in central government, and we will not tolerate it in local government. We therefore propose to introduce a new ethical framework for local government. Every local councillor would be required to sign up to a new statutory code of conduct; local councils would have to set up a standards committee; a new independent body, the standards board, would deal with allegations of misconduct; and we would repeal the existing surcharge provisions that currently apply to local authorities.
This local government legislation will further strengthen and integrate government in local communities. The "Supporting People" initiative will ensure a more coherent approach that tackles social exclusion, minimising homelessness, supporting people with a mental illness within the community and helping older people retain their independence.
The Government are committed to tackling the reasons why people are marginalised or excluded from society and to delivering a country in which people get on, do well and make a success of their lives. I commend to noble Lords these Bills which play a vital part in the modernisation of Britain; a Britain of which we all feel a part and in whose future we all have such a stake.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the debate on the Address today covers a wide and diverse range of subjects—education, agriculture and the environment. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I shall concentrate on environmental matters, and in particular transport. My noble friend Lady Blatch will deal with education when she winds up for this side of the House. In the meantime, my noble friend Lady Byford will bring to the House her great knowledge of matters agricultural and in particular the countryside Bill. However, I think it fair to say that the countryside Bill has little or nothing to do with helping agriculture in its present plight. If anything, the reverse will be true.
My noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Hanningfield will no doubt have much to say on the local government organisation and standards Bill that seeks to change the existing committee system in local government to a mayor and cabinet system. That is in spite of the fact that a survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that only 3 per cent of local councillors favour directly elected mayors and only 13 per cent are in favour of the abolition of the committee system.
We also look forward to the housing Bill, already published in draft. It will deal with leasehold reform and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. We

183
support leasehold reform and the introduction of commonhold and wonder why it has taken the Government so long to do anything about it when they promised "no hesitation" before the election.
I turn to the biggest part of the Government's legislative programme that concerns us today. Despite all the talk of the importance of transport before the election and the promises that were made, we have waited until now for any transport legislation to arrive, leaving aside the transport provisions in the Greater London Authority Act that affect only London. The trouble with transport Bills is that, like Mr Prescott's buses, which he wants us to use instead of our cars, nothing comes along for two-and-a-half years and then they all arrive together. We have now been promised a mammoth Bill, no doubt equalling in length last Session's spectacular effort from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Greater London Authority Bill. Noble Lords will recall that that was probably the biggest Bill ever, with nearly 900 government amendments and countless new clauses and schedules added when the Bill came to your Lordships' House.
I now understand what the Government mean by an integrated transport policy; that is, they integrate into one Bill such legislatively diverse subjects as the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, congestion charging and other pieces of penal taxation on the motorist, a railways Bill, and measures to reintroduce regulation to the bus industry. These are matters that have no legislative connection at all, and no doubt more will be added. We protest most strongly that all these issues are to be combined in one gigantic Bill that will no doubt reach us late in the Session and entail many a late night in the summer and in the overspill next autumn.
I shall first address the Government's proposals for National Air Traffic Services. We know how badly NATS needs capital investment. Air traffic has increased dramatically in recent years. Passenger traffic at BAA's UK airports reached 11.3 million in September 1999, an increase of over 4.5 per cent on the previous year. This puts immense pressures on the dedicated staff who successfully undertake the seemingly impossible task of guiding these many planes safely to the ground. Not surprisingly, incidents of "overload" periods, when air traffic controllers feel that the volume or complexity of traffic they have to handle is too great to guarantee safety, are increasing. A senior official of NATS said earlier this year:
"We can cope with three per cent annual growth but seven per cent and higher is really stretching things".
An internal civil aviation report, published in the Daily Telegraph earlier this year, suggested that the total number of occasions on which there was overload in the financial year 1998–99 was 49, compared with 24 in the previous 12 months and 16 in 1996–97. It is to the credit of NATS staff that the number of risk bearing airprox incidents involving public transport flights per 100,000 flying hours in this period fell to 1.20, compared with 2.37 in 1997 and 2.87 in 1996. It is estimated that NATS requires some £100 million of
184
capital investment a year and at the moment that would have to count as part of the PSBR. We know that the Treasury does not want that. On this side of the House we support the privatisation of NATS. Indeed, it was in our manifesto for the last election. However, we are well aware of the views of many in the Labour Party. In fact it was described as "crazy" by the former Labour Party transport spokesman, the right honourable Member for Oxford East, Mr Smith, when in opposition. He said at the time, "Labour will do everything to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale."
So what do the Labour Government now propose? They propose a public private partnership by means of a disposal of 51 per cent of the shares, handing over day-to-day control to the private sector and of course keeping a golden share. When we sold 51 per cent of British Telecom and kept a golden share, it was decried as a privatisation by the then Opposition, which indeed it was. So is this, but we welcome the albeit late conversion by the party opposite. It is not just the Conservative Party that describes this as a privatisation. The IPMS, the controllers' union, suggests that the PPP is "privatisation by another name".
These measures were opposed last week in another place by the first Minister of Transport for this Government, Mr Gavin Strang. They were opposed by all those who spoke from the Government Benches in the debate on this subject in this House last month. This so-called "part privatisation" that sees 51 per cent of shares and day-to-day control transferred to the private sector will create immense confusion. If the Government own 49 per cent, workers 5 per cent and the private sector 46 per cent, who will actually control the business? Furthermore, to whom will the Government sell the shares? It has been mooted in the press that Thomson CSF of France is preparing a bid for NATS. Its interest in NATS is questionable to say the least. The company is 40 per cent state owned. Surely, that raises concerns about national security issues.
Finally, included in the gracious Speech was the announcement that legislation would include measures for NATS to separate safety regulation from operational matters. We welcome that. Can the Minister provide any more information today on the subject?
All these questions need to be resolved. While the Government try to appease their own Back Benchers by forcing this issue through in a Bill so unwieldy as the transport Bill promises to be, NATS is missing out on much-needed investment.
I turn now to measures aimed at reducing congestion. The gracious Speech announced measures to "reduce road congestion". Such measures could include congestion charges, workplace parking charges and road tolls aimed at reducing car use and charging the motorist for improvements to public transport. In fact, full-scale trials of electronic tolling equipment are due to take place in Edinburgh and

185
Leeds at the end of next year. But as those trials are set to last for a year it is unlikely that full-scale tolling schemes will be introduced until after the next election.
How will these measures impact on congestion? In a recent BBC Online poll, 91 per cent of people either "strongly agreed" or "tended to agree" that much more investment in public transport was necessary before measures to reduce car usage were introduced. The current network of roads needs huge improvement. The Institution of Civil Engineers' local transport survey in December 1998 found that the backlog of maintenance on local authority roads, which account for 95 per cent of the network, now stands at £4.9 billion, an increase of 20 per cent on the 1996 figure.
But what have the Government done? They have piled tax after tax increase on the motorist. An average motorist will now pay around £620 per year in fuel duty, a further £140 in VAT and £155 in road tax, a total of well over £900. Twenty-six billion pounds of the £32 billion raised in taxes on road users goes straight to the Treasury. Furthermore, ending the fuel duty escalator will not provide much relief. My honourable friend Bernard Jenkin, MP, shadow Minister for Transport, said:
"This announcement is not what it seems. The Chancellor says he has stopped the automatic fuel duty escalator—but he has not promised to stop increasing taxes on petrol and diesel. On the contrary, he says any extra transport spending will only come from more tax on petrol and diesel duties".
The Government have failed the motorist, and these new taxes only perpetuate the suffering.
A recognised policy to combat congestion is road building. By-passes bring clear environmental and social benefits to towns and villages by removing through traffic, making communities cleaner, quieter and safer places in which to live and work. For the road user, by-passes make journeys less stressful and journey times more predictable. However, only 37 of the 140 schemes previously considered were given the go-ahead by this Government. The rest were either shelved or dropped.
The Government's transport policy is in disarray. They have piled taxes on the motorist, and plan more still; they have scrapped much needed road schemes and put the £26 billion generated from road users straight into the Treasury. The motorist sees charge after charge, and has been given no incentive to leave the car behind and use public transport.
Finally, I turn to the railways. In the 40 years from 1952 to 1992, the share of journeys made by rail fell from 17 per cent to just 5 per cent while the percentage of goods moved by rail also dipped dramatically from 42 per cent to 7 per cent. Since the privatisation of British Rail, however, passenger numbers are at an historic peak—up 14 per cent in the past two years. There are 1,200 extra services a day and investment is at record levels. Private finance built the Heathrow Express rail link. It is helping to build the Jubilee Line extension, the Channel Tunnel rail link and several light railway schemes.
186
The process is by no means complete and the railways need new and substantial investment. Some of the higher profile problems such as delays and cancellations inherited from the previous system will take time and investment to rectify. A major contributory factor is the state of the railways that were handed over to the privatised companies. Virgin, for example, is working with trains nearly 30 years old which have travelled more than 6 million miles. The company operates Europe's busiest inter-city route on a track that is 40 years old.
However, the future is looking brighter for rail users. For example, Railtrack has promised investment of £27 billion over the next 10 years. Over the past three years, it points out, it has doubled investment. The figure last year was almost £1.5 billion.
The Government introduced the railways Bill late last Session and will now re-introduce it as part of the transport Bill. Surely it is a sign of the low regard in which this Government hold the railways that they introduced the Bill last Session when they knew that there was insufficient time for it to become law. Now the railways measure will be only one part of a cumbersome, piecemeal transport Bill.
The Minister mentioned the subject of rail safety. We will look carefully at any measures included in the Bill as a result of the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove and, where appropriate, will offer our support.
This is going to be a busy Session on the transport front. There will be some matters on which we shall no doubt agree; others we shall oppose with all our vigour. I am delighted that we have the Minister for Transport in this House. I wish him a longer tenure of office than that of his three predecessors in a period of just two years.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have heard much over the past two and a half years about "joined up" government. In an attempt to join up some thoughts and questions, I shall stray into areas for which departments other than the DETR and the DfEE have responsibility in legislative terms, but which are of concern to us as a whole. My noble friends on the Front Bench, Lord Tope, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, will speak on education, transport, and the countryside and agriculture. Others of my noble friends will contribute their expertise.
The Government claim—I admit, with some justification—stability and steady growth in the economy. If that is the case, my first question is: why is it—to take one area in which we are to legislate—that local authorities struggle to find the cash to provide the services that their local communities want? They are, after all, more concerned with services than with committee structures or executives. I do not believe that all local authorities are spendthrift; nor do I believe that changing structures will do much to address the point. We are, however, to look forward to a review of local authority finance during this Session. That may be more important than the form of the executive.

187
I have read forceful warnings from academics about some of the proposals coming from the DETR, which are superficially attractive in assessing the forward plans of local authorities but which carry with them seeds of real concern. As Professors Jones and Stewart wrote recently, local authorities,
"may bid for central funding and the centre's judgment is final. No more nonsense about local accountability".
Secondly, if we have stability and growth, why does NATS require investment which apparently must come from the private sector? That must, as we all acknowledge, raise issues in the public mind about safety. We look forward to those questions being answered firmly and comprehensively.
Thirdly, if we have stability and growth, why is London Underground to be subjected to what I heard the Deputy Prime Minister, in defending the PPP, describe as not the sale of the Tube to the private sector but the mortgage of the Tube? Ask anyone who has experienced negative equity, or who has had to service a large debt, about mortgages! Freedom of information is, by definition, not confined to the Home Office. The Government should be publishing the information on which the PPP decision is based and should allow London's government to decide the future of London's Tube.
One of the questions that arises in regard to the funding of services is: what will be the real effect of hypothecation? The issue has been raised in the Queen's Speech. We welcome the relaxation of rules against hypothecation; however, we shall also ask about additionality. The public are entitled to an explanation of whether revenue hypothecated to public transport will be additional to what would otherwise have been spent. We must recognise the concerns of the public in that area; nor must we forget that the environmental aspects of transport policy are inextricably linked with the financial aspects.
Another cross-cutting issue is that of discrimination and prejudice, particularly racial. Last Wednesday, I attended a seminar held by the Commission for Racial Equality to discuss the content of the Queen's Speech. The gracious Speech introduced the proposed measure to amend the Race Relations Act by reference to the report into Stephen Lawrence's murder which, as Her Majesty said, raises profound issues for our multi-racial society.
What the gracious Speech did not make clear, but a Home Office press release did, is that, although the Bill will extend the Race Relations Act to cover direct discrimination by any public authority, it will not extend the offence to indirect discrimination. Was the Macpherson report so unambitious? I think not. Unless indirect discrimination—that is, imposing conditions and making impossible rules the very culture of an organisation—is tackled, it is difficult to tackle institutional racism. It is because of institutional racism that we on these Benches—we were not alone—were so determined that the Greater London Authority, a new institution (I stress that word), shall operate properly from the start, both in the promotion
188
of equality and in its internal workings. I was not prepared for the strength of feeling that I witnessed on Wednesday. We shall table an amendment to the local government legislation dealing with the duties of local authorities to promote equality. They comprise only one type of public authority, but one which should take a lead.
On Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about how he loathes discrimination, and I do not doubt that; but he also warned the Government against enforcing tolerance by restrictive legislation. Like the noble Lord, I, too, dislike the nanny state. However, I believe that legislation does have a place. Certain attitudes are non-negotiable.
To extend the argument slightly, we strongly support the proposed repeal of Section 28. The provision has served no useful purpose. No one has been prosecuted under it, but it has done much damage by hampering the efforts of teachers to help pupils with concerns about homosexuality. Research indicates that 80 per cent of teachers are confused about Section 28, so they refrain from talking about such issues in the classroom. I appreciate that that view may not be shared across the House. We shall do our best to assist the passage of that repealing legislation.
Much fun has been had over the reference in the Queen's Speech to reforming electoral procedures, to make it easier for people to participate in elections. The first example of a joke in the debate on the Queen's Speech was a very good line from Mr Hague. Perhaps none of us would make a joke if we knew how soon it might backfire. I doubt whether anyone anticipated the antics of both the selection and deselection committees over the past week.
This is a serious issue. The Home Office did not distinguish itself in helping people to understand the electoral system that was applied in the European parliamentary election earlier this year. There was a lack of information. The Home Office leaflet was not delivered to every household. Given the complexity of the systems with which Londoners will have to get to grips for 4th May next year, it is essential that the Home Office makes a real effort to explain the systems to voters.
Low turnout at elections and citizens' lack of engagement in the political process is a major issue. I encountered recently one absurdity of the sort that is bound to cause a loss of confidence in procedures. The rules of audit applying to parish councils mean that the audit costs themselves can exceed the precept. What nonsense. We must hope that the Bill on local government organisation and standards will help to reconnect local authorities and citizens. It will not be a complete programme of modernisation.
We on these Benches have long argued for a fairer system of voting at local level. I share the view of the Constitution Unit of University College, London that proportional representation is not a panacea for local government. I agree also with the unit's report that it would increase the perceived legitimacy of local government. Importantly, the report shows that other aspects of government reform such as annual

189
elections, directly elected mayors and so on would, once implemented, reduce the options for electoral reform. The current changes are more likely to last if they are coherent. The Government should not postpone decisions.
The new powers that we anticipate for local government of ensuring the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities are welcome—although the widest power, that of general competence, would be even better. That has been confirmed in the past week by the clear message from Millbank Tower that devolution (as designed by the present Government) does not involve removing the controlling hand of central Government as regards the policies to be implemented by London government. No doubt that view extends to local government.
We are likely to see the Bill soon, and how much the Government have responded to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee that examined the draft and asked a lot of "what ifs" of a draft Bill that was not regarded as adequate. There was concern that proper advantage was not being taken of the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will expand on those concerns of a committee that he so ably chaired about the short time available to it and its limited remit.
We must all be aware of room for improvement in the legislative process. That was brought home sharply by the Greater London Authority Bill, one of the lessons of which was that a huge Bill is likely to cause huge trouble. I am sorry that the Government have decided on a huge transport Bill. Some parts of it are broadly agreed, such as the strategic rail authority and better regulation of bus services, but some are not. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, repeated a point made by the Deputy Prime Minister in a debate on the loyal Address in another place last week. When referring to transport plans drawn up by local authorities, he said:
"They have identified the transport priorities in their areas and can bid for the £700 million that has been made available".—[Official Report, 18/11/1999; col. 129.]
I do not discount the importance of the £700 million, but that seems to be the sort of local accountability that applies only if the central controller agrees that it may.
There will be more than just legislation in this Session. One of the most important Green Papers will be that on housing—a cost-cutting issue if ever there was one, with implications for health, education, employment, energy and so on. The current homelessness legislation has little regard for the long-term outcome of rehousing homeless people in terms of providing little or no choice, poor-quality housing and housing for which there is often low demand. The legislation has little regard for prevention. The statutory duties arise only at the point of crisis. Nor is there provision in legislation for addressing other problems that often accompany homelessness. There is no mechanism, for instance, for dovetailing housing and support services.
190
My noble friends Lord Ezra and Lady Maddock, who is not able to be here this afternoon, have in the past spoken powerfully about housing conditions. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ezra will do so again today—especially in respect of elderly people and the scope for improving housing through local energy-efficiency measures.
Perhaps we ought to consider matters that are a bit off the tramlines of the considerations that we usually apply. Ought we to begin to consider, for instance, a connection between building regulations and planning? I was always persuaded by the purists about the lines of demarcation between the two, but perhaps we are being too timid. Matters such as housing conditions and the size of housing take us into the numbers game and perhaps we should review them again. We shall, of course, be looking at housing numbers.
However, this issue is not just about numbers, important though that is; it is also about ensuring that everyone has a decent home, whether or not they can afford to buy. We regret that there is no greenfield development tax to even up the costs of development on greenfield and brownfield sites. I personally regret that there is no scheme to encourage savers to invest in housing.
There are many connections to be made across policy areas. We look forward to the coming Session. We shall play our part in scrutinising the Government's proposals.

Political Progress in Northern Ireland
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on political progress in Northern Ireland, I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to very brief comments and questions for clarification. Noble Lords who speak at length do so at the expense of others.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a statement on political progress in Northern Ireland.
"In July my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach asked former Senator George Mitchell to facilitate a review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The review was to focus on breaking the deadlock over devolution and decommissioning which has prevented progress for many months.
"Senator Mitchell concluded his review last Thursday, after 11 weeks of intensive negotiations. I would like to pay tribute to his balanced, persistent

191
approach which was good-humoured, evidently fair and respected on all sides. For nearly five years he has devoted his time and energy to helping resolve the most intractable of problems. Whatever now happens in the coming days, the whole House will want to join with me in thanking the senator for a job extremely well done.
"The review has not produced a single text like the Good Friday agreement. Instead, it has concentrated on building trust and confidence by means of a number of important steps forward—rather than waiting for one giant leap that might never be made.
"As a result, last week saw a series of statements by the decommissioning commission headed by General de Chastelain, by the parties, by the IRA, by the British and Irish Governments and by the senator. None of those was in itself decisive but cumulatively, I believe, those statements, together with the further steps that are planned, have created the conditions in which the agreement can now be fully implemented.
"I draw the House's attention in particular to Mitchell's belief that,
'a basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible';
the assumption of a more active, assertive role by the decommissioning commission in circumstances which it recognises will be transformed by the full implementation of the agreement; Sinn Fein's acceptance that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process, to be brought about under the aegis of the decommissioning commission in accordance with the agreement, and its acknowledgement that conflict must be a thing of the past; to the Ulster Unionist Party's recognition of the legitimacy of the peaceful pursuit of nationalist aspirations, and its commitment to the principles of inclusivity, equality and mutual respect; and to the IRA's acknowledgement of the Sinn Fein leadership, and its willingness to appoint someone as an authorised representative to enter into discussions with the decommissioning commission.
"I plan to call a meeting of the assembly on Monday 29th November for the purpose of nominating Ministers in the new Northern Ireland executive. Assuming that Ministers have been nominated, Parliament will be invited to approve a devolution order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on Tuesday 30th November and powers will be transferred on Thursday 2nd December.
"Like Senator Mitchell, I believe that with the institutions established and everything up and running, decommissioning will happen as a natural and essential development of the peace process. Sinn Fein has previously argued that decommissioning must take place in the context of full implementation of an overall settlement. It now has this in prospect as a result of the review. We are,
192
therefore, planning for success, not failure. But if there is default either in implementing decommissioning or, for that matter, devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions: the executive, the assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the North-South implementation bodies.
"Nobody should doubt my resolve to ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Of course we are talking about voluntary action by all parties to achieve devolution and decommissioning. None the less, in terms of the steps taken and those in prospect, a heavy political price will be paid by those who default. Unionists, and indeed Nationalists, can be assured of this. It would pain me to do so, but I would not shrink from suspending the institutions if it proved necessary, thus restoring the status quo so as to consider how to rectify the default. But, as I said, we are planning for success, not failure.
"Whether the agreement can move forward now depends on the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council which has been called for this Saturday. I pay tribute to the courage and leadership of the right honourable Member for Upper Bann, who is advising his party to seize the opportunity which these developments present. For the Ulster Unionist Party it is a decision of historic importance. A great responsibility rests on it. I cannot take that decision for the UUP.
"I would not for a moment overstate the merits of the deal which has now been secured. I would, however, say this. First, the Good Friday agreement is by any standard a good deal for Unionists. As the right honourable Member for Upper Bann said at the time, it secures the Union for as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland continue to support it. It brings government closer to the people in local institutions which will be responsive to local needs. It ends the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement and removes the territorial claim in the Irish constitution.
"Secondly, I have already said I believe that in the new situation which devolution will create decommissioning will take place. No longer does the IRA rule out decommissioning by either the front-door or the back-door. I do not believe that the Republican movement would have raised expectations as it has if it did not intend to deliver.
"Let us be clear about one thing. The process so outlined may not be perfect but if it is not attempted there will be no chance whatsoever of any decommissioning. The right honourable Member for Upper Bann's critics have offered no alternative way of meeting their objective, and it is certainly not for want of asking. We will know before long if the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries are engaging constructively with the decommissioning commission. Their representatives should be

193
appointed within hours of devolution. The commission will arrange early meetings with all the representatives of the paramilitaries. They will issue a further report within days of these meetings. General de Chastelain is an internationally respected figure. We can be sure that he will tell it as it is and will set the highest standards.
"Finally, let me say to those who are embarking on this journey in good faith that they will not be left on their own. If all our expectations of the Good Friday agreement are not met, I will be seeking a way forward in co-operation with those committed to the process based on the principles of this agreement. We stand on the brink of a remarkable transformation in Northern Ireland. There are already signs of growing economic confidence. The security situation, while not perfect, has been transformed. Bombs and barricades no longer interrupt daily life and people once again are able to lead a normal existence. We must not go back to the bad old days, and, with a settled political future in which the needs of both communities are met in a fair and equal society, we will not have to.
"The alternative is to hold back, to risk the renewal of instability and all that that brings, never to know whether decommissioning would have occurred and to create an overwhelming sense of disappointment and uncertainty which could not be more harmful to Northern Ireland's interests now and in the longer term. In my judgment, that is no real alternative at all. People in Northern Ireland are demanding a safe, secure future for their children. It is the job of politicians to create that for them. We must give peace a chance. I commend to the House the steps that are being taken."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place earlier this afternoon. Like him, I pay a real and full tribute to the work of Senator Mitchell who has unstintingly given his time to help hold together the peace process in some very difficult times. Without his seemingly limitless patience we would not have made anything like the progress that we have, not only over the period of the latest review but ever since he was first asked to look at the issue of decommissioning in 1995.
Will the Minister acknowledge that throughout we, too, have been strong supporters of the Belfast agreement and that our overriding objective since April of last year has been to see it implemented in full? Will he also appreciate that our disagreement with the Government has been when we believe that the agreement is not being implemented in full, with no decommissioning, no end to violence and, at the same time, the early release of 300 prisoners?
However, we believe that in the past three months real progress has been made in the review that we hope will lead to the achievement of our twin goals of devolution and decommissioning. We welcome the
194
encouraging statements by Sinn Fein and IRA as far as they go. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, we have always made clear that we can support the establishment of the executive so long as it is accompanied by the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning.
Does the noble Lord accept that devolution and decommissioning must take place virtually simultaneously and that this means that the IRA must appoint an interlocutor as soon as the executive is set up? Does he also share our concern about the reported comments of senior Republicans, Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris, over the past few days in the United States? Will he echo the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in calling on Mr Adams totally to disassociate himself from these comments and clarify the situation once again?
We are being asked to take much on trust. Does the Minister agree that, in the words of the Anglican Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Eames,
"if arms decommissioning does not take place within the timescale that is being mentioned at the moment, then the world's condemnation will rest on those who have not delivered"?
Will the Minister state clearly that in the circumstances of non-delivery of product by the IRA he will give his full backing to Mr Trimble, whom we admire for his courage and applaud for taking such a huge political risk? Furthermore, does he agree that the appropriate course of action would be for the Secretary of State, supported by the Irish Government, to invite the formation of a new executive composed only of those parties who have committed themselves, in the words of the agreement that we all support, to,
"exclusively democratic and peaceful means"?
We dearly want this peace process to succeed. But we might still all be wrong. We might yet be let down. If that happens, will the Minister agree that it should be the paramilitaries and their political mouthpieces who face the penalties, not those who have courageously followed the democratic process?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in echoing some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, perhaps I may inform the Minister that the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State carries with it our firm and unqualified support. It is right to plan and hope for success. But it is also necessary to spell out the consequences of failure. In particular I welcome two statements made by Mr Mandelson. First, he said that he would in those circumstances,
"ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday agreement".
Secondly, he stated:
"I would not shrink from suspending the institutions if it proved necessary".
In the light of the forthcoming meeting, it is highly desirable to indicate in the firmest terms the price that would be paid by politicians in Northern Ireland if anyone succeeded in undermining this agreement.
Having said that, I again echo some of the words of the Statement. In particular I think it right, first, to pay tribute to Mr Mitchell, a man who has demonstrated

195
extraordinary patience and good humour over a period of weeks in dealing with those with whom he has had to negotiate; and, secondly, to President Clinton because without the commitment of the President of the United States Mr Mitchell would not have arrived in Northern Ireland in the first place. It is right also to pay tribute to some on this side of the Irish Sea, to the former Prime Minister, Mr Major, and the present Prime Minister, Mr Blair; and, as the Minister rightly said, to Mr Trimble who has had an extremely difficult role to play. He must often have found himself in a very lonely position. That being so, he deserves a great deal of credit.
I think that all of us pray that after next weekend we shall be able to make the progress which everyone so fervently desires.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has given on behalf of his party for the Statement today and for the Belfast agreement in general. I appreciate that there have been some differences of view over the past year, but this is a day when essentially we should look forward in agreement to see how we can consolidate peace in Northern Ireland.
I agree with him that the process of decommissioning should get under way as soon as devolution is in place. I support Senator Mitchell's call for paramilitaries to appoint representatives on the same day as devolution. Indeed, the IRA's statement indicates its willingness to appoint such a representative to the decommissioning commission.
On a day like this one does not want to give too much credence to pessimism. I do not say that the noble Lord was being pessimistic; he was being cautious. However, if there were to be default, and if there were to be any move to exclude from the new executive one particular party, that would be a matter for the assembly which alone has the powers to exclude a party under the Good Friday agreement. The Government's determination is that no party should profit from such a default and we have indicated in the Statement how we would proceed if that were to happen.
I deal also with the noble Lord's point as regards the statement recently made by two members of Sinn Fein, Mr Doherty and Mr Ferris. Those statements, quite rightly, have been questioned by Mr Trimble when he heard them. However, let me put it this way. The statement by Mr Ferris was a quotation of something that he is alleged to have said. Mr Doherty, I think, was quoted more directly, but he has put the record straight. He has repeated and endorsed Sinn Fein's commitment to discharge all its obligations under the agreement including those relating to decommissioning. He accepts, like Sinn Fein, that decommissioning is an essential part of the process, and he has confirmed that,
"Sinn Fein are not in the business of double crossing or misleading anyone. Such a course of action would be disastrous. We arc in the business of making peace".
196
That is a quotation by him. On that basis, I believe that we can now go forward on the understanding that both Sinn Fein and the IRA are totally committed to this process.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his support. I very much appreciate the firm words that he uttered and his endorsement of the part played by Senator George Mitchell, the Prime Minister, and John Major when he was Prime Minister. I concur with all those sentiments.
If there were to be failure, the consequences would of course be very serious. That again is something that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in his Statement. I hope that we shall not consider failure as too likely an outcome. We believe that the success of the process is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome and we are committed to that success, and to helping it in any way possible.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the Minister will have been supplied with high grade intelligence warning of a decision already taken by the Provisional IRA to resume its campaign whatever the outcome of the next two weeks, including next Saturday. Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will take all the necessary measures to protect lives both in this island and in Northern Ireland, given the likelihood that maverick groups will support the Provisionals' campaign?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not have any such information about the IRA. The only information that I have about the IRA is the statement that it made and its commitment to this particular process. But there are dissident republican groups, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, from which a threat remains. I can assure the noble Lord that the security forces are aware of that threat. Indeed, on a number of occasions, the chief constable has given warning of the possibility of such activities by dissident republican groups. I am confident that the security forces will be on the alert lest any such unpleasant eventuality should happen.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an optimistic Statement. We all wish the process every success and congratulate Senator Mitchell who, I believe, has been most painstaking in his time and energy. His commitment over the past five years has been remarkable.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and the Minister's response to my noble friend who was justifiably cautious about "what happens if". I accept that today is a day when we look forward with great hope that the process will succeed. However, when we legislate the "what ifs" matter. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems disappointing that should one party default on the agreement all parties should be penalised for it. If one party defaults, the most logical consequence—it avoids the disappointment not only of the other parties to the agreement who are not defaulting but also of the people of Northern Ireland—is that not all the institutions should be closed down but that that party

197
should be excluded from the executive, and that the executive and assembly should continue in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland.
When we deal with the legislation, I hope that there will be a mechanism for addressing that point; and some definition of the deadline for default. Eighteen months of the two years allowed for decommissioning have now elapsed. No one has said anything about the last six months being the deadline. I assume that May is still the deadline. What happens if there is default by May 2000?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, but, under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, exclusion of a particular party from the executive is a matter which only the assembly may decide. It would be wrong in principle for us to depart from the Good Friday agreement having made it the basis of everything we have done since it was developed. It would not be realistic to talk in the terms set by the noble Baroness. However, it is up to the parties in the assembly to make that decision if that is what they choose to do at the time.
May 2000 is the date specified in the Good Friday agreement. We clearly believe that that is the date by which decommissioning should take place. If it were not to happen by then, we shall take a decision in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for putting the Statement before us today. I believe that there are others who should be thanked but this is not the time to do it. Many will be thanked in this House and in the other House for the way in which they have participated in the affairs of Northern Ireland over the years.
The Minister has travelled the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. He has met representatives of the farming community, the business community, local government, trade unionists, business people and women's organisations. No other Minister has come to understand the people of Northern Ireland over such a broad spectrum. Certain factors have been announced during the past few days. There is perhaps no one better able than the Minister to respond to the points that I wish to make. Does he agree that politics must transcend old dogmas that have blocked progress for so long? Politics is not about Nationalist against Unionist, Catholic against Protestant. It is about respect as against intolerance, democracy as against tyranny, peace as against violence. It is about making a palpable difference to people's everyday lives. Has the Minister detected a change in the people of Northern Ireland? The rank and file people have been moving in that direction.
Mr Trimble has said that we now have a realistic chance to enter,
"a new era of respect and tolerance of cultural difference and expression".
198
Therefore, Mr Trimble tends to agree with me. Only a few days ago Sinn Fein stated that it is now possible,
"to put behind us the failures, the tragedy and the suffering of the past".
I thank the Minister for all his efforts, and I know that it is a weary road that he has travelled on many occasions. I should like to hear his impression of how he perceives that the people of Northern Ireland at this time would like their representatives and others to act on their behalf.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the point he made in his question. Were I to do justice to the answer and to the people of Northern Ireland, I fear that I should trespass too much on the time of the House. I shall say briefly that we are moving to a position where democratic politics is the way forward for the people of Northern Ireland; not bigotry, intolerance, violence and sectarianism.
From speaking to the many people I have met all over the Province, I believe that that is the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland. They are grateful and pleased that there has been a ceasefire and that the old violence has gone. There is still some violence left but it is on a far lower scale. I hope that even that will soon disappear. The people of Northern Ireland will respond overwhelmingly to the prospects of peace and democratic politics with tolerance and respect for each other.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to someone like myself who lives on the mainland, it appears that for the sake of peace, the Unionists have already nobly given in to at least 90 per cent of Republican and Nationalist demands while receiving few concessions, or even gestures, in return. If the Unionists are now expected to give way even further by agreeing that Sinn Fein may enter government with only a vague promise of IRA and INLA decommissioning, will the Minister say whether the decommissioning—if and when it comes—will be meaningful? By that I mean the IRA handing in their powerful offensive weapons such as surface-to-air missiles and 5 calibre long-range sniper rifles and so on, and not merely a handful of rusty Armalites.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that all the political parties in Northern Ireland have had to settle for less than they might have wanted. Of course the UUP has made concessions, but other political parties have done so also. I should prefer to see the process as one to which all parties have subscribed and in which they have all made concessions fairly equally rather than one in which the burden has been on only one particular party. The noble Lord, from my experience, believes otherwise, but there are also enormous prizes for the Unionists, in terms of the Republic giving up Articles 2 and 3 and a firm agreement being made that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless the majority of people want it.

199
I believe that all the parties have achieved that and that the pressure has not been from only one particular direction. That is certainly the best way forward.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the territorial claims made in Articles 2 and 3 are illegal under international law?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, all I wanted to say, without entering a complicated debate about Articles 2 and 3 and many other aspects of the Good Friday agreement, was that I believe that concessions and compromises have been made by everyone and that there was pain in the agreement for everyone, but that the parties subscribed to the agreement in the interests of the greater good and of peace. That was confirmed during the recent 11-week discussions under the chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell. I should not want people to accept the noble Lord's view that this process had been all one-sided. All parties stand to gain from it, and above all, the people of Northern Ireland stand to gain from it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as we all know, the Irish Government have in recent years been very helpful in trying to suppress terrorism in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the Irish Government would help with decommissioning on their side of the Border?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Irish and British Governments have worked in close unity on that matter. The Irish Government are certainly fully aware of the work of the decommissioning commission and of their responsibilities. My understanding is that the Irish Government are 100 per cent behind us on this issue. Of course, it is probable that the vast majority of arms to be decommissioned are in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, and the Irish Government have indicated their willingness to co-operate. However, the main responsibility for decommissioning and for verifying that decommissioning has taken place lies with General de Chastelain and his commission.
Baroness O'Caithan: My Lords, I welcome the Statement wholeheartedly and certainly believe that the Secretary of State was right to say that it represents a number of important small steps rather than a great leap forward. We hope and pray that it will succeed. However, I ask the Minister for a point of clarification. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that:
"If there is default"—
I know that we should not be concentrating on the default aspect—
"either in implementing decommissioning or, for that matter, devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions: the executive, the assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council",
200
and so forth. However, towards the end of the Statement, the Secretary of State says,
"Finally, let me say to those embarking on this journey…that [Unionists] will not be left on their own. If all our expectations of the Good Friday Agreement are not met, I will be seeking a way forward in co-operation with those committed to the process based on the principles of this agreement".
It seems to me that, on the one hand, that there will be an absolute cut-off in case of a default, and on the other, that there will be a way forward with the Unionists. Will the Minister enlighten me as to what is the truth?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, if there were to be default, a number of institutions would be suspended immediately—the assembly, the executive, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies. All of those must operate together or none can. So if necessary, the operation of all those institutions would be suspended immediately. That would require the British Government to legislate and such legislation would be introduced within days of any default.
There are other aspects of the Good Friday agreement; for example, the equality commission, human rights, the work carried out by the Patten commission, the criminal justice review and so on. But if there were to be default which we could not rectify—our first aim would be to rectify it—we should have to see how we move forward. I repeat that some of the institutions would not be part of that move forward. Others would be because they represent good government and are, in this Government's view, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister has said that Sinn Fein has agreed that the IRA will decommission. However, has the IRA itself said that it will decommission because, in the past, Sinn Fein has disassociated itself from the IRA and said that it is a totally separate body? I should have thought that it would be essential to have someone from the IRA to say that the IRA will decommission.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the IRA issued a statement a few days ago—and that was the first time that it had issued such a statement. That statement makes a number of important remarks. It states, for example:
"We acknowledge the leadership given by Sinn Fein throughout this process".
That can only mean that the IRA accepts the position taken by Sinn Fein as regards decommissioning.
Secondly, the IRA indicated:
"The IRA leadership will appoint a representative to enter into discussions with General John de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning".
I believe that the total IRA statement and the elements in it represent a commitment by the IRA to decommissioning in the same way that Sinn Fein has indicated its commitment to decommissioning.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will enlighten me on something which was mentioned

201
during the course of the Statement. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is present because if this becomes a matter for legislation, I shall certainly seek clarification. I was mistakenly going to refer to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which is chiselled in my mind since I happened to be across the water when that took place in November 1985. Of course, I should refer to the Good Friday agreement. Ever since the Good Friday agreement, we have been hearing a good deal about parity of esteem. I find that term difficult. If that term is in the legislation, I hope that the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may be able to enlighten me about it.
The first eight speeches which I made in your Lordships' House were on the subject of Northern Ireland. My main tutor then was the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine. I wonder whether he ever envisaged what we are discussing today. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me on that.
I spent five years across the water. Whatever the esteem in which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, the Minister and I were held during our time in post there, nobody ever thought that we may not have been, in any way, equal in esteem because of the churches which we attend on Sundays. I believe that 27 years ago, that might have been different. Will the Minister enlighten me on that now or perhaps bear it in mind for the future?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, I make it clear that unless there is default, we are not talking of new legislation in relation to the Good Friday agreement, apart from obtaining parliamentary approval for devolution, which we hope will take place next Tuesday.
Therefore, the parity of esteem point arises in relation to the terms of the overall approach based on the Good Friday agreement rather than anything stemming directly from today's Statement. However, as regards parity of esteem, I believe that we are talking about respect by one community or religion for the other; equality of treatment of both communities and members of both communities; and respect for the human rights of all communities. Such an approach reflects what is meant by "parity of esteem". Moreover, taking further the point made by my noble friend Lord Blease, I believe that there is an overwhelming wish on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to show respect for each other in the future.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister explained parity of esteem extremely well. But how much parity of esteem is there for the Unionist tradition South of the Border?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that I am qualified to comment on that. Indeed, I do not have
202
sufficient knowledge. The noble Lord must address that question to the people who live in the Republic in order to learn their views.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Statement refers to what will happen if there is a default in implementing decommissioning. From what the Minister said about what the IRA has put in its statement, I do not understand that that encompasses implementing decommissioning rather than merely giving an assurance to discuss the matter.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go further other than to say that the IRA made a statement, some of which I quoted. It says that:
"The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland".
It has said also:
"In our view, the Good Friday Agreement is a significant development and we believe that its full implementation will contribute to the achievement of lasting peace".
I believe that that statement plus, of course, the overwhelming support for this process at which George Mitchell arrived and George Mitchell's statement to that effect all point the way to an extremely positive way forward.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
4.17 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, first, I rise to welcome the Government's determination to identify and meet the needs of post-school learners, sometimes described as the Cinderella sector of our educational provision. The Churches, whose Joint Education Policy Committee I have the privilege to chair, have made a significant contribution to lifelong learning partnerships in many parts of the country, building on their long experience and networks in FE and industrial chaplaincies, in adult education and in youth and community work. They have hosted a variety of events in the past year with the FE sector and the TECs to support the development of effective partnerships. They are now looking for a strong steer from Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all the 47 learning and skill councils will engage seriously with the Churches in those lifelong learning partnerships.
It is important that in the proper concern for the improvement of skills in the training programme, we do not forget that basic understanding of the need for learning which the Secretary of State, the right honourable David Blunkett, described in terms of developing,
"a civilised society and the spiritual side of life".
We must never forget, as Dean Inge put it, that "education is about values". I believe that the Government do see the clear links between two of their key priorities: economic competitiveness on the one

203
hand and social inclusion on the other. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will remember her important contribution to the Church's conference on the purpose of post-16 education which was held just a year ago.
Given the very strong economic and planning emphasis in the White Paper Learning to Succeed, we need some reassurance that the wider personal and social dimensions will be given due weight in the current decision-making process. Sound education must be concerned with the whole of a person's life and not just with their ability to find work, important though that is, not only for those individuals concerned but, indeed, for the well-being of our society.
As part of their response to the Christian Gospel imperative "to make whole", the Churches will seek to continue to make a significant contribution to widening participation and social inclusion through their community outreach work. In recognition of the value that they place on such grassroots work, this year, for the first time, they have been pleased ecumenically to sponsor one of the Association of Colleges Beacon Awards for sustainable community development. We now welcome the possibility of the Church being able to access funding directly for the lifelong learning opportunities that it offers. Reports from parishes in my diocese tell me that much of that community-based learning makes a dramatic difference to people's lives and opportunities. It is about more than paper qualifications, important though such qualifications are for motivating some people to learn.
The White Paper makes little reference to the funding of non-accredited learning. Today I would welcome an indication of the Government's thinking on that matter. Funding regimes for such learning will need to recognise the lengthier time-scale required if traditional non-learners are to succeed. Achievement must not be narrowly defined; achievement must be available in bite-sized chunks about which the University of Industry has spoken.
The experience of the Churches in youth work with marginalised groups in many of our socially deprived areas suggests that the best of intended programmes will fail and be a waste of precious funds unless they begin to deal with what is required on the young people's terms, rather than by forcing an externally imposed and target-driven agenda on them. We look forward to making a major contribution to the proposed youth support service and to the lifelong learning partnerships.
It is good to note that that will not be done at the expense of the Government's commitment to their programme for schools. The other day I was particularly pleased to learn that £80 million is to be made available for administrative support in small schools. That will relieve hard-pressed teaching head teachers in our rural schools. Head teachers of such schools in my own diocese have been pressing the Department for Education and Employment for that for some time. I thank the department on their behalf.
204
We must appreciate the pressures on the staff in rural schools arising from the effect on families of the crisis in agriculture. It is a great sadness to me that there is no mention of agriculture or of any proposed measures in the gracious Speech to help that part of our national life. Almost daily I receive reports of farming families in serious difficulties. We all realise that the rate of suicide among farmers—not just among the hill farmers of the northern Pennines, but across the whole sector—is quite alarming.
I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Countryside Agency and in relation to the National Access Forum in welcoming the introduction of legislation to give greater access to the countryside and to give greater protection to wildlife. However, like the issue of hunting with dogs, I believe that those matters are of far less significance than the need to reflect much more fully in public policies and practical programmes help to meet the needs of rural communities and in particular those engaged in agriculture and related industries. I hope that the rural White Paper will do that and that it will seek to overcome the seeming divide that sometimes exists between urban and rural people as if we are not all part of one nation.
The Countryside Agency has done much in preparation for the introduction of the legislation on greater access. In the difficult situation of bringing the Countryside Commission and part of the Rural Development Commission together, I have been impressed to watch the staff of that new body get down to the detailed work required, at times in the face of some pretty aggressive opposition from some landowners and others.
I hope that in due time access will be extended to woodland, the coast and watersides, but with the necessary safeguards for fragile environments. For me, access and the freedom to roam begin with a theological question: whose countryside is it? Who should have the right to be reinvigorated and refreshed by the thrill of open spaces, lonely places and wide skies? Although I believe that relatively few people will stray from paths, wider access and a concern for rights of way must be managed. In order to achieve that, funding will be required to provide signing, ranger services, measures to enable access for the disabled, and to meet the management concerns of those who farm or care for the landscape. As with the present rights-of-way legislation, if the objective is to be achieved, finance will be required. We must not underestimate that.
My experience of the National Access Forum is that a good start has been made with a positive approach to matters which I have found divide people at a deep and even an emotional level where head and heart come together.
I hope that that measure will be coupled with a better rural proofing of the Government's wider policies with the help of the Countryside Agency so that access and right to roam are not seen—as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, hinted—by farmers and others as yet one more oppressive measure in a time of crisis, but as an opportunity which may

205
help to provide more rural services and to give townspeople a greater awareness of our landscape and of the needs of those who live there and manage it. Resources may then be more readily shared which will meet the great needs of the countryside today and yet preserve it for tomorrow. I hope that the White Paper will give us such a long-term strategy, but I believe that there are no quick or easy fixes by which to achieve that.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are aware that there are a number of cupboards dotted around this building with large and imposing doors. I have blundered into one or two of them in the past few weeks while attempting to learn the geography of your Lordships' House. It is a measure of the warmth and welcome that I have received since I arrived here that I am not cowering in one of those cupboards now as I am faced with the challenge of speaking in your Lordships' House for the first time. I also pay tribute to the enormous tact and forbearance of the staff and Officers of the House as this particular "new bug" has been finding her feet.
I recall that my noble friend Lord Lipsey described a nightmare that visited him as he prepared to give his maiden speech. In the dream he rose to speak and was immediately removed by two Officers of the House. I may have the detail slightly wrong, but I believe that was the gist of it My personal nightmare is a little different. In my worst imaginings I rise and find that I have nothing to say, that my power of self-expression has left me and I am silent.
As I stand before your Lordships, albeit unsteadily and clutching this unfamiliar prop, it is evident that such fears are not being realised at this moment. For that blessing I am grateful for two things: parents who encouraged debate and an education—entirely at the state's expense—that introduced me early to the idea that language, especially when it is spoken or performed, is an essential tool for unlocking the imagination.
I was fortunate to attend a small village school in the 1950s which was run by a head teacher of quite remarkable gifts. His name was Vicars Bell, and in his day he was recognised as a significant contributor to educational thinking. I suspect that his methods, which were a bit chaotic, and perhaps did not always include sufficient attention to the "Rithmetic bit of the three Rs", would find little favour in today's bracing environment. But his greatness lay in his conviction that children could learn through exposure to the arts.
Our young lives were filled every day with music—we learned dozens of English folk songs, for instance, many of which I can still sing, although I shall not attempt to prove that now—with dance and, above all, with books and poems that he read aloud to us and plays which we performed. He introduced us to Dickens, Shakespeare, Tennyson, Keats, Shelley and the Bible—it was a Church of England school. If he were alive now, he would doubtless be sharing Ted Hughes or Carol Ann Duffey or Harry Potter with an
206
audience of rapt seven year-olds. He did not make much concession to "suitability", believing as I do that children are capable of understanding far more than we usually give them credit for. The group which left that school at the same time as I did was very mixed. Several were from what we would now call "disadvantaged" backgrounds. Some did well academically and some did not. But none of us was illiterate and all of us had been given a gift—the confidence to speak for ourselves.
Your Lordships may be wondering what this evocation of a prelapsarian age (with perhaps an uncomfortable hint of warm beer and bicycles) has to do with today's business. But I hope that that will become clear.
It is no surprise, but very gratifying, to note that the gracious Speech reaffirms a strong commitment on the part of the Government to education. I should like to refer to an earlier government initiative which I hope will be followed up in the year ahead. An admirable report was published recently, commissioned jointly by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Your Lordships may remember that it was called All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. In his introduction to the report, the chairman of the committee which produced it, Professor Kenneth Robinson, said,
"By creative education we mean forms of education that develop young people's capacities for original ideas and action: by cultural education we mean forms of education that enable them to engage positively with the growing complexity and diversity of social values and ways of life".
I imagine there are few in this House, or outside it. who would think such an approach to education an actively bad thing, but in practice, as the report points out, the importance which the Government understandably attached to the technical skills of numeracy and literacy may have resulted in effort being concentrated in those areas somewhat to the exclusion of other, broader objectives. Again the report said:
"We accept the need for a sustained strategy for literacy and numeracy, but it is vital that this emphasis… should not marginalise other areas of intellectual and personal development which are equally important in the early years and during primary school".
As the right reverend Prelate said, education is about values.
The point of my raising these matters is that it gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the contribution which arts organisations can, and do, make in helping to develop these educational ideas. Many of them have within them skills which go far beyond the mere (if I may use that word without offence) presentation of finished works of art, performed or otherwise. I should like to mention some examples which demonstrate the value of combining the skills of arts practitioners with the needs of the education system. In doing so I should declare an interest in that I work for the National Theatre, to which my examples are in different ways connected, although a huge amount of work is of course also being done elsewhere.

207
Those noble Lords who pay close attention to the newspapers may have noticed an article a few days ago in the education section of the Daily Mail. It described a weekend event, which I attended, in which more than 60 students and teachers from a number of secondary schools around the country came together at St Thomas's Hospital to explore issues of medical ethics. They were joined by a dazzlingly high-powered group of clinical experts, by representatives from two different theatre companies—the National Theatre and Y Touring, which has special expertise in using theatre to tackle complex scientific and medical questions—and by 15 playwrights.
Over two days, the young people got to grips with problems that tax the minds not just of medical professionals but also of government—and they did it by making drama. The results were diverse, thoughtful, occasionally hilarious and consistently illuminating. Everyone involved learnt from the experience, but it was particularly noticeable how articulate the students became as they were able to express and "own" their opinions through performance. It was an inspiring event, and the great thing is that it was only the beginning. This collaboration among Guy's, King's and St Thomas's Medical School, the theatre companies, the playwrights and the schools will go on, reaching many more people, all through next year and beyond—provided the money can be found.
Primary Shakespeare is a programme developed through a pilot partnership between National Theatre Education and eight inner London primary schools. It focuses on Shakespearean text, using it as a catalyst for literacy and creative writing, and for curriculum enrichment extending into music, design and technology. It is designed for teachers and children in years five and six.
Teachers who participated in the pilot scheme made the following points: two-thirds of the class are bilingual learners and often talk in half sentences with an immature grasp of language. The fact that Shakespeare's language is unusual and poetic made the students think about the structure and impact of words and language.
Special needs children were involved and supported through drama and writing workshops; it was excellent for their writing skills. The development of self-esteem and confidence was remarkable. It was stimulating working with professionals, enabling the children to develop such a love of Shakespeare and the theatre. This present year six feel so confident with Shakespeare that they are busy rehearsing A Midsummer Night's Dream as their end-of-year play. They will never forget this, and it is about time we had something unforgettable! They just loved the iambic pentameters—they spoke in iambic pentameters all week.
National Connections, a large-scale project supported until recently by one generous sponsor, has for the past six years used the resources of the National Theatre, first, to commission from established
208
playwrights (including, for instance, Alan Ayckbourn) plays for young people to perform and then to co-ordinate a nationwide collaboration among schools, youth groups and professional theatres in order to produce them. Over the six years, in three two-year cycles, dozens of schools and youth groups all over the UK were involved. Children and young people of all ages and abilities took part, and a representative sample of the work they produced was presented at the National Theatre over 10 gruelling but exhilarating days at the end of each cycle.
This July the latest, and possibly the last, of these festivals took place (sadly, the sponsor's support has come to an end). For everyone who participated, but most of all for the young people, the experience was genuinely life-changing. Their view of themselves, of what they could achieve, was immeasurably enhanced. They acquired new skills, learnt new language. They spoke for themselves, and were heard.
In a Chamber devoted to advocacy and debate I need not stress the potency of language. Metaphor, imagery, rhetoric are the common currency of this House—tempered always, of course, by the sobering effect of facts. Not to have command of language is, to use the jargon, disempowering. The arts, and in particular the performing arts, in giving young people a voice, can help them to develop the confidence they need to become good citizens. We are not short of the human resource to make this happen. Unfortunately we do not always have the financial resource to make the best use of it.
I appreciate that the Government have done a great deal since they came into office to encourage and support the relationship between the arts and education. But I would hope that, in driving their excellent policies forward, my noble friend Lady Blackstone and her colleagues will consider how much more could be achieved and what beneficial effects could be felt across many of their principal areas of concern if still more were invested in this fruitful cross-fertilisation.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as someone passionately interested in the arts, a regular visitor to the National Theatre, to which the noble Baroness has made such an immensely distinguished contribution, and someone equally enthusiastic about opera, it gives me enormous pleasure to congratulate, on behalf of the whole House, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, on her outstanding speech. As I listened to her I wished that she could emerge perhaps from time to time from the executive director's office and appear on the stage of the National Theatre. But its loss is our gain. It is perhaps appropriate that she should appear on this stage on the day on which the Royal Opera House re-opens.
Perhaps it is appropriate also that I should be followed on this occasion by someone else who is to make a maiden speech and who has made an equally distinguished contribution to the arts, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, and we look forward to what he has to say.

209
Those of us who have sat in both Houses of Parliament perhaps appreciate more than others the conventions and courtesies that have been traditionally practised both in side and outside the Chamber. I hope that the Government's determination to,
"modernise the country and its institutions"—
in the words of the gracious Speech—will not lead to their abandonment.
Some of our practices will need to change. A number will fall away because the circumstances that caused them to be accepted no longer exist. A government who call for the modernisation of institutions surely will not demand that we stand by a doctrine first developed by the third Marquess of Salisbury in the last decades of the 19th century or the understanding worked out by the fifth Marquess, as he was to become, and by Viscount Addison during the late 1940s.
The Salisbury doctrine was promulgated for a House of Peers quite different from that in which we now sit. In today's circumstance new conventions are required and will have to be developed.
In a parliamentary democracy the electorate is not adequately served if the executive is allowed to railroad through a great avalanche of ill thought-out, badly drafted and hardly debated legislation. From time to time this House as the right—indeed a duty—to say, "Enough is enough. Up with this we will not put".
Among the measures that I suspect may come in that category are parts of the hotchpotch transport Bill for which no mandate can be claimed on the basis of manifesto commitments. On top of the huge burdens already placed on the motorist will be a poll tax on wheels. We will need to probe very carefully its likely economic consequences, how it creates injustices of treatment between different motorists, and the environmental impact that will arise from the destruction of town-centre businesses and the inevitable growth that the Bill will encourage of out-of-town supermarkets and greater development in the countryside. The Government would he wise not to rely on an outdated interpretation of an obsolete parliamentary convention for a smooth passage for this Bill.
Another old-fashioned, and probably outdated practice—it is not even a convention—is that we do not vote against subordinate legislation. The Companion makes it clear that we have unfettered freedom to vote if we wish to. It refers to a debate on 20th October 1994, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sorry to see that he is no longer in his place. While I agree with the opinion expressed on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that the use of the unfettered right should be a last resort and that we should seek to control the amount and type of delegation in legislation, I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that when, as is the case increasingly, regulation is used for matters of major controversy, it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain a convention that we consent to them without voting on them.
210
Turning now to environmental issues, I first look outside the country and refer to the environmental catastrophe already taking place as a consequence of events in Kosovo. In an earlier debate on 6th May I expressed my doubts about the Government's handling of the Kosovo crisis and, provoked by the extraordinarily complacent and misleading account of those events and their consequences given to the House last Thursday by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, I would have been tempted to say far more today had it not been for the firm response of my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
The outcome of our intervention has not been the happy progress to relative normality so misleadingly outlined by the noble Baroness, but ethnic cleansing—this time by Kosovar Albanians—administrative chaos, economic devastation along the whole of the lower Danube caused by the obstruction of that great international waterway, and the continuing environmental threat posed by flooding due to winter ice packing against the fallen bridges and serious pollution of the river and the land by oil and chemicals from plants destroyed by bombing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, responding to a question posed by her noble friend Lord Grenfell on 11th November, put all the blame for lack of action on Milosevic, and said that the western powers were not prepared to assist a programme of reconstruction while he remained in power.
The Government appear to be blind to the lessons of history. Sanctions and bombing are usually ineffective instruments for removing dictators and governments of whom we disapprove, as we should have learned from events in Iraq. Putting all the blame on one side in an unfolding, historic tragedy of mutual brutality is also likely to be counterproductive. Eventually one has to bring people together and sit down with those whose records one abominates. If we go on as we are, we will be confronted with a social and environmental tragedy and a political nightmare even greater than the one which we intervened to prevent.
I turn from the Balkans to our own land and. first, to policies that threaten to wreck the wonderful countryside of the south of England. The number of additional houses that the Government's planners believe should be built over the next two decades varies almost from day to day, but they run into millions. This is not a distant but an immediate threat. Professor Christine Whitehead, an adviser to the Government on housing, is quoted in The Times, as saying—just after she casually added the equivalent 10 extra Basingstokes to the statistics last week—
"I don't mind covering a bit of the South East in concrete, to be honest".
Well, I do mind.
Labour promised to put concern for the environment at the heart of policy making. Mr Prescott said that,
"above all, we must not allow our countryside, our precious green space to become easy prey to developers and speculators".
It is now perfectly clear that, despite those promises, the policy of predict and provide is not dead.

211
Professor Whitehead was at least half way to being sensible when she said,
"The way you can ease the pressure is by working the system to make it attractive to work in the Midlands. You can't do it by controlling housing".
Half way because, yes, we must work the system to make it attractive to work outside London and the south east, but surely we shall also need to continue to protect "our precious green space".
There is something very wrong with a situation when huge numbers of perfectly good houses in the north cannot be sold while demand in the south mounts and mounts. The over-concentration of government, business and population around our capital city, to a degree hardly matched in any other country, is gravely damaging not only to the environment but also to the social and economic health of the nation.
For eight years as Secretary of State, I worked to re-establish industry and business in Wales. I launched the Cardiff Bay project to bring people back to work, live and play in the vast brownland desert of South Cardiff in order to protect the Vale of Glamorgan. Similar efforts have been made in cities like Newcastle and Glasgow. It is possible. We need a far greater effort by government to encourage people to go back to the great provincial cities that created our economic prosperity in the past.
In the age of modern technology and communication, the Net, e-mail and video conferencing, it is nonsense to suggest that everything has to be at the end of a traffic jam in central London.
If the Government really care about modernising Britain they have to stand up to both the professors of "predict and provide" and the developers; and address themselves seriously to the challenge presented by a Britain of two nations—a grossly over-resourced south-east and an impoverished elsewhere.
Finally, I turn to a problem with which I was confronted first as chairman of the National Rivers Authority and about which I have already expressed strong views in my valedictory report and in a recent book. It is a problem presented this month in a powerful paper for the RSPB and Forum for the Future by Caspar Henderson entitled False Economics Won't Hold Water. It points out that Ofwat's—that is to say, Mr Byatt's—approach to the financial regulation of the water industry severely threatens the national environmental programme asked for by the Environment Agency and approved by Ministers. From the outset, first the NRA and then the Environment Agency have been confronted by the uncomfortable reality that they have less control over key environmental programmes than a financial regulator who is not much interested in and lamentably ignorant about them.
212
Mr Henderson's paper comments:
"Ofwat does not have the expertise, nor the legitimacy, to enable it to ignore the advice of the Environment Agency. English Nature and Ministers in removing schemes from the environment programme".
Yet Ofwat has consistently ignored that advice. I agree with Mr Henderson that the regulatory system is flawed and that, as a result, ministerial decisions are being undermined, opinion polls are being ignored and the environment degraded. In my book I said:
"It seems obvious that there is an urgent need to devise a better way to conduct the debate in future".
The gracious Speech promises to modernise the utility regulation system. The opportunity to reform the flawed arrangements that threaten the environment should not be missed.
I welcome what the Minister said earlier this afternoon about protecting SSSIs and about more effective water use. But it remains odd that New Labour, which in its manifesto said,
"We will put concern for the environment at the heart of policy making",
has included only one line about the protection of wildlife linked to the right to roam and about global warming in a gracious Speech said to be addressing priorities for the new millennium. It represents just one aspect of the total lack of vision of the measures proposed to which the amendment moved by my noble friend last Thursday refers.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: My Lords, it is, I suppose, natural for someone making their maiden speech to feel nervous; and so I do. However, like my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her wonderful and—from my point of view as I stand here—wholly enviable maiden speech, my nervousness has been substantially moderated by the warmth of the welcome that I have been shown by this House: by staff in all departments and by many Members sitting in the Chamber today, not least by the very kind remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. But perhaps the most telling on me, and the most remarkable, has been the welcome that I have been shown by Members who 10 days ago knew that they would not be here today or tomorrow. Before I came here, my understanding of the welcome and warmth of this House was, if you like, a cliché. It has to be experienced to be believed.
In speaking on education, I should explain to the House that I chair a British company, which is the largest provider of educational materials in the world and might, therefore, be judged to have an interest in most matters educational; as, indeed, this company does. However, I hope and believe that I am not alone in this House in welcoming in the gracious Speech, amid the 28 new Bills, the reaffirmation by the Government that education continues to be their number one priority.
In that context, and as someone who has in recent times been asked to give advice to the Prime Minister on the role of computers and information technology

213
in education, I very much also welcome the commitment that has been made—and, I believe, is being made—by this Government to improving the use of information technology in our schools and universities. This is not a new policy. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, deserves the credit for being its very robust progenitor dating from the mid-1980s, but it is in recent years that it has started to bear fruit and come of age. Today, some 93 per cent of our secondary schools and over 60 per cent of our primary schools are connected to the Internet. That is an astonishing increase from a near zero position a very few years ago. About half of these have ISDN2 or even faster connections. We have over a million computers that work and deliver in our schools, and there are now about a quarter of a million pages of content on the National Grid for Learning. This is an astonishing change, which has come almost by stealth.
It is not perhaps surprising that such dramatic changes create new policy choices. I propose to trespass on the indulgence of the House to suggest what two of these may be. Reference was made in the gracious Speech to the continuing commitment of the Government to reducing class sizes in the early years of education. I have no doubt that this policy is correct, but, as information technology continues to change the entire pedagogy in the classroom, I hope that we will not as a society worship the altar of class size. In some of our schools you can already see classes where the teaching process has been radically transformed to the point where the size of a class is, frankly, less relevant than it used to be. I refer to classes with children who are older than those whom the Government's policy is affecting. Teachers will remain a critical lynchpin, but simple class size will not.
A second and rather different consequence of the extension of information technology into the classroom is what is now widely described as the "digital divide". What does a teacher do when he or she finds a class with, shall we say, 25 out of 30 children who have state of the art equipment at home and connections to the Internet and, therefore, to the school? The teacher will take advantage of it and change the pedagogy for classroom work and for homework by integrating with the home and the parental support there. Indeed, only last week a survey from the British Educational Suppliers Association pointed out that 37 per cent of our schools have now put their curriculum materials on to the website. I do not have the comparative figures with me, but that is a huge increase. This is progress. It is wonderful exploitation of technology in the right direction.
However, what about the five children in this notional class of 30 who do not have such connections and are likely never to have them? I read most carefully and very much welcomed the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago in which he committed the Government to investing in learning centres to improve access for the worst off in our population. This is not a moment too soon. It is a
214
problem analogous to and, possibly, greater than the problem faced in the last century as regards giving poorer households access to books.
Finally, as I have mentioned the subject of information technology in education, perhaps I may put in a plea against ageism in such debates. I am not for a moment accusing the Government or, indeed, the Opposition of this, but it is too often presumed that information technology is the prerogative of the young and that only they can master it. However, although that may be intuitively correct, it goes against the evidence of what is happening in our country, in North America and, as far as I am aware, in the rest of Europe. The evidence shows that the over 55s, or the "silver surfers"—I am sure that that title has no relevance to your Lordships—are one of the most active and fastest growing groups on the Internet. The reason our children have learnt it fast is that they have the time to do so. Equally, the reason older people can do it is that they have the time.
I applaud every word that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the relationship of arts to education and observe in passing that the linkage of information technology and the access to it for people throughout their lives can help massively in that respect. In this context, perhaps I may say that one of the very pleasant surprises on entering this House was to find the emphasis put on information technology here: the fact that we have automatic right of access to computers and that we have computing facilities. Huge strides have clearly been made in applying it to the business of the House; indeed, far greater than one would find in many private or public sector organisations of another kind.
I am sure that no one in this House needs to be urged to become a silver surfer. I look forward in the years to come to participating in vigorous exchanges, not only in this Chamber but also, I hope, by e-mail with all Members present.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the delightful duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, on his maiden speech falls to me. He has had a most remarkable career. His business career has an emphasis on the media and finance but also covers technology and other aspects. He has also had a wide-ranging and distinguished career in the public service, including having been the chairman of the national association of youth councils and the chairman of the Tate Gallery Trustees. Currently he is a member of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers and of the board of the British Council.
Someone with a natural tendency to lack of reverence described the noble Lord to me as, "the sort of person who works late, gets up at crack of dawn and has chaired five committee meetings before breakfast". I suspect that he is rather that kind of person. I know that we all hope to hear a great deal more of his vigorous style of debate and of his particular ability to contribute to our discussions.

215
I was also charmed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. I have been tempted by both the maiden speeches to jettison my speech and to go once more down those lovely paths of education which I used to enjoy so much. However, I must get back to my "real job" and leave education to my noble friend who is more than competent to deal with it.
As noble Lords may expect, I shall confine myself to discussion of the transport Bill to which we on these Benches give a cautious welcome. That must not be seen as an unwillingness to criticise in detail when the legislation reaches Parliament. We also have severe reservations on some aspects of it. But we do not share the attitude of the Official Opposition to the problems of travel by road. I find it extraordinary that they continue to recommend huge increases in road building while still calling for a reduction in taxation. Somehow those two attitudes do not seem to match up.
I return to the Bill. The Government may have been tempted to entitle it "the integrated transport Bill". The Bill might almost deserve this title if it did not contain the proposals for part privatisation of NATS. This has nothing to do with joined-up transport and everything to do with government unwillingness to finance the capital requirement of an essential public service. There are alternative ways of enabling a publicly owned body to borrow in the open market, for example, we suggest, as a non-profit public interest company. We will argue the detail of that case at the right moment.
My noble friends Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lady Hamwee have already spoken on our opposition to the NATS scheme and I have done so in the past. I simply add that the Bill would be a great deal easier to take through Parliament if the NATS provisions were in a separate Bill. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw will deal with bus regulation. I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on the legislation for the strategic rail authority and the new powers for local authorities. I shall also speak on the rail safety issues raised by the Minister in his speech.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches are broadly in support of his proposals for the establishment of a strategic rail authority. After all, a similar proposal was in our own published policies before it reached the Labour Party manifesto. On the other hand we on these Benches will be concerned to see that many of the recommendations of the Select Committee in another place are taken on board before a new version of the former railways Bill reappears. If that happens, I think that the rather unusual process which the Government used in introducing a draft Bill in another place will have been thoroughly justified.
Examples from some of the 52 recommendations that we would wish to see adopted include a series requiring total clarity in respect of the functions of the SRA and the rail regulator; total clarity on the conditions under which the SRA can take over and run
216
passenger and rail freight services; and clarity on the financial relationship, if any, between the SRA and the passenger transport authorities in large towns. We have a natural sympathy with recommendation (kk) which seeks to give additional protection against the sale of land which has a potential for railway related development—a most useful redefinition of operational land.
We are particularly concerned about the commitment of the Government to rail freight. It is already becoming clear that there is insufficient capacity on the West Coast Main Line to meet freight aspirations. Those passenger companies which aspire to renew their franchises will aim to fill up capacity on their lines leaving little scope to expand freight carriage. To accommodate freight will require significant investment in extra capacity and if the freight business is left to bear these costs without government help there is little prospect of these facilities being provided. I hope that the Government can acknowledge the problem and can tell us a little more about what plans they have to deal with it.
We share the wish expressed by the Select Committee—and by its distinguished chairman, Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in last Thursday's debate in another place—that the SRA should gather and publish information about the performance and investment of Railtrack, the TOCs and ROSCOs and customer satisfaction with those services. I have selected only a few of the Select Committee's recommendations for comment during today's debate, but we shall study the texts carefully prior to the Bill reaching Parliament.
I turn now to local powers for congestion charging and workplace parking levies. Again we are broadly in sympathy with the ideas behind the Government's intention to give powers to local authorities other than the GLA to establish schemes for congestion charging and workplace parking levies. But I very much support the remarks on additionality made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It would appear that this Government are spending, if anything, slightly less on transport than their predecessors were planning to do. There may be a benefit to expenditure on public transport resulting from a reduced budget for road building, but hypothecation at a local level must not be substituted for low expenditure machismo at a national level.
In face of widely expressed alarm on how these measures will affect motorists, and the deliberately alarmist attitude adopted by some Conservative spokesmen and the tabloid press, it will be important to stress that such schemes will be part of a local transport plan which requires wide consultation. No one that I know in local government regards them as a single quick fix for the problems of town centre traffic reduction. While I am on this subject, I wish to express some concerns on the part of local authorities that the final guidance for the confirmed five-year round of local transport plans, which have to be submitted in July, has not yet appeared. The requirements for consultation on these local plans are such that some local authorities are already embarked on the consultation process in advance of the guidance in

217
order that they can complete the due decision-making process in time. I am afraid that I did not give the Minister notice of this question but I wonder whether she can tell us when publication of this guidance is to take place.
I now come to what seemed to me before the start of today's debate to be a major gap in the provisions of this Bill; namely, the absence of any visible legislation in the field of rail safety. I am grateful to the Minister for the remarks that he made on introducing today's debate. He may have received a letter from me which I sent to him this morning in which I express some of my concerns. I shall not go over the details of recent rail accidents. It is enough to say that a suspicion has been voiced that the accident at Ladbroke Grove might not have occurred had lessons learnt from Southall been put in place. Of course we do not yet know what these lessons may be—that is one difficulty with the present system—but both accidents involved fast and slow trains operating in opposite directions on the same stretch of track.
The difficulty under which the safety system suffers is that accident investigation and the report which follows have sometimes to wait upon the completion of criminal investigation to establish blame. That seems to be the consequence of siting the process within the Health and Safety Executive. A further effect is said to be an unwillingness of witnesses to volunteer information at the accident inquiry because of fear that they may be involved in a later criminal investigation.
The Deputy Prime Minister's decision to establish an immediate accident investigation procedure in respect of Ladbroke Grove, in effect recognised the importance of getting at the facts and rectifying mistakes before attention turns to any criminal procedures. I welcome that intervention on his part, but it will not be enough.
Changes to the present allocation of responsibilities are required. We need to separate the functions of regulation and inspection from the rail accident investigation function. A number of models for achieving this have been suggested, including that put forward by the Select Committee, which is interesting but may not be feasible given the special international responsibilities of the air and marine accident investigation organisations.
Given the time constraints this evening, I do not think that this is the right time to discuss these in detail. Suffice it to say that at present there is a benefit to be had from the reinvention of the independent railways inspectorate under a different title. This would deal with safety regulations and with inspecting and approving safety cases, which are currently functions of the Health and Safety Executive and of Railtrack. The inspectorate would also be charged with making clear the financial consequences of its recommendations so that the Government can determine whether there is a public interest case for supporting additional safety measures. Together with the establishment of an independent accident
218
investigation unit, this would go a long way towards satisfying some of the concerns that have been expressed to me.
I very much hope that in the months to come—obviously not this evening—we shall hear a welcoming response from the Government to some of the ideas that I have put forward. Meanwhile, I look forward to a long, interesting and taxing discussion of the forthcoming transport Bill.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the gracious Speech, with its 28 Bills, will indeed bring important issues before us during the coming Session. My main comments today will focus on agriculture and the environment. While some see them as separate issues, they are inextricably linked; the success or failure of the former has implications for the latter.
The style of the countryside as we know it today is man made. For hundreds of years it has been cared for by the farmer, who has been the custodian of the countryside. Farmers have cared for moorlands, heaths, downs, parks, woodlands and SSSIs, and in more recent years have had occasional financial aid from the Government.
Without being rude to the opening speaker on the Government Benches, I was very concerned that in his opening address the words "agriculture" or "farming" were not once mentioned. Even more worryingly, in a recent article on the countryside written by his right honourable friend Michael Meacher, again those two words were not once mentioned.
I am sure that I need not remind your Lordships of the dire circumstances in which farmers find themselves today. Their incomes have halved and halved again during the past two years; average incomes are running at £8,000 a year and many farmers are running at a loss; and many —I see that the right reverend prelate is no longer in his place—have gone out of business.
Increasing numbers of regulations and directives have added to their burden and many farmers are leaving the industry. We—and they—will welcome the Government's drive to address inappropriate and over-complex regulation. Legislation to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens will be welcomed if properly applied. But if, like the CAP reform, it is fudged, that will not be welcomed.
Earlier this year we saw the passing of the IPPC Bill, which was debated and is now an Act of Parliament. This Act has implications for both poultry and pig farmers. Under the regulations, an application charge of some £6,098 multiplied by the number of components—the areas of pollution—and the annual subsistence charge of £2,768, again multiplied by the number of components, will be levied on all pig producers over a certain size. With those and other charges, the annual cost of a typical sow unit of 2,000 pigs could exceed £18,000. To some, that may not seem a great deal of money, but to those in the pig industry and in other farming activities it is a very large sum.

219
Our national pig herd has decreased by some 12 per cent so far this year, and it is expected to fall by another 7 per cent. Does this matter? I believe it does. It is not as though we are eating less pig products—imports are up. The highest standards of animal welfare in the world are set for our farmers. John Godfrey, who is Chairman of the National Pig Association, in a letter to me of the 16th of this month, stated:
"imports of … pigmeat from the EU are some 40 per cent higher than last year's levels. The UK customer now eats LESS welfare-friendly pig meat than was the case BEFORE the stall and tether ban came into force in January 1999".
All the Government have succeeded in doing is to export one important part of our farming industry. How many other sectors will follow?
The most obvious candidate is beef. The ban was technically lifted a year ago this month—we heard that in this House—but our beef is still unable to reach markets in France and Germany. We have been given the all clear by the scientific evidence that the Government state we must go by; our systems are cleared and agreed by the 16-strong scientific committee, on which France has two representatives—and still those countries are not allowing us to export. When will the Government move from talking to action?
It is crucial that the Government should be aware of the impact of both legislation and regulations on the farming industry. If we are not careful we shall put all our producers out of business and become reliant on imports from countries whose standards of production are well below what we in this country find acceptable. We honour the EU directives—in many cases we even gold plate them—and then wonder why our farmers are unable to compete against cheap foreign imports.
In a global market, virtually any goods can find their way into our country within 24–48 hours. The Government must tackle import regulatory systems. I welcome the three task forces which have recently been set up to look into these matters. May I ask the Minister: what is their timetable and how soon will they report to the House? Each week that goes by sees more farmers going to the wall. Morale in the industry is low and, even more worryingly, the younger generation are viewing the long-term prospects with alarm and are hesitating to take over from their parents.
I have spoken at length on regulatory burdens. Without a profitable farming community, two things will happen: the countryside which we all so love and admire will deteriorate and rural communities will disintegrate.
The Government are to bring in a broad countryside Bill, one which will give everyone greater access to the countryside while, at the same time, improving the protection of wild life; and there is a commitment to continuing their role in protecting the global climate. In principle, I welcome the measures to protect our wildlife, but we need to see the details. We would be concerned about yet more burdens being placed upon
220
those who care for our SSSIs and for our wildlife without there being some form of associated financial support.
I should like to split the question of greater access to the countryside into two parts. I know that other Lords who follow me will speak at greater length. One part concerns the right to roam over moorland, heath and down; and the other concerns the provision of more open spaces near the cities, which we debated in the House some months ago.
Much research has been carried out into the desire of people to make visits to the countryside. Bradgate Park, the former home of Lady Jane Grey, was given to the people of Leicestershire, where I live. It is some five miles away from Leicester city centre and covers some 1,200 acres. Some 95 per cent of people who visit there travel by car, and they bring their dogs and their bikes. It has a very good car parking area to lessen the intrusion of so many vehicles into the village. There is a charge of £1 for a three-hour visit. The park is well organised, with well-signed paths and one main roadway. Interestingly enough, the majority of people stick to the road. Some walk along the paths that are not far from the main entrances, but many do not explore the furthest parts of the park. The park is ideal: near to the town and available to young people and to disabled people and to those who want to bike and to be more active, running up and down the hillside.
The majority of people to whom I talk want to walk regularly and to have regular access to areas near their homes. I wish to highlight the point that supervised car parking will be necessary, otherwise the local community will find themselves invaded, their grass verges spoilt and their lives upset by visitors. Those who live and work close to urban areas but whose lanes and reservoirs provide hours of pleasure for all, as indeed they do near where I live, know very well the downside. That can be seen in the rubbish which is dumped, the gates deliberately left open, the dogs not on the lead and the sheep worried. There are many questions here which the Government must tackle in looking to this new Bill.
Many of us who live in villages are also only too aware that local police units have been closed, the system centralised and that the task of keeping an eye on country areas has become costly. Rural crime is increasing; villagers and farmers know that to their cost. The Government must be aware of those issues if they are to lessen the apprehension of rural dwellers concerning their counterparts in the urban areas. It is not a question of "we" and "they"; we all wish to enjoy the countryside. But that countryside will remain beautiful only if it is run commercially and loved and cared for by dwellers, visitors and people who earn their living there.
On the other hand, ramblers and serious walkers have a different desire. They wish to ramble over moorland, heath and down; they do not wish to be restricted to pathways. Over recent years greater access has been made available through voluntary agreement. It is the Government's intention to make additional land available through legislation, and we

221
wait to see the detail of this Bill. However, the issues which I put to the Minister include the question of liability, the question of closure of land during the wildlife breeding season, the implications of allowing dogs on the land and the question of closure of land for shooting days. Those are just a few of the very real issues which I expect we shall debate at great length.
I move swiftly to two other matters. I go back to the time of regulations. The rural community spends much of its time coping with the consuming burden of European regulation. Perhaps the most obvious example is the IACS forms. Even after initial claims, which are horrendous to complete, farmers must devote or pay someone else to devote hours every week to maintaining records. Woe betide them if anything is wrong. The penalties for inaccurate claims make the sentences handed out to persistent young offenders seem like a slap on the wrist.
I turn to the question of parish councils, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke earlier. I shall not cover the points which she made. However, I take as an example East Dean parish near Chichester, which covers a large area but has a population of only 200. Their annual precept is £600 and the books have less than 20 entries. However, their bill from the Audit Commission was £309.40 plus VAT for 13 hours' work for 60 entries over three years. That is indeed ridiculous.
Lastly, I turn to the question of post offices. We on these Benches are most concerned about the increasing numbers of post offices which have closed. Just like those in towns and cities, rural dwellers need to eat, pay their bills for water, electricity, clothes and so on. In order to do that, it is necessary that they have access to money and to shops. Throughout the past 20 years, and particularly the past two years, village shops of all types have been closing as the competition of the large, out-of-town supermarkets has reduced the volume of their sales.
Banks, too, have been closing their rural branches. We are now faced with the question—and it is one which I put to the noble Baroness—of what will be the outcome for the Benefits Agency in the future. The big issue is where payments are to be made to people who receive benefits. If that is to be done centrally—it has been suggested that payments will be made into people's bank accounts—there will be even greater pressure on the few remaining post offices. It will indeed be ridiculous if we end up with a situation in which villagers have nowhere to go. If they are lucky enough to own a car and are able to afford the transport to get them to wherever they have to go, perhaps the local supermarket will be the nearest place where they can obtain the money to be able to pay for their daily needs. That really would be a ridiculous situation.
In these few minutes I have tried to cover one or two aspects of this subject. The most important issues concerning rural dwellers—I know that other noble Lords will speak about them—are those of transport, shops, services, schools, jobs and housing. But the most important issue is that, if we all wish to enjoy our
222
countryside, which we do, we must recognise that farming and the countryside are linked together. The only way that we can enjoy the latter is if the former succeeds.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the gracious Speech. It also gives me enormous pleasure to take part in a debate in which there have been two such thoughtful and stimulating maiden speeches—those of my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Stevenson. As a newcomer myself, I stand in admiration.
I want to address my few remarks to the issue of education. I confess that in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals I was wondering precisely in which debate I should speak: in this one or in tomorrow's debate on industry, social and economic affairs. Noble Lords will understand my dilemma when I say that universities, which I represent and in which I must declare an interest, find themselves very much at the heart of the two themes referred to in the gracious Speech, which describes a legislative programme based on promoting enterprise and fairness, and creating a modern Britain. It is those principles that I should like to address, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn.
It has not always been the case that our higher education institutions have been acknowledged as central both to fairness—through attempts to widen opportunity through learning—and to the enterprise agenda. I believe that it is true to say that in the past universities have been more likely to be characterized—usually, I must say, by excitable Ministers in the Treasury—as consumers of public money rather than as wealth creators. Perhaps too often, and possibly even in universities themselves, higher education has not been thought to have a role to play in opening its doors to those who traditionally saw university as "not for them". However, there is no doubt that the attitude of universities and of government has changed hugely in recent years.
I turn to enterprise. The pre-Budget report acknowledged that partnerships between universities and business, and the transfer of research know-how, are crucial if the UK is to be at the forefront of global developments and at the cutting edge of new research. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury has done much to promote that policy. He has built on a competitiveness policy that was based on the premise that the most dynamic economies have strong universities which have creative partnerships with business. The DTI's Enterprise Challenge Fund is a testament to universities' response: 55 bids for the first round, resulting in 20 projects, often collaborative ventures. One that I know well is the White Rose cluster in Yorkshire. Indeed, such was the quality of the bids that the DTI has announced a repeat round next year.
I very much welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. He reminded me that only last week I discussed with Adair Turner of the CBI the way

223
in which the development of new technologies presents exciting possibilities for new forms of education provision. We agreed that there is tremendous potential for increased collaboration between corporations and higher education partners in providing high quality course materials which can be accessed by students anywhere in the world.
However, the pre-Budget report also stressed that a successful enterprise culture demands balanced economic growth across all the regions and nations of Britain. Therefore, it was good news that the successful bidders to the University Challenge Fund are spread throughout the United Kingdom.
The DTI initiative, announced just before the pre-Budget speech, which sees MIT join forces with Cambridge University, is to be greatly welcomed. It places the UK at the forefront of MIT's European development and heralds international co-operation by one of our own world-class institutions. But it will also disperse management and research expertise to each of the enterprise centres in the regions and ensure that international-class work will benefit the whole of the UK.
Perhaps I may now turn to fairness. I want to make it clear that all universities are aware of their role in widening opportunity for all our people. We must open up access to all those who could benefit from higher education but who have not in the past. They may have been put off by their experience at school, they may have been let down by the low expectations of their families or they may just have thought that universities were not for them. The CVCP is doing a good deal of work in encouraging good practice in this area but there is clearly a real challenge. That is shown in our recent report, From Elitism to Inclusion. The numbers entering universities from manual groups, while increasing over the past 10 years, still remain too low, at around 6 per cent. But across all types of institution there are initiatives targeting such students, whether it is Bristol University, or Oxford, or Staffordshire or Westminster.
In my regular visits to universities I have an opportunity to see some of these initiatives at first hand. Perhaps I may give two examples. At Wolverhampton a foundation course has been set up in collaboration with the local FE college which particularly targets mature women. Just this summer I was delighted to learn of two women, well into their forties, who gained first class honours in applied sciences and engineering. They had started with no formal qualifications. Bradford, my home town, is the largest metropolitan authority in the country and has the fastest growing youth population in Britain. By the first decade of the 21st century more than 50 per cent of school children will be from ethnic minority communities. The university is attacking what is an inter-generational pattern of educational disadvantage among Bradford's ethnic minority communities by opening up the university's facilities to school pupils and preparing them for higher education through what it has rather sweetly called "the junior university". I am very happy to mention
224
two universities whose chancellors, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Paul, grace your Lordships' House.
Having said all that, there are voices— and many stubborn ones—that cry "dumbing down" whenever this agenda is discussed. Yet my visits convince me that it is vital that we do not lose our nerve on this agenda. Those who claim that we are lowering standards to accommodate these students need to be reminded of the Department for Education and Employment indicators on progression rates. Those measure the numbers of students who complete their courses. At around 80 per cent, they stand comparison with any European or US competitor. That is all the more remarkable because our figures have held up during the transition that universities have undergone in a short space of time, from being a relatively narrow sector to being a truly mass system. In 1985, 14 per cent of our young people were participating in higher education. Today the figure is 32 per cent.
I am stressing this point because universities will shortly receive the first ever set of figures from their funding councils, looking at progression rates, access and aspects of university funding. Those figures demonstrate how efficient the sector is by examining how long it takes our students to achieve their rewards. whether degrees or any other form of qualification. The Government have asked for these indicators, and the sector has provided them in a transparent and accountable way. I am confident that UK higher education will consolidate its position at the top of the international league in terms of the numbers of students who achieve degrees and the time it takes them to gain their spurs. Of course there will be tough messages on access rates. No one said that it would be easy to encourage disadvantaged children to make it to university. But let us not knock those pioneering institutions that have driven forward this agenda in recent years. Instead, we ought to reiterate that a mass higher education system is worth the hard work.
One aspect of improving access is the work that universities do with further education locally. Last year, the CVCP and the Association of Colleges gathered examples of compacts between universities and colleges that support students without formal qualifications to progress their studies. Since then many have joined lifelong learning partnerships set up by the Government, which aim to co-ordinate provision in the regions. The gracious Speech included the post-16 education and training Bill, which aims to streamline further education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds, principally through a national learning and skills council. Forty to 50 local learning and skills councils are to be established, with employers having the largest single input. We have welcomed the intentions behind the Bill and particularly the integration of education and training initiatives. I know though—I address this point to the Minister—that many are disappointed at the exclusion of higher education from the Bill, with no reference to its potential contribution to the learning and skills council. I hope that in scrutinising the Bill my noble friends will consider that aspect.

225
Nevertheless, I warmly applaud the vision of the gracious Speech in combining the two themes of enterprise and fairness. It balances the promotion of enterprise, taking advantage of high-tech, high value university research, with an inclusive vision, a desire to ensure fairness by means of, as the gracious Speech described,
"real opportunities [for people] to liberate their potential".
5.45 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers on their remarkable speeches. I was most impressed and look forward to hearing from them both again.
I am holding the gracious Speech in my hand. It consists of six pages. However, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, agriculture, farming and fishing are not mentioned in those six pages. When agriculture and the countryside are such a major part of the nation, it is extraordinary that they should be ignored by the Government. Incidentally, for a Government who keep using "education, education, education" as their slogan, it is disappointing to see a split infinitive on page four of the gracious Speech.
The Government do not seem to understand farming, the countryside or the rural economy. Farming is in deep crisis. If there is not urgent change, there will be a rapid deterioration in its attractiveness and a further decline in rural employment, where the position is already very serious indeed. Scotland must come within this debate. In the debate on agriculture in another place three weeks ago, I rioted that Scottish MPs discussed farming. Farming is also discussed in the Scottish Parliament. But in neither Parliament is very much being done to help farmers at the present time. It is notable that the Executive of the Scottish Parliament indicated in a report that the average net income of farmers last year was £416 and was likely to be less this year. That shows what a serious position we are in at the present time.
Perhaps I may highlight some of the major issues. On beef, there seem to have been promises, promises, promises all the way. After they won the general election, the Government said that they would sort out the beef problem with their colleagues in Europe and that there would be no problem at all. Here we are, 18 months later, in a worse position than ever. I cannot understand how the Government can negotiate in Europe when they retain beef-on-the-bone restrictions here. That destroys consumer confidence and is illogical. Senior medical officers are there to advise Ministers. They have done so in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Yet two of them have come down against removing the restrictions on beef-on-the-bone. When there is such an infinitesimal risk, I believe that Ministers should overrule them, take the lead and say that we shall allow beef-on-the-bone in this country. That would be of immense help with regard to our position in Europe. When one bears in mind that in Scotland this year we have had only 27 cases of BSE out of a herd of
226
2.1 million, it shows that the disease is just about beaten and that we should begin to think of the future more than of the past.
The Government's Autumn Statement was a great disappointment. It seemed to focus more on costs and expenditure forgone—on slaughterhouses and cattle passports—with little to improve the cash flow of the average farmer. I am sure that word will reach the Minister before she winds up this evening that we want to know what is to happen about the II LCA each year. It is a very important grant to the uplands and yet it has been given only a limited time for discussion and consultation between the NFU and the Government on the change from the present headage basis to an area basis. Does that mean that there will be less money available for farmers in the upland areas? Most
people think that that is what it means—and that is a very serious thought indeed. We need to bear in mind that the HLCA is a Treasury-supported grant and not one that needs to be agreed in Europe. There has been very little consultation and it is likely that the grant will be phased out. The NFU urgently needs more information. It needs to know where we are as regards this important grant.
There is outrage in farming circles at the present time. Milk has dropped from 34p a litre to around 17p and the price is still falling. As my noble friend pointed out, pig farmers are in total disarray. Lamb is at a historically low price and cast ewes and calves are almost unsaleable. That is compounded because the Government have insisted on SR M removal from the cast ewes. That has made the cost of slaughtering those beasts more expensive than their value. Why have the Government scrapped the slaughter scheme at such a crucial moment?
Another example of how the Government are out of touch with farming is the failure of the Farm Business Improvement Scheme which was launched amid great fanfare with £2.2 million of available funds, but then £20 million worth of applications were received. That shows how the Government did not think the matter through and what could have been a valuable scheme has been totally underestimated.
We should look again at changing the Over Thirty Months Scheme. Why cannot cattle born after August 1996 when the feed regulations changed be exempted? Again, as my noble friend said, can the Government not seriously look at the problem of regulation in this area. The difficulties of tagging and cattle handling are severe. I do not know whether any Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have actually tried to put 200 head of cattle through a cattlerace and deal with eartags umpteen times a year to satisfy the grant system. That is one of the most difficult operations relative to the small staff on most farms today.
I shall turn to the countryside. I am, of course, glad that the Chancellor has at last seen sense over fuel tax. However, he has only halted its rise rather than taken action to reduce it. It is important that the Chancellor should look seriously at reducing fuel tax levels on petrol and diesel in the countryside to help the people

227
who live there. It is no use saying that money will be put into increasing bus services. That is all very well for those who live on a bus route, but the majority of people in the countryside do not live near a bus stop and they are not prepared to walk two or three miles to reach one. They will get into their cars and drive to the nearest town. That is why the cost of fuel is so important. I am glad that at last the Chancellor has recognised that he was wrong.
I wish that the Government would look seriously at the regulations on planning and renewable energy. I am most disappointed at the number of wind farms being erected in valuable areas of scenic beauty. In the years ahead, those farms will be very detrimental to the countryside. Furthermore, there is the blight of innumerable mobile telephone masts now dotted on the tops of so many hills in Scotland.
There is to be an important Bill on countryside access both for England and in Scotland. That should be accompanied by an understanding of responsibility towards the countryside. What compensation will be made available? What insurance will be necessary? What will be the cost to local authorities for footpath upkeep and to provide rangers? Have all these issues been thought through? In Scotland, there is the additional matter that land may be compulsorily acquired by communities if they so wish. That will be an impossible and intolerable burden on the countryside and I sure that that will be resisted in the Scottish Parliament. We need more consultation on access in both forums in England and Scotland, and I am sure in Wales as well.
I know that there will be endless debates on footpaths and general countryside matters. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, sitting on the opposite Benches. The noble Lord and I and six other Peers served on the Standing Committee of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill and he knows, as I do, what lengthy arguments are to be had on the problem of footpaths. At the weekend I looked up those speeches and saw that I spoke for 62 minutes on bulls on footpaths on one memorable morning. I hope that I shall not have to do that again.
We shall also follow closely developments on sites of special scientific interest. They form an important part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, bearing in mind that wildlife needs sustainable farming if it is to be successful in our countryside. It is complementary to profitable farming to see wildlife expanding and developing in the country. I see that the chairman of English Nature is in her place, and of SNH, with both of which I have been closely involved. We must try to find more compromises rather than conflict between the governing bodies and agencies. I have been saddened by the level of conflict between the different countryside bodies when basically we are all trying to achieve the same objectives.
Finally, I turn to the new national parks to be set up in Scotland and in England. Having once been in charge of the national parks as a Minister, I feel that any more parks will add enormously to the bureaucracy and planning complications surrounding
228
them. I caution the Government to proceed carefully with regard to Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms where an excellent partnership scheme has been set up. I note also that national park status appears to be singularly unwanted by those who live in the New Forest and on the Downs in England.
All in all, I finish by saying that there is presently a real crisis in farming. That is not an overstatement. It is a real crisis and it needs leadership to overcome the problems. We need successful negotiation in Europe rather than capitulation. I believe that the Government are failing the farming industry, failing the countryside, and failing the nation.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I propose to direct my remarks to the commitment in the gracious Speech that the,
"Government will continue their leading role in protecting the global climate".
That statement was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in his opening remarks. A number of noble Lords have already dealt with various aspects of the environment. I intend to deal with energy and the environment, with particular reference to the objectives the Government have set for dealing with the problem of climate change.
The principal ways of achieving these objectives are by increasing energy efficiency, developing renewable resources—having regard to their environmental impact, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm—and improving the use of fossil fuels by means of processes such as clean coal technology.
I have been involved in the energy sector for over 50 years and am still actively engaged therein in the promotion of combined heat and power. During that half century, there have only been two periods when energy saving was taken seriously. The first period was immediately after the war when coal, then the main source of energy, was in desperately short supply. When in 1947 I joined the marketing department of the newly formed National Coal Board, my task was not to sell coal but to ration it; not to persuade people to make more use of it but to make less use. That situation lasted for a few years until plentiful supplies of oil began to arrive, followed by gas from the North Sea and the development of nuclear energy.
The second time a real interest was taken in energy saving was during the oil crisis of the 1970s. Then, it was occasioned by the spiralling price of the product. Oil had taken over from coal in dominating the energy market. There seemed to be no end to the increases that would be introduced as a result of political action in the Middle East. However, that phase passed.
We then move to another phase when energy saving has become important; namely, the present. On this occasion the situation is entirely different. The motivation is the environmental issue, which does not have the immediacy of energy shortage or high prices. On the contrary, there is plenty of energy available

229
and, on the whole. prices have been kept at a low level. There has been a recent increase in the price of oil, but oil is now much less dominant in the market-place.
So in order to achieve the Government's objectives against the background of a relaxed market situation, a great deal more intervention will be required than was previously the case. Whereas people were previously motivated by their own direct interests—namely, not being able to obtain energy or having to pay too much for It—those motives no longer exist. Therefore, I should like to examine the energy scene today in relation to the Government's climate change objectives.
First, let us take the domestic market, where the overriding issue is that of fuel poverty. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the problem of poor housing. Fuel poverty and poor housing are inextricably linked. The latest English House Condition Survey indicated that there is fuel poverty in no fewer than 5 million homes in this country; in other words. insulation is inadequate, as are the heating installations. Not only does that have major social problems attached to it; it also leads to much waste of energy, with very little benefit for those who are unfortunate enough to live in such houses.
A tragic aspect of the problem is the mortality rate in the winter months compared with the rest of the year. The mortality rate in Britain rises in winter by between 15 and 30 per cent. That is double the rate in any other western European country. Indeed, in countries such as Denmark, where homes are insulated to a much higher standard than has ever been achieved here, there is no difference in the mortality rate between the seasons. So clearly, poor housing, poor heating and high winter mortality rates go together. That is an even more serious problem than only having to deal with climate change, important as that may be.
I have been associated with the work of the NEA for many years. It is an organisation committed to improving the insulation of the homes of people on low incomes, mainly the elderly. I therefore welcome the Government's recent publication of their new home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) which is intended to put much more money into improving heating conditions in the homes to which I have referred.
The trouble is, however, the magnitude of the problem. In spite of the big increase in resources that the Government will put into the scheme when it gets under way, it is proposed to tackle only some 300,000 homes per annum. That may sound a large number; but compared with the 5 million, it will take some 15 years to deal with the problem. The objective ought to be to end fuel poverty in this country and to deal with inadequate housing in a much shorter time. We should set ourselves a limit of five years. So although it is a step in the right direction, the scheme requires re-examination.
Another step in the right direction is the extension into the gas market of what is known as the energy efficiency standards of performance scheme, which has been applied very successfully in electricity. It involves
230
a contribution of only £1 per annum per consumer of electricity. Aggregated, that provides a sum of £25 million, which has been used to introduce schemes for higher efficiency in the use of electricity. A National Audit Office inquiry into the scheme has indicated that the cost of saving electricity is half the price of producing electricity. Therefore, it is obvious that a scheme of that kind should be encouraged. I am delighted that it is being extended to the gas industry by the present Regulator. I have advocated that for many years. But the scale is far too small: £1 per annum per consumer. A good deal more needs to be set aside so that a larger sum could he used for these very desirable purposes. That is a further way in which the disadvantaged could be helped. So again, a step has been taken in the right direction that needs further development.
There is one other matter in regard to the domestic market that the Government should pursue; namely, the application of energy surveys to homes. If we do not know the relevant energy efficiency of a home, it is difficult to deal with the problem. The previous government developed a scheme for doing that; namely, the standard assessment procedure (SAP). It has already been laid down that all new house construction shall have an SAP of at least 60 out of 100. But the last energy survey of housing in this country indicated that the average SAP in Britain was not 60, 50 or even 40, but 35. Therefore, we need to know what the standards are in every home in the country.
There is a way of progressively introducing such an approach. When new mortgages are granted, the survey that has to be undertaken into the structure of the house could include the condition of the energy installation. Furthermore, the Government propose to introduce provision for a package of information to be provided by the seller of a property. That could also include information on energy efficiency.
I should like to deal briefly with the industrial market. The most important development has been the Government's plan to introduce the climate change levy. I am in favour of a levy on the usage of energy at a time when we are attempting to save it in order to improve the climate, both now and in the future. However, there were a number of serious shortcomings in the scheme. In his Pre-Budget Statement on 9th November, the Chancellor dealt with some of them, so the scheme now has fewer disadvantages than previously. But there is one weakness in the scheme. As now envisaged, it would raise £1 billion; however, only £150 million would be recycled into energy saving. The rest would go into the reduction of national insurance contributions by employers. That may be a worthy objective—no employer would not wish that to happen. However, I cannot see the relationship to energy saving. If the Government are to ring-fence the proceeds of the transport fuel escalator, they should do the same in the case of energy used for heating. If we could get that full £1 billion used in energy saving, we could move a long way towards achieving the Government's objectives on climate change, which are wholly

231
desirable. The Government will shortly have, through the proposed utilities Bill, increased powers to take action in this area, which will be necessary in view of the market situation.
The major remaining difficulty is that the resources so far made available are not adequate. There are ways, largely through self-financing, of increasing resources. That extra expenditure should not be regarded as a cost. It will be of substantial benefit to both the present and future generations.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the gracious Speech promises a Bill to enable different forms of local government to be put in place. As a consequence, the Government hope that there will be a resurgence of interest in local government among the electorate and that new systems will improve the efficiency, transparency and accountability of local government—helping it to assume its role as a leader of its communities.
The proposals were first advanced in the White Paper Modern Local Government, and then appeared in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill published during the last Session. That draft required local authorities in England and Wales to make proposals for a political management structure with a separate executive. The White Paper and draft Bill put forward three principal models: a directly elected mayor appointing an executive drawn from the council; a council leader appointed by the full council, also appointing an executive drawn from the council; and a directly elected mayor with a council manager to be appointed by the council.
Under the draft Bill, every local authority has to draw up proposals for moving to new executive arrangements, including the model that is to be followed. Where the proposals include an elected mayor, there has to be a representative. Furthermore, should a local authority receive a petition signed by at least 5 per cent of the electors in support of an elected mayor, the authority must hold a referendum. The Secretary of State, who features largely in the draft Bill, is empowered to make regulations enabling a local authority to hold a referendum on whether it should adopt executive arrangements based on any one of the three models.
A Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place reported on the draft Bill before the recess. It was my privilege to chair that Committee. As the report will not be debated separately, I take the opportunity to thank Members of both Houses and of all parties and none for all the work that they did to produce an agreed report in a very short time. I include in those thanks the clerks to the Committee—Mr Walters from your Lordships' House and Miss Barry from another place.
As the noble Lady, Baroness Hamwee, suggested, the Joint Committee had concerns about the time available to it to consider the draft Bill, which was only the second to be considered under the new procedure.
232
The timetable was short. While there may be certain benefits in considering a matter in a concentrated manner, only a very short time was available. The draft Bill was published in March but it was not until the end of May that the Joint Committee was constituted—which gave the Committee only six weeks to invite witnesses to appear and to take and examine evidence in detail. If such a Joint Committee is to do a worthwhile job and hear all the appropriate witnesses, more time is required. Some witnesses were not able to respond to the Joint Committee's invitation. It would have been unsuitable to consider compelling witnesses to attend because the timetable was unreasonable and one had to take account of witnesses' other commitments.
The Joint Committee's second difficulty was that the draft Bill was in many ways a skeleton and large elements of the legislation depend on regulations to be produced by the Secretary of State. One of the committee's recommendations was that rapid progress should be made with preparing those regulations, so that they go before both Houses at such time as the Bill itself is considered. Otherwise, consideration of the real Bill, if I may put it that way, will be hypothetical.
When the Minister replies, I would like her to say whether the Government have found it possible or whether she believes it will be possible to respond positively to a number of the Joint Committee's key recommendations.
I will not take up your Lordships' time discussing the report in detail, but the committee saw a need for recognition that in rural, apolitical or normally hung authorities the council leader or council manager model might have greater appeal than an elected mayor—which has metropolitan connotations. That model is not foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper or the draft Bill. Although we heard evidence that it would be permitted, the inclusion of such recognition in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt would give great comfort and reassurance to many authorities and people throughout the country.
We saw a particular need, in the case of the elected mayor model, for guidelines to clarify the distinction between policy framework considerations and executive action—and for that to be thought through before the Bill is presented to Parliament. As to the separation of powers, insofar as that can be achieved, there is a need for the scrutiny function to be adequately served by local authority officers—to ensure that advice is given to council members who are not members of the executive that is independent of advice given to the mayor and executive. The House may remember that on consideration of some provisions of the Greater London Authority Bill at a late stage, there was concern about provisions that allowed the mayor to keep advice private, without there appearing to be any differentiation between advice given on policy formulation and advice given to back up executive decisions.
If the Bill subsequently presented to Parliament follows the form of the draft considered by the Committee, that will mean a very different form of

233
local government. Although cabinet government has to some extent been practised informally in many authorities, its formal creation means that safeguards need to be built in, so that the old system will be replaced by robust measures that ensure that the mayor, cabinet leader and/or cabinet manager can be properly held to account. I am sure that your Lordships and Members of another place will appreciate any information the Minister can give as to the Government's response to those points and many others. I particularly re-emphasise the need for the draft regulations, on which so much of the Bill is based, to be available when the real Bill is debated.
As other Members of your Lordships' House have indicated, the gracious Speech this year is quite silent on environmental matters. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell quoted the extract from the Labour Party manifesto which I cited in this debate last year. Therefore, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by quoting it again. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it. I hope that when she comes to reply the noble Baroness can help the House as to the present thinking in the Secretary of State's department.
I remind the House that the Deputy Prime Minister returned from Kyoto with a promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. The last time that I heard him interviewed on the radio I understood him to say, not what progress had been made in implementing that agreement, but that the Government were still discussing what they would do to meet the target. I believe that a legitimate question to ask is: what progress has been made and where are we? Certainly, the European Commissioner Margot WallstrÖm was reported as saying only two weeks ago that progress in tackling the problem was very slow.
We also heard last year the Deputy Prime Minister play down concerns about development on greenfield sites by committing himself to 60 per cent development on Brownfield sites. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, has produced an excellent report on such policies and developments. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell again referred to the report produced by a Mr Stephen Crow, a former chief planning inspector, and Rosamund Whittaker, a senior planning inspector, for the Secretary of State. A report in the Independent described the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to accept Mr Crow's report as,
"the most fateful decision ever taken about the English landscape".
The report calls for the number of houses to be built in the south east to rise from 666,000 to 1.1 million. It destroys absolutely the agreed strategy of the South East Regional Planning body (SERPLAN) which, as I understand it, has already agreed unanimously to reject the Crow Report. SERPLAN's original recommendations were based on preserving the environment and quality of life within the south east. The new report which the Secretary of State must now consider suggests development which I understand is equivalent to 430 square kilometres—an area greater than the Isle of Wight. It is perhaps described more
234
graphically in the Independent. If the houses were placed either side of a single road it would stretch from London to Hawaii; namely, a distance of 7,200 miles.
If the Secretary of State accepts this report he will be flying in the face of the elected representatives of all parties in the region. He will destroy the effective use of one of the most important local government functions; namely, the ability to control development in its area. What price then local authorities as the leaders of their communities? Elected mayors and cabinets will not contribute very much to effectiveness or the public's regard for local government. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell the House that we shall not have to wait very much longer before the Secretary of State decides that the Crow Report by two officials will not be used to overthrow the express wishes of 18 million people through their elected representatives in the south east. If he does so, that rejection of the Crow Report will be a statement in support of reinvigorated local government and greater public interest and participation in it. If he does not throw out the Crow Report we can assume only that his trust in officials is greater than in local government members and that instead of it being the dawn of a new day all that the draft Bill will be is a false dawn.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I begin by wishing the Government well in this Session. Twenty-eight Bills represent a tough task for any administration and, along with other matters that no doubt will emanate from the Government during the Parliament. that can be a heavy workload. It is important that the Government try to achieve some focus during this Parliament. It could be the last full Session before the General Election. It would be useful to give thought to the main items that the Government want voters to take from this Session of Parliament.
Tonight I should like to make some remarks about the proposed reforms of post-16 education and training, in particular to say something about the importance of education and training for those at work. These are exciting times for those of us who have delivered this service in the workplace and spent a lifetime trying to improve the education and skills of the workforce. Starting from the problem of the 7 million adults with severe difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy right through to the millions of graduates who are in adult employment but whose skills must be updated and developed almost on a daily basis, we have an enormously difficult and challenging job ahead.
Much of what needs to be done must be initiated by employers. In my experience, good employers recognise that business efficiency can be achieved only by developing the skills of the workforce and, knowing that, they carry out that task. The best trade unions do the same. Look at the work done by UNISON on the development of basic skills under the Return to Learn programme. That was an outstanding contribution to the basic numeracy and literacy skills of its members. That is the basis on which Investors in People has been so successful. Companies and unions have taken

235
ownership of Investors in People and turned it into a kind of mass movement to develop people at work and achieve business success.
Much of what needs to be done in future can and will be done by the motivation and efforts of individuals themselves. In my experience, there is a hunger out there among people who want to grow, learn, develop and change which is nowhere near being satisfied. That must be recognised, encouraged and rewarded by government, employers and trade union. Sadly, the record is not all good. One in three employees is never offered any training at all by his or her current employer, and the overall numbers who received some form of training and the number of hours of training received by individuals fell last year. Those with the least skills and most insecure jobs receive the least training, whereas 21 per cent of professional employees receive training funded by their employer. That is not enough; it needs to improve.
The state and government have a key role to play in helping the best to improve and to drive up the standards of under-achievers. This is primarily a leadership role for government in partnership with business, trade unions and individuals. The Government must focus their leadership on the big picture. David Blunkett got it absolutely right when he published his consultation paper The Learning Age in which a strong vision and clear mission for education and training in the new century was spelt out. But vision and mission are ongoing tasks for leadership. The White Paper lost a little of the sense of "What are we here for?" as it inevitably moved on to explain delivery mechanisms and structures.
At the time of the publication of the White Paper, all the newspaper reports were not about vision and mission but the new Learning and Skills Council, and that is important. I know that my noble friend will agree with me that a council without a mission will not make a change. Following the gracious Speech last week the newspapers did the same: they focused on structures and procedures. Those are important improvements, but they are not enough without a new vision. We need to address these shortcomings. To make a real change to people's working lives we need a big change in attitude on the part of government, employers and individuals.
I welcome the new role given to the National Learning and Skills Council, but I want the emphasis to be on vision and values, not on rules and procedures. So when it comes to the functions of the Learning and Skills Council, I do not want the first point of its function to be that referred to in the White Paper: to ensure that a high quality of post-16 provision is available to meet the needs of employers, individuals and communities. I want that to be the second point. I want the first point to be that set out in David Blunkett's consultation paper. I want the vision and provision to be carried through from the top to the people who use the service.
In the list of functions, I should like the first to be a new learning culture; a culture of lifelong learning for all which will encourage creativity and learning for the
236
individual, help build a better society and advance competitiveness and prosperity. It may not be phrased in those words, but there should be something upfront about the mission. That is its job: a champion of change.
We need a fundamental shift in thinking in terms of engaging employers, unions, individuals and communities in meeting future learning and skills needs. This is a revolution. It is not the same group of committee people and quango holders exchanging one set of institutions, committees or group of seats for another. The new council must be more than a manager of public funds. It must be a change agent influencing and affecting attitudes among employers and employees, giving a new vision of working life to lifelong learning.
We need to make sure that employer involvement in education and training is not token involvement or just seats on boards; and that there are stronger links with employer organisations which do real business in real life—for example, the national training organisations which have been so successful recently.
We also need to find ways of keeping that vision and strategy close to the point of delivery. We need a flat structure, as would be said in organisational terms. The national council, presumably sitting in London, with perhaps 40 or 50 local councils, could be a kind of bureaucratic pyramid of the great and good if not handled carefully. It is important to involve the real consumers, the people whose lives are changing day by day through the development of technology, the economy and other innovations. We need to find ways of working with their experience at every level of education and training management.
Finally, there is the difficult question of networking, or joined-up government as it is currently called. With a national council, and with 40 or 50 local councils feeding out to regional development agencies, national training organisations, the Employment Service, the small business services, the university of industry, local partnerships—the list is endless—there is still potential for confusion and duplication. One of the key tests will be whether a business man or woman in a small enterprise working hard to make a go of that business will ask, "How does this help me?" I hope that the Minister will put her mind to that question.
I hope that these criticisms are not seen by my noble friend as being negative. I completely support the new reforms. My remarks are intended to be constructive. The Green Paper was on fire with vision. Understandably, the White Paper brought in structures and methods of working and the vision could not be given the same prominence. But I do not want a future Bill without vision. I want a proper balance between vision and structures. I want the vision to be upfront and shared by all. If the members of those 40 or 50 local skills councils in Scotland, Wales and the English regions can understand and believe in that vision, and can go out and sell it to the people in their communities, we shall have gone a long way to meet the cultural change that is necessary to achieve what has never been done previously.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was deeply saddened that there was no mention of agriculture in the gracious Speech, nor indeed in the opening remarks of the Minister. I must declare an interest as someone who tries to farm, and I emphasise "try" as British agriculture is in the most terrible state—the worst in living memory.
British farmers are totally demoralised by physical events: ridiculously low prices; the effects of BSE; the beef-on-the-bone ban; beef export embargoes, especially by France and Germany; the unfairness of imports which d a not have to meet the strict criteria necessary for home producers; and the massive power of supermarkets.
They are even more demoralised by the apparent lack of interest in their plight by the Government. Sadly, Ministers appear not only unsympathetic but positively ignorant of the serious position of the majority of farmers. I fear that this was made only too apparent by the lack of mention of agriculture by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. The present crisis is not only affecting producers in the marginal areas, but even those in the most fertile regions too.
I give some examples. Pig farmers are losing £14 on each and every pig they sell. The stories about sheep farmers shooting their sheep are, sadly, far from exaggerated. The aftermath of BSE still dogs the complete livestock sector. The dairy industry is completely in the doldrums. It is absurd that more than 50 per cent of leased milk quota is owned by non-producers. This defeats completely the whole raison d'être of milk quotas. As many noble Lords know, milk quotas are an anathema to efficient milk producers.
Turning to cereals, if, for example, the price of malting barley over the past 20 years had increased with the same percentage increase in the minimum agricultural wage, growers this year should be receiving £170 per tonne. In reality they are lucky to get £70 per tonne. I wonder how Ministers would feel today if they were earning 41 per cent of what they were earning 20 years ago. The mind boggles—but that is what is happening in reality to farmers, but fortunately not to Ministers!
It must not be forgotten that farmers have to operate under a very strange set of rules. First, and perhaps foremost, is the weather; and there I accept that the Government have no control. The right rain at the right time can often boost income per acre by as much as £100. The right sun and heat at the right time might boost income a further £25 per acre. I give a small example. Good weather this year saved us at home £20,000 in drying costs; and a similar amount was saved on weight loss due to moisture content.
At home we have just finished sowing next year's wheat crop a full two months earlier than last year. We shall probably have to wait until early September
238
before we can harvest it. In the meantime, I have no idea how much it will cost to grow, what it will yield and, most importantly, what it will be worth.
Agriculture is more affected than any other industry by the pound sterling/euro exchange rate and it must not be forgotten that the strength of the pound has appreciated by over 30 per cent over the past three years.
Turning to organic food, the Government hardly pay lip service to encouraging home production. The funds made available are derisory. This is especially so when compared with most other EU countries which subsidise their organic producers to massive extents. For example, Austria pays its organic producers an annual subsidy in excess of £250 an acre. It is no wonder that about 80 per cent of organic food sold in our supermarkets is imported. One has to doubt, too, whether all our overseas suppliers of organic food meet the stringent requirements necessary for our home producers.
Another serious worry to those of us living in the countryside is rural employment. The lack of any light at the end of the tunnel means that farmers are now making staff redundant as the only way to save outgoings. This, sadly, is nationwide. Between June 1998 and June 1999 the number of working farmers and their wives fell by 5 per cent to 201,000. Those figures alone show the importance of agriculture to the nation's employment figures. Only half, 104,000, are full-time and 20,000 of those are women. Last year nearly 18,000 farmers and farm workers left the land. Regular full-time workers fell by 6 per cent to 102,000.
Farmers ought to be in a position to ask themselves, "If I do this, can I take on another employee?", rather than as at present, doing the complete reverse. Something must be done urgently to halt this decline in rural employment.
I turn now to bureaucracy. Can nothing be done to inhibit the appalling growth of form-filling and similar for farmers? The average farmer today spends not less than two days per week in his office, purely filling in forms, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned employs someone else to do so. Let us hope that that is what is meant in the gracious Speech:
"As part of my Government's drive to address inappropriate and over-complex regulation, legislation will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens".
I quote again from the gracious Speech:
"Legislation will be introduced to assist the rescue of viable businesses in short-term difficulties, and improve the procedure for disqualifying unfit company directors".
There will be a minute percentage of farmers who will have traded profitably last year and I hope that when Her Majesty's Government come to draft this Bill they will have farmers to the very forefront of their mind.
I turn now to the issue of greater access to the countryside. I hope and pray that before any Bill is drafted, her Majesty's Government will consult fully—here I really mean fully—with all the relevant bodies, most especially the CLA and the NFU, both of whose membership are the guardians of our rural

239
environment. It must not be forgotten that in order to have a healthy countryside it is vital to have a profitable agricultural industry.
On the contentious issue of hunting with hounds, I should like to place on record for the future that if a ban on hunting with hounds became law, three things would happen: first, the life of not one single fox would be preserved; secondly, many thousands of rural jobs would be lost; thirdly, the rural environment, the countryside that so many people love, would not be conserved in the way that it is today. The Government must have more important things to legislate on or indeed to give parliamentary time to.
I have three questions to ask Her Majesty's Government, all, I believe, of equal importance. The first refers to renewable energy from agricultural crops. I make no excuse for raising this yet again in your Lordships' House. North Sea oil is not going to last for ever. Will Her Majesty's Government give a firm commitment to spending more on research and development in this area? The amount spent at the moment really is pathetic.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government give a commitment that trials of GM crops can continue in safety for those growing them? Thirdly, will Her Majesty's Government agree to pay in full the agricultural compensation allowances and to register with the Commission well before the 31st March deadline?
We really do need to develop a long-term strategy, not one that will simply paper over the cracks. This strategy must involve farmers, growers, the entire food industry and the Government, so that British agriculture and the British countryside can flourish once again. The nation deserves nothing less.
6.44 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in a debate such as this, various speakers address the various aspects of a number of subjects gathered together. We have heard two maiden speeches from noble Lords who will obviously greatly reinforce the expertise on which we can draw in terms of education and communication. I should merely like to return to the subject which was very well covered by my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Monro of Langham, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. In Her Majesty's most gracious Speech laying out the Government's plans and priorities, the only mention of subjects concerning the countryside and rural affairs was couched in terms which I can describe only as those of the urban agenda which so characterises all the Government's policies in this area.
The nature both of democracy and of the Government's reform of this House means that any perspective in this area other than the counting of human heads is inevitably relegated to second best. Everyone is aware that the countryside is undergoing an immense transformation. People are turning into inquisitive spectators rather than active participants in nature. For most, the opportunity to grow up with a bond to and an understanding of the passage of the
240
seasons is limited to whether the television channels are full of football or of cricket. The phrases used by the Minister this afternoon served only to emphasise that approach. The sense that humanity is only one of many species vying for space and air becomes merely, "I know what I want—make some room for me".
I should declare my own interests as one brought up in the countryside and who has spent nearly 40 years in livestock rearing. Agricultural production gave the rationale and economic backbone to all rural life. With the application of science and technology, agriculture is becoming increasingly concentrated on intensive-farmed areas and in fewer and fewer hands. The balance which existed between extensively-farmed uplands and hills and intensive low ground no longer exists. Efficient arable production no longer requires the wintering of fattening cattle and the grazing of sheep bought from the western areas. Even the dairy farms, finding themselves capable of increased production but constrained by their quotas, and, with modern medicines, no longer needing specialist shepherds, have gone in for keeping their own sheep and fattening the lambs rather than buying them from stock rearing areas.
In addition, your Lordships heard in the debate of 9th November on the Government's policy for milk how milk production, that great bulwark of the small farm and the new farm entrant, has been turned into a recipe for financial loss, due largely to weak marketing and the strength of the pound. From the receiving end, the impression is that the Government, as directed by the CAP, continue to throw money at the problem without any clear theme or understanding of what the countryside and those in it have to offer and how that can be sustained.
The themes most often heard from the Government are about competitiveness and marketing. That seems difficult to reconcile with the ruling by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report that Milk Marque, because it accounts for 36 per cent of the liquid milk market, must be broken up. In its present form it would not be allowed to contemplate the sort of vertical integration that is carried out throughout the European Union by farmer co-operatives that account for 60 per cent and more of their own respective markets.
There was a further anomaly in Scotland at the time of deregulation of milk. The major milk co-operative, the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, which presently accounts for about 6 per cent of UK production, included a sizeable element of vertical integration into manufacturing. This was forced to split up and the manufacturing element, Scottish Pride, was hived off. Only this summer it had to go into liquidation due to not being viable on its own in the current economic circumstances. Are there no lessons here for governments about being more careful in their consideration of regulations?
My noble friend Lord Monro of Langham was telling your Lordships about Scottish agriculture. Your Lordships will be only too well aware that agriculture in Scotland has been devolved. But the overall position is still of vital concern to this House.

241
In Scotland the livestock are mainly concentrated in what are known as the Less Favoured Areas—the hills of the West, which constitute 83 per cent of the land area. The figures. that I have are not exactly the same as those of my noble friend Lord Monro. However the figures published by the Scottish Executive demonstrate that the net farm income forecast for 1998 was £468 per farm. We are not talking about income per week but about income per year. We have already heard of the dire nature of the forecasts for the following year.
Farming in those areas is already extremely extensive. Those who live in those areas would like to know what is the Government's policy in broad terms as well as in the minor detail. Are they thinking of taking great chunks of that land permanently out of production? Does the future for those living in those areas lie in becoming part of a national ranger service; or is there some special structure for small and part-time farmers? At present, those who want to leave are in a Catch-22 situation because they will mainly have been relying on the sale of their stock to provide themselves with a pension. At this stage, they will be lucky if the stock has half the value it had a couple of years ago.
The Scottish Executive's view of what is needed in the country seems to be a radical transformation of the laws of land ownership and increased planning and other controls, so much so that the proposals in question account for about 40 per cent of the legislative programme. They will nearly all make more difficult the operations of those making a livelihood in the country.
The Scottish Executive is very busy at the moment handing out the lifebelts which the Government have provided for the present crisis. We must all be most grateful for that. But what is lacking is the design of a boat which will carry a viable countryside through to the next ten or 20 years.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we have already been reminded that in the gracious Speech the Government declared their intention to make local government "more innovative and accountable". To those ends, as we have heard, they are proposing the direct election of mayors, new statutory codes of conduct and enhanced powers to improve the environment.
Many of those proposals are concerned with the mechanisms of local government; indeed, with increasing the pr professionalism of local government. There are gains to be secured from that but, as my noble friend Lord Sawyer emphasised in a different context, a preoccupation with improved structures may oust what he well described as the sense of mission and vision.
Therefore, changes to local government mechanisms must be accompanied by measures, statutory as well as administrative, to involve local people and organisations more effectively in the work
242
of councils. So I welcome the recognition by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston that local people must decide how they are governed.
In that context, I want to concentrate on the very grass roots of local government—on the role and contribution of what I shall refer to generically as local councils; that is, town councils, parish councils and, particularly in Wales, community councils. They are too often overlooked in the debate on local government.
My interest is that of one who, like Her Majesty's Government, would like to encourage more local innovation and accountability. I have observed how my own local town council has progressively promoted those objectives since it was re-established in 1996 after a demise of 63 years.
Local councils are a most significant part of local democracy. There are some 7,500 of them in England and Wales and some 100,000 people serve as councillors. Many such councils are small, representing 200 or 300 people in a rural area. But there are some large town councils, such as Bracknell, which has a population of 50,000, and Loughton, in Essex, where I live, which has a population of 30,000 and 22 councillors.
Local councils can and do engage in a surprisingly wide range of activities. It does not always depend on their size. Some councils with small populations are remarkably enterprising. We should not underestimate the value of such things as providing allotments, making grants for bus services and traffic calming, introducing and equipping crime prevention services, supporting the local arts and providing recreation facilities; nor should we underestimate the unique contribution which those councils make to the planning process in relation to which detailed local knowledge is of the essence.
Those functions derive from a whole myriad of statutory sources which impose serious obligations on local councillors. They must inform themselves properly of their powers, particularly if they are minded to take new initiatives. Some innovate in quite surprising ways within the limits of their very modest resources. For example, my local town council has set up an active community forum; it has installed a series of very well-received local heritage plaques; and has established a skate board facility. Perhaps of more direct interest to your Lordships is that it is one of the few councils to have a website so those noble Lords who are technophiles can read all about it on the Net.
Local councils have been described as the Cinderellas of local government. As noble Lords will recall, Cinderella had two ugly sisters. I should not wish to draw any invidious comparisons with district or county councils, but if the Government want to make local government as a whole more innovative and more accountable, they should not overlook the important part which local councils can play in that. That is one area in which small really is beautiful and provides quite remarkable value for money. Ministers could help by, from time to time, giving more explicit recognition of what local councils do and by

243
encouraging the spread of best practice. That need not involve a lot of extra funding. Local councils have a reputation for very careful spending. They are wholly dependent for funding on a precept levied on their district councils, which amounts to only a few per cent of the revenue. However, the Government might consider providing some special innovatory funds—perhaps ring-fenced—to stimulate local councils to take new initiatives and to copy the examples set by the more enterprising of their number.
Finally, there is one glaring injustice which could and should and, I hope, will be corrected in the local government Bill. For some reason which I cannot fathom, local councils are prohibited by the Local Government Act 1972 not only from paying councillors any allowances but even from reimbursing councillors for expenses which they incur, including the cost of attending meetings of, or on behalf of, their council held within the borders of their town.
Perhaps I may give an illustration from my own town council. Loughton Town Council has 22 councillors, two-thirds of whom are past retirement age while at least half a dozen have no access to a car. Loughton is about three miles from north to south. To save money, the council and its committees meet in a council hall at the northernmost extremity of the town, far from where many of the councillors live. The cost of a single bus fare is about £1. So a councillor may easily spend £50 or more per year on travel alone, to say nothing of the cost of using the telephone. That is quite a sum when one is drawing an old age pension. Loughton is relatively compact. There must be areas where the cost of being a councillor is very much greater. I know for a fact that potentially valuable councillors may be put off accepting nomination because of the prospective cost to their own purses.
The different treatment of district and local councils under the 1972 Act is indefensible in principle and is, in practice, likely to exclude a significant proportion of our citizens from standing for election. So far as I can ascertain, the reasons for treating local councillors differently from district councillors were never discussed in either House during the passage of the 1972 Act. However, the then Conservative Minister Lord Sandford said:
"We are all agreed that the allowances should be such that good potential members arc not dissuaded from serving on local councils by financial restraints or worries".—[Official Report, 18/9/72; col. 846.]
I would feel happy if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who is to speak after me, felt able to support the views of his predecessor, as I can assure my noble friend that if the local government Bill removes that obvious anomaly, it will win support from all sides of the Chamber.
7 P.M.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as we debate the gracious Speech, I must admit to some doubt about where the Government's policy is taking us. At least I have the comfort that I am in good company. Like my
244
noble friend Lord Strathclyde when he moved his amendment to the humble Address, I find the gracious Speech has little coherence.
I begin with one aspect of it. No doubt many others will have been picked out before the debate ends. I quote:
"A Bill will be introduced to give people greater access to the countryside and to improve protection for wildlife".
All my life I have lived with the countryside as my home. It does not take deep study to realise that those two ambitions are in conflict with each other. The biggest threat to wildlife is the pressures that we, the people, place on the countryside.
There are many aspects to this subject. Both agriculture and housing are obvious points. My noble friend Lord Bowness has already explained the problems that all communities in the South East now face as a result of having to face the possibility of a greatly increased rate of development, resulting from new calculations by the Government's own inspectors which have recently been published.
I recall in that report that such a sentiment was expressed and the inspectors concluded that the South East should suffer or be sacrificed for the sake of the rest of the country. If the Government accept that report, as my noble friend has already said, it will mean overturning the basis on which planning has operated in the South East until now and indeed the policies on which the Government were elected.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell made some interesting comments on this problem. Like him, I find it distasteful that there are houses that cannot be sold in many parts of the country when there is huge pressure for development in the South East. In talking to young people in places like Newcastle one understands that many of them see no future unless they move to the South East. Although a great deal has been done to tackle the problems in their area, there is still an acute problem which must be dealt with.
As for agriculture—what a dismissive way to put it—only recently it has become possible for the country to live with some certainty that food can be purchased from anywhere in the world and so our home farming industry can be disregarded. I use that word advisedly. That is how I interpret an interview given a short time ago by the Prime Minister on our local television channel. The message seemed to be: accept our regulation, change and compete or go out of business. The second part of that message would be easier to swallow if the first part applied to all the competitors of the United Kingdom's farming industry.
In reality, an industry with high standards that is highly regulated is being squeezed in the name of the consumer by competitors with weaker currencies who largely escape the same regulations but who are able to sell here at much lower prices. So many noble Lords have spelled out the detail of the effect of that on the agricultural industry.
As a nation we sacrificed farming in the latter years of the last century and we did it again after the First World War. Farmers have long memories and they are

245
not particularly surprised by what is happening. However, they are disappointed and they will not forget. In the meantime the public are to be granted uncontrolled access to much more of the countryside which will put quiet places under even more intense pressure. Wildlife will suffer.
It is all very well to give greater protection to sites of special scientific interest and it is all very well to talk about positive management and penalties for damage, but if those sites are simply oases in a sea of intensive farming the survival of farmers will be in danger. I know one farmer who will survive. He has 3,600 acres of arable land for which he has only two full-time employees. If the countryside is to survive as we know it at present something has to be done to improve the profitability of the agricultural sector at large. I shall be interested to see what the Bill contains—when we finally receive it—as it sets out to resolve those particular conflicts.
I quote again from the gracious Speech:
"A Bill will be brought forward to reform local government to make it more innovative and accountable".
In this case we have some idea of the changes that the Bill may contain because it was well signalled in our preceding Session of Parliament and a joint committee of both Houses, as explained by my noble friend Lord Bowness, has already reported on the putative legislation.
That said, I am fascinated that the Government should wish to spread innovative management structures—at least innovative as concerns this country—across the whole country before they have seen whether the experimental introduction that we have only just dealt with will work successfully. After all, it is only a few days since we were considering what is now the Greater London Authority Act in which such ideas were introduced to this country's legislation for the first time.
In British democracy the tradition used to be that members controlled the executive. Now the Government look as though they are about to set aside that principle for a fourth time. First, there is the almost iron control that they exert over their own Members in Parliament so that they can treat Parliament as no more than a slight inconvenience. Secondly, they established the principle as a matter of law in the Greater London Authority Act where the Greater London Assembly is allowed no more than to supervise the actions of the mayor. Thirdly, they reiterated the principle on their absolute insistence that any Labour candidate for mayor shall be allowed to have no ideas except those already in the Labour Party's manifesto. Fourthly, a draft local government Bill seeks to reduce the management power of ordinary members of local authorities, which they are accustomed to exercising, by concentrating those powers either with an elected mayor or within a Cabinet-style arrangement.
Of course, we do not yet know how the Government responded to the report of the joint committee of both Houses. Only when the Bill is published will we know for sure whether the Government are determined on
246
this path. If, in winding up the debate, the Minister can give some assurance that the Government have listened to the report, that will be most welcome.
Local government is about providing services to the public. The public themselves are little concerned about the management structure that brings those services to them; all they are interested in are the results. They worry about the schools that their children attend; about the roads that they drive on; about the state of care for the elderly; about security in their homes and whether or not their dustbins are emptied. The Bill does nothing about those things; rather, it is a distraction. So I ask myself why the Government are doing this and I do not like the answer.
It has long been my belief that when Labour was last in opposition it used local government as a tool to attack national government. As a result it knows all too well the damage and problems that local government can cause. Thus it is that it now wishes to adjust the system to bring local government more under control and so avoid possible future problems. Certainly nothing in either the Local Government Act which we passed in the last Session, nor anything in the Greater London Authority Act suggests that Labour has faith in anybody or any institution other than itself. We shall have to look at this projected Bill with great care as it may continue to follow what I regard as an unfortunate precedent.
The Government promised us a busy Session. It is in their character that they wish to give the appearance of great activity and they will certainly achieve that. However, I doubt whether the country will receive commensurate benefit from all this activity, and that is something that we may all come to regret.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have remarked on the lack of a mention of agriculture in the Minister's opening remarks this afternoon. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was concluding the debate on the fourth day last Session, he commented on the serious state of the agricultural industry; on how farm incomes had suffered a serious deterioration over the past two or three years and on how that situation was continuing. He said that he expected it to have serious effects not only on the viability of agriculture, but also on the environment, animal welfare and the rural economy as a whole.
A whole year has passed since then and the situation has worsened to a degree that not even the most pessimistic of us anticipated. Many examples of that have already been given. Over that year, action by the Government has been reactive by way of crisis aid packages with nothing in the way of strategic thinking. Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that the Government have had little to say today and could only repeat the statement made so ably last year by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

247
However, I want to look forward. During the coming year the Government have promised a rural White Paper, and it is long overdue. When thinking about that, it struck me what a poor relation rural areas continue to be. Urban areas had the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, to set the scene in his excellent report. He produced some original and sound thinking, including plans for an urban renaissance. Meanwhile, rural areas still get a bureaucratic mess. This Government cannot even make up their mind as to who should be responsible for rural issues, although I believe that they are making some moves in that direction. Unfortunately, they are not organised in a way that makes it simple for other rural partners to deal with them. In my area of the south-west, the rural development working group—on which we are pinning quite high hopes—is co-chaired by MAFF and the Government Office for the region because no one quite knows where the buck stops.
On these Benches, we have long promoted the idea of a rural ministry. At the end of the debate I introduced in the last Session, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there had been a demand from the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere to create a rural ministry of some kind, but that when examined in detail that had no great logic. However, I am pleased to say that the Government now appear to have accepted that there is some merit in that approach and are making a start with a Cabinet committee. If rural areas are ever to get a reasonable deal, they need a coherent approach. I shall outline the three ways in which they are getting a raw deal at the moment. Do the Bills in the gracious Speech mean that things will improve for our country areas or will current inequalities be exacerbated?
Inequalities fall into three categories: funding, infrastructure and democracy. In relation to funding, people who live in rural areas are "worth" less per head than those in urban areas, according to the funding formulas of this Government—and in fact the previous government—in terms of local government services. Does it cost less to deliver personal social services to an elderly person in a village than in a city? Of course not. Does it cost less to educate a child in Dorset than in London? Of course not. Although a small amount is given for sparcity consideration—around £16 per head—total government funding per capita is £656 for somebody in Somerset, £750 for people in most shire counties, and a wonderful £1,350 for people in Inner London. The Government need to explain that inequality and work towards getting rid of it.
Last year, CAP reform seemed to offer rural areas a ray of bright hope. But the Government opted to keep the Thatcher rebate intact, which benefits areas chosen by government. I am sure that some rural areas benefit, but minimal CAP reform happened and, as before, most lost out.
The rural development regulation money would offer some hope, but this Government must put in serious matching funding. Despite the critical state of the rural economy, the Government are still planning
248
to invest substantially less in our rural areas than does virtually every other European Union country. The Government need to look seriously at the question of modulation and whether some money can be redirected not back into the Treasury funds—that is what so many fear will happen if modulation is taken away—but into rural development schemes.
The Government must produce proper matched funding for those schemes. Many of them are currently substantially underfunded but are actually "win-win" schemes; that is, the farmer receives money to produce the goods the public want and the countryside that supports its wildlife. Organic farming has got it right. The Government have given a little more conversion funding in that regard, but it is still enormously underfunded, as is the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. People in this country clearly want to buy local produce produced to high standards and to have animal welfare taken into account.
Some pro-active local authorities have started farmers' markets. In the south-west, for instance, they are expanding to more than just a niche. But what specific help are the Government planning to give to enable this sort of self-help for agriculture to develop? They have not planned a farmers' market Bill. There is still in existence an archaic law that prevents new markets being set up within a radius of six and two-thirds miles of existing markets—a day's horse-ride. That does not make much sense these days.
The draft rural strategies of the regional development agencies are proving a disappointment so far. They have failed to make the links between economic strategies and rural policies and have left the environment trailing a poor third. I hope that they improve before they are put in their final form. I hope that the Government will put pressure on them to do SO.
I turn for a moment to the infrastructure. One of the most exciting Bills in the gracious Speech might well be that which introduces more innovation in terms in e-commerce and e-government. The new Bill should promote the use of new technologies, yet I wonder whether the Government realise how many areas of rural Britain are still not served by ISDN lines. In fact, I gather that the fibre optic cabling programme contains no medium or long-term plans to provide broad band access to all areas. If even in this new area of technology, rural areas will lose out before that technology has even begun, there is very little hope for them.
The Post Office Bill should be an opportunity for rural post offices, but many fear that it will be a threat. What sort of criteria do the Government intend to use when they specify the sort of services that communities can expect?
I shall not consider the housing issue in depth but rural areas are still badly in need of affordable housing. Again, there is funding inequality. Ten per cent of Britain's population live in smaller settlements of fewer than 3,000 people and yet 4 per cent of Housing Corporation money is allocated to provide affordable housing for people in villages. What inequality!

249
A number of noble Lords have touched on the subject of transport. It is time that funding for rural transport schemes is provided long term. It is no use the local authorities—although they are grateful for the money—being given it in dollops of very short-term funding which, if they do not use it, is taken away. Transport requires long-term development and planning so that the community can work out how it wants to develop it and not how to spend money in a short time.
I shall touch briefly on energy. Wind farms have been mentioned in a rather negative way. One of the more exciting things I saw in the summer was at Swaffham where the community now has a huge wind generator towering over the town. It provides energy. I believe that it is a splendid backdrop. The town must gain some satisfaction from providing its own renewable energy.
In democratic terms, rural areas will lose out under the local government Bill. I do not believe that it is a Bill about innovation, but about replacing one set of rigid structures with another. The proposed new structures are completely unsuited to three-tier areas where "county and district" is already a confusing concept to most members of the public. How many mayors will a rural market town have? A town mayor indirectly elected by the town council; a county mayor directly elected, a district mayor and so on? I hope that the Government are not thinking that that will make matters more accountable to local residents. I very much hope that the Bill will seek to encourage good partnership working between the different tiers. Real community planning might then take place.
Finally, the access to the countryside Bill will mean that more of the population will have an opportunity to appreciate the beautiful areas of this country. That is quite right. But the way in which that is implemented is very important. I hope that the Bill will be drafted to answer the crucial questions of proper mapping, proper signing and how to close areas so that wildlife is not badly affected. What about the liability of people on the land? So far the Government have dodged the question, but it is crucial both to the landowner and the people using the land.
The existing rights-of-way network is equally important. The open countryside will serve for the long day out, but, for many, access to a properly signed and mapped network of footpaths and bridleways is as important. Surely we do not want everyone to have to drive to the coast or the moors just for a walk.
The national parks are leaders in integrating regional recreational demands with economic development for residents. I believe that there are many lessons to be learnt from them. I am glad that the Government are thinking of creating two more national parks. They have many lessons for the rest of countryside on how to manage such issues.
For a government with a majority and resources to achieve some visionary themes, I believe that the lack of vision for the future of our countryside, except as a recreation area, is disappointing. Perhaps the most positive measure mentioned this evening is protection
250
for wildlife, which is long overdue. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned, it must not be "oasis" protection. There must be broad protection for vulnerable species, and sites, and for the common wildlife, which, if we do not protect it, will become rare.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am the only person who feels that the advent of computers for all has resulted in an order of magnitude increase in typographical errors. Moreover, there was a time when those who did their typing knew and understood the rules of grammar. Nowadays, when all manner of managers, civil servants and even politicians do their own typing, it is much less likely.
However, I have decided, on mature reflection, that it was no error which coupled "greater access to the countryside" and "improved protection for wildlife" without even a precautionary comma between them. Perhaps by this device the Government intend that, like love and marriage, man and wife, death and taxes, it shall be clear that access and wildlife protection are to be two sides of the same coin; that, as an old song says, "You can't have one without the other", that without improved protection greater access will not be allowed. Like my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, I have difficulty in believing it.
Two decades of farming and land management have convinced me that protecting wildlife—in which category I include flora as well as fauna—requires special and specific measures. While wishing to ensure better access to the countryside, generally speaking opening up access makes things worse for wildlife. At all times, there is need for balance.
The market gardener has to protect his crop from rabbits, deer and birds or he will have no produce; the forester has to protect his young trees from deer, cattle and sheep, but at the same time the land manager will wish to help the deer survive and may wish to encourage and reintroduce indigenous species such as the red squirrel.
Most people know by now that the red squirrel has been driven out by the grey, but few are aware that unless we intervene positively it will become extinct in these isles. Positive intervention will probably not be enhanced by non-permissive access unless great care is given to that access. Will the Bill recognise that? Will it allow proper time, research and funding into what is required to encourage and protect wildlife before it gives carte blanche to free access? The population must have adequate access to the countryside; most of us agree on that. I believe that the argument relates to the question: what is the correct access to the countryside?
Many landowners, including myself, already allow ramblers and other associations access to their land. In return they expect, and largely get, responsible behaviour. That is particularly true of permissive access. Will that pattern continue when there is non-permissive access on moorland, heath and downland? We understand that the Government intend to allow for the closure of land during the breeding season and

251
for other environmental or safety reasons. But what will the closures involve and will they be different in different places? Will farmers and land managers find themselves faced with additional costs for signposts, advertisements in local papers, web pages on the Internet, and for additional wardens and keepers?
Who will pay to put right the things that go wrong—the casual damage to walls, stiles and paths; and the collection and disposal of sandwich boxes and soft drink cans, to say nothing of old cars, fridges and cookers? It is no use the Government putting their head in the sand and pretending that this does not occur; it does. Who will be liable for the rambler, wearing the wrong sort of footwear, who twists his ankle in a rabbit hole? The Government have indicated that the landowner will be responsible. Who will foot the bill when a small child wanders away from its elders and gets lost, necessitating wholesale searches by police and the Army?
The whole area of finance is of critical importance. Hitherto, the countryside was looked after and developed by people who mainly knew its worth and had a vested interest in maintaining it in good shape. The vast majority of our much-prized countryside has been developed for agriculture and blood sports. The danger of this Bill is that it will usher in an era when the countryside will be seen as belonging to people who have no vested interest and who know little about it, far less its worth. Will the Government pay for its upkeep? Will the Government even listen to those who have protected it, nurtured it and valued it for the last millennium? Caring for an asset usually occurs where there is ownership of the asset. Ownership goes hand in hand with the privileges and responsibility of owning an asset.
Those who live and work in rural areas are finding it hard to survive. We have heard from many noble Lords about farm incomes, but I should like to add that in 1995 one could buy a three-bedroomed house in Fulham for the equivalent of 4,000 tonnes of grain. Today the same house would cost 11,000 tonnes of grain.
Villagers are finding themselves driven out by the costs of living in an environment where local jobs are more scarce, where local shops are closing down, and where local public transport is becoming rarer. What is more, local community hospitals have come under increasing threat of closure from this Government. What we need is compassion, care and contributions to help their way of life. Most damaging is the psychological effect on farmers who perceive their industry as no longer valued by their customers and by their Government. What they are being offered is an extended takeover by their Government who put constraints in their way of life yet demand free access to their way of life.
It is true that the Government have said that they wish to strengthen support for SSSIs and have indicated that they are prepared to consider ways of making rights of way more user-friendly, both for ramblers and for all those whose land they cross. All good stuff. I hope that the countryside is allowed a say
252
in this process. We are quite prepared to endorse measures which will achieve those ends, but we are not satisfied that the Government understand why SSSIs need support and why footpaths are so often neglected and impassable. It comes down to finance and regulation.
The work of organisations like the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers is vital to the maintenance of such access as is already available. Its members raise their own funds and work with local authorities to earn grants and subsidies to pay for materials and expert help where it is needed. But it is hamstrung by regulation just as everyone else is. Unless the Government are prepared to listen to the experts, these bodies and others will eventually be lost.
The British landscape has evolved over centuries. It has cost taxpayers little or nothing. Indeed, agriculture of the landscape is a £2 billion industry. The landscape is the part which attracts millions of tourist every year to these isles. It contributes both to the nation's wealth and to its spiritual well-being. Land managers have created and cared for much of our landscape as we know it today. It needs to be nurtured and developed sympathetically and carefully. It does not deserve to be used and abused in the name of populist desires where rights are not matched by responsibilities and man's whims ride roughshod over nature's priorities.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, as someone who very recently went through the ordeal of making a maiden speech, it gives me enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, on their contributions to the debate this afternoon. Like all noble Lords, I was struck by the fluency and the content of both their speeches. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from them in the future.
This is an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate. I do not envy my noble friend the Minister having to reply to it at the end of the evening; nor, indeed, those on the Front Benches of the parties opposite. I intend to speak on what I think will be one of the most controversial and hard-fought ingredients in the legislative programme; namely, the Government's proposals for substantial transport reform and particularly their plans for the railways.
In the short time that I have been here, I have been struck by how many of your Lordships have had extensive and serious interests in transport policy. That is true of Members on every Bench. In earlier times the old railway companies would have appointed many Members of your Lordships' House to sit on their boards and, indeed, would have named their locomotives after them. Today we have in the House at least one former chairman of the railways board, a retired railway trade union general secretary, a former regional general manager, a number of right reverend Prelates who seem to love railways almost as much as they love their Church and so many former Ministers of transport in all parties that they are much to numerous to count.

253
By comparison, my contribution to railway politics has been modest, but I did serve four successive chairmen of the British Railways Board over the 20 years up to 1998. Like Mr Brian Hanrahan, reporting for the BBC on the aircraft in the Falklands War, I counted them all in and I counted them all out. I should have liked to say that over those 20 years the railways steadily improved and that each change—whether of government, Minister or chairman—was for the better. I cannot claim that. But I believe that the policies of the present Government offer more hope of getting it right than has been the case for many years. In my time with the board there were a number of false dawns over and over again. But each time the determination of the Treasury to reduce the railway subsidy and to curtail investment won against the well-meaning desires of most transport Ministers to expand and invest.
There was a variety of schemes intended to achieve those objectives. One attempt to save money was to increase fares in real terms by far more than the rate of inflation. But that was abandoned because of the backlash from voters in marginal commuter constituencies in the south-east. Another solution, which was attempted several times, was massively to reduce the size of the network—the Serpell Report of the early 1980s, which some of your Lordships may remember, would have cut it by two-thirds. But that would have wiped out railways in most of Scotland and Wales and in rural England. So that disappeared from the agenda.
The combination of Treasury interference and, I fear, departmental indifference to the railways often reminded me of the words in the poem by Arthur Hugh Clough:
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive Officiously to keep alive".
These are reasons why the principle of railway privatisation no longer tills me with as much revulsion as once it did. There are, of course, numerous political points that can be scored against the party opposite: for its indecent haste in getting all the industry sold off or, in many cases, given away before the 1997 election; for the incompetent mistakes in the legislation, such as forgetting about the role of the British Transport Police, who temporarily lost their powers of arrest until they were restored by a new separate Act of Parliament; and for inventing a new breed of animal—the railway fat cat—who was able to spot where assets were being sold so cheaply that he was able to turn tiny investments with no risk into vast fortunes because the taxpayer was guaranteeing future income streams.
The list is almost endless. The Public Accounts Committee in another place has so far only scratched at the surface. But—and there is a "but"—some good things have happened since privatisation. A heartening development has been the increase in the number of people using the railways. Some of this has been due to the state of the economy, because more people always travel when the economy is doing well. Some of this growth can be accounted for by the introduction of new services, the re-opening of lines, the creation of new journey opportunities and so on.
254
One of the most important new routes is scarcely three miles from your Lordships' House—the West London line—which 10 or so years ago was the prime candidate for complete closure and conversion to a road. It is easy to forget that tearing up tracks and covering them with concrete was being seriously put forward as a transport policy very recently.
There are train operating companies which are doing their best to demonstrate that rail travel has a future. They are investing in new rolling stock, implementing imaginative timetable improvements, making their stations more attractive and genuinely looking for new markets. They should be praised and encouraged. I certainly would have no objection to their being given the opportunity to go on developing their services through franchise extensions.
Others are letting the public and the nation down and seem to believe that glitzy PR is a substitute for a reliable and effective service. Why can they not tell their passengers the truth when things go wrong? Why can they not ensure that the advertised on-train services match up to what they promise? The companies which are failing would frankly do us and themselves a favour if they concluded that their skills should be directed to activities other than running railways.
There is no point in dwelling on the past. We must make the best of what we have. That means using those provisions in the previous government's Railways Act which can play a part in delivering a better railway and more sane transport policy and making certain that its weaknesses and omissions are addressed in the new transport Bill. The two essential elements are more effective regulation and the establishment of the strategic railway authority. I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to tougher regulation and I believe that the new regulator, Tom Winsor, has made an excellent start. He recognises that the public are running out of patience and that the pace of improvement in the industry is currently much too slow.
There is no part of the railway industry which needs to change more than Railtrack and Mr Winsor is right to have it in his sights. In August this year he started enforcement action against the company because it failed to meet its annual performance targets. In October he published a consultation document on its incentive framework to make certain that Railtrack improves the capability, quality and performance of its network. Earlier this month he demanded that the company produce proper plans for meeting its commitments to extra capacity as part of the upgrade of the West Coast main line, having failed to complete adequate strategic reviews despite promising in March that it would. This is putting Railtrack in breach of its network licence and I understand that Mr Winsor is considering adding to and rewriting that licence.
Railtrack has to appreciate that the world has changed. By the time John Swift, Mr Winsor's predecessor, left office, he had all the same powers as Mr Winsor has today, but he scarcely ever used them.

255
The licence that Railtrack operates under is quite clear. It states,
"The purpose is to secure:

(a) the maintenance of the network

(b) the renewal and the replacement of the network

(c) the improvement, enhancement and development of the network

in each case in accordance with best practice and in a timely, economic and efficient manner".
Underlying all this—we should remember that the licence was signed by the previous government, not this one—is a recognition that Railtrack has responsibilities first to the public interest and to those of us who use the railway before the interests of shareholders.
The relationship between Railtrack and the train operating companies has to change. It is not healthy for the TOCs to be intimidated by Railtrack and to be fearful of speaking out when it is necessary to do so. They must learn to insist that their contractual rights are honoured by their suppliers. The 1993 Act makes it clear that there are special public interest obligations on Railtrack which go far beyond simply ensuring that the dividends keep flowing and the shareholders are kept happy. There is, for example, a special duty on Railtrack—which can be enforced by the regulator under the powers given to him by Section 17 of the Railways Act—to use its property in a way that promotes and furthers the interests of the operational railway. That is something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred earlier.
Railway land must be made available for facilities and developments which attract freight and extra passengers and create high quality interchange between rail and other modes of transport such as bus, cycling and walking. The temptation to make a quick profit from selling railway land for non-railway related developments must be resisted if the land has transport potential.
Railway regulation is not that different from that which was applied to all the utility monopolies which were privatised by the previous government. The one big difference is that unlike regulation in gas, electricity, water and telecoms, regulation of Railtrack was almost non-existent until Mr Winsor took office this summer. I welcome that and I also welcome the emphasis that the gracious Speech laid on railway safety and the flexibility that—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves his fairly damning indictment of Railtrack, will he indicate whether he supports this Government's policy of giving Railtrack a special position as regards London Underground?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the situation as regards London Underground is obviously difficult. My feeling is that if Railtrack is able to change and adapt to the new circumstances which the regulator is imposing on it, it can certainly be considered for the sub-surface lines.
256
In the last years of public ownership a new management culture was developed on the railway. It was instigated by the last chairman but two, the late Sir Robert Reid, and was based on the principle that someone was always responsible if things went wrong. The alibi that "It is nothing to do with me" largely disappeared as individuals took charge of sectors of the railway and were held to account.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the privatised structure is that this acceptance of responsibility has largely disappeared as the railway have been broken up. This danger was repeatedly spelt out in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of the Railways Bill but was largely ignored. Fears about future safety arising from the fragmentation were dismissed as alarmist. Safety featured little in those public versus private debates because until recently people thought little about that. We are used to complaining about overcrowded trains, late trains, dirty trains, unreliable trains and expensive trains but you never heard anyone say that they would not travel by train because they thought that was unsafe.
That is the reason the railways' and the Government's responses to the Ladbroke Grove accident matter so much. It is not a question of whether privatisation was to blame. I do not believe that the same railway managers and staff who took such pride as public servants in operating a safe railway when it was publicly owned have decided to take chances with safety now that they are in the private sector; of course they have not. It is a question of whether the culture has changed in a way which pushes the concept of absolute safety down the agenda. The statistics speak for themselves. Rail is by far the safest form of land transport. It is 15 times safer than travelling by car. However, there cannot be any complacency as regards safety on the railways.
As other noble Lords have said, there is much good advice for the Government in the recent report of the Transport Committee in another place, including the repeated demand that the safety and standards directorate should find a new home. The majority on the sub-committee warmly welcomed the establishment of a strategic rail authority. I believe that it offers the best chance of putting right many of the problems that have been caused by privatisation and should provide the long-term planning for the railways that the old British Rail was never allowed to undertake.
Therefore we should expect the strategic rail authority to look 20 to 25 years ahead and come up with a vision for the future of the railways. It and the regulator must use their powers to ensure that all parts of the industry substantially increase investment and produce plans for main line electrification. At the heart of the Government's policy, it seems to me, is a determination to persuade people to leave their cars at home and to use public transport. This will need levels of services, particularly on the railways, of much higher quality if this approach is to succeed and enjoy popular support. The transport Bill offers a way forward and I shall be happy to offer it my full support.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, approximately one year ago my noble friend Lord Kimball called attention to the future of the agriculture industry. That debate identified the serious difficulties facing agriculture in the United Kingdom. A short while ago, on 9th November of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, brought forward a debate on the milk industry.
Since those two debates, the plight of agriculture in this country has worsened very considerably. Many farmers arc hanging on perilously in the hope that things will get better; and, in the dairy industry, many dairy farmers who relied on the milk cheque to pay the rent or the mortgage are finding that that no longer happens and are going out of business. As has been mentioned by more than one speaker, that brings on to the rural scene serious difficulties for the people who service agriculture.
Other issues, such as the health and welfare of livestock, are also affected, as illustrated in an article in The Times this morning. Livestock farmers are finding it difficult to afford vaccines and medicines for their livestock.
However, those are not the matters I wish to address. My noble friend Lady Byford has done that more effectively than I could. I want to address the issues which will place British agriculture in an increasingly uncompetitive situation; namely, genetic modification in farming, livestock production and food production, and the restraints placed upon agriculture in this country. While our overseas competitors suffer less from the public disquiet which surrounds the production of GM crops and livestock in this country, other competing countries benefit from the export of their GM farming products to many countries of the world.
I am of the firm opinion that many people in this country—those in agriculture, those in the food industry, the rural dweller and, indeed, the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus—believe that the issue of GM crops and GM foods has got out of hand. Genetic modification has been used to present emotive headlines such as "Frankenstein Foods", which we have all seen in the tabloids. This has preyed upon the general lack of understanding of GM technology, to the advantage of our competitors elsewhere.
I believe that there is an urgent and important need to bring to the attention of the public the outstanding advantages that GM technology can bring to agriculture and other industries such as medicine, brewing and so on. 'The matter needs to be dealt with in an objective way, with the fears and perceived hazards brought out, and the risks attendant on these hazards explained. A clear, calm and calming debate is necessary.
What are some of the concerns? The most common one, of course, is that food containing GM products—such as soya, maize, etc—may affect human health, and demands are made that extensive research be undertaken to determine this. One of the answers is that GM soya and maize has been consumed in the
258
United States and elsewhere by hundreds of millions of people over many years and there has been no evidence of ill health resulting from such products.
It has recently been noted that, while much concern has addressed the consumption of GM products by humans, GM products are consumed in large amounts as fodder for livestock which produce meat, milk and eggs. For example, last year Britain imported approximately 2 million tonnes of soya meal for pig and poultry, 1 million tonnes of maize gluten to be used in cattle and sheep feed, and half a million tonnes of brewer's grain. Again, there has been no instance of ill health in livestock as a result of feeding such products.
The perceived danger of genes being transferred from "genetic fodder" through the animal to the final product of meat, milk or eggs, is not really valid. Any gene protein is broken down in the digestive system of the animal—or, indeed, of the human—and it can be claimed that the animal acts as a natural screen for DNA transfer. This phenomenon has been going on throughout human history as we have eaten material containing DNA of various kinds.
While the GM debate appears to centre on the safety of GM products and the dangers to the environment, the wider, positive aspects of GMOs in agriculture are often ignored in the general argument. For example, the prime targets for transgenesis in major crop plants for both human and livestock consumption are genes for adaptation, conferring on plants disease resistance, resistance to insect pests, tolerance of environmental stresses such as cold, drought, acidity, alkalinity, and so on. These attributes reduce the need to use chemical pesticides; there is less spoilage and greater and more reliable production. In the third world, GM products give a broader geographical spread; for example, the wheat or maize may be grown in climates which are currently suitable only for the growing of millet and sorghum. Fodder crops such as modified legumes—clovers, lucerne or ryegrass—may have inserted genes which not only increase feed utilisation but also prevent serious metabolic disorders in the animals that eat them.
The GM debate also fails to take into consideration the need for our agriculture to be economically competitive with that of other countries. That means keeping up to date with recent scientific developments of all kinds, including genetic modification and the growing of high production strains of arable crops and animals. The agriculture of the United Kingdom must not be shackled by unnecessary regulations or by a public that places unrealistic demands on it.
There has been much debate about the question of labelling of GM foods. Fortunately, the recent developments in the detection of GM material in foods are moving well ahead. New technology will detect GM material in food to a level of 0.1 per cent in the case of protein, and to a level of 0.01 per cent in the case of DNA. That means that there will be choice based on adequate labelling.
As your Lordships will realise, it would be difficult for me to end without saying something about agriculture in the third world and the role of GMOs

259
there. Various estimates exist of the population growth and the food needs in the third world in the early part of the coming millennium. Whatever the estimates, there is every belief that a major increase in food production will be needed to combat the shortfall.
Without expanding on the issue, it is critical that the scientific competence and competitiveness of agriculture and biotechnology in the United Kingdom should play an important role in third world development. Again, this should not be compromised by over regulation, delays in field trials, safety assessments and so on.
It is clear that the Government failed to anticipate the controversy over GM foods and crops, as, too, did previous governments. Public debate has become polarised. Proponents and opponents dismiss each other as unreasonable or irresponsible. We must restore discussion in which all parties have confidence, while recognising that definitive answers do not and cannot exist in the face of uncertainty and ignorance. I believe that we should take note of the ways in which other countries have dealt with the debate on GM products. For example, in North America there are focus groups, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. Since our GM debate does not seem to be progressing as far and as actively as it should, it may well be that we should look at those techniques with greater attention to see whether we can gain more ground by using them.
8 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggests that we send back the gracious Speech with a rejection slip, to use the words of my noble friend the Leader of the House. Conversely, I rather commend the gracious Speech, not simply as a government lackey; I commend it from the perspective of several of my other hats, in terms of its significant and highly coherent achievements for the environment, countryside, rural affairs and for education.
I start with the environment. I declare an interest, which has already been revealed, as Chairman of English Nature. I very much welcome the legislation to improve the conservation of key wildlife sites—the SSSIs, the jewels in the crown of our nature conservation. We have heard criticisms from speakers on the Benches opposite that there has been a lack of mention of agriculture and farming. Perhaps I may say that I plan to keep noble Lords on the Benches opposite very happy by mentioning copiously over the next few minutes both farmers and agriculture.
Many of our SSSIs are managed extremely well by farmers. We have 32,000 owners and occupiers of SSSIs and, for the large part, they do an excellent job. However, 30 per cent of those SSSIs are still in an unfavourable condition and are not improving. Therefore, the legislation provides a valuable opportunity to reorientate the focus of SSSIs towards positive management. Certainly, it will enable English Nature to act more effectively and, indeed, with more
260
efficient use of public resources in those rare instances where SSSIs face deliberate damage, either by third parties or by those few owners and occupiers who refuse to engage in positive dialogue.
I hope that the Bill will introduce also a duty of care for all public bodies who own or manage SSSIs to ensure that in their management they remain or move into favourable conservation status. We really should not continue to see public bodies preside over the damage or decline of those jewels in the crown.
Therefore, the legislation for SSSIs is necessary and welcome. However, legislation and the accompanying non-legislative measures will not be enough to stem the damage and decline of SSSIs. Much of that continues to be paid for by you and me through agricultural subsidies. As taxpayers, we pay for subsidies that damage sites which, as a nation, we have committed to defend. Therefore, we need to see agricultural reform and we need to see it very quickly.
The Government now have the opportunity at UK level—no longer hidden behind a European Union barrier—to make changes in the immediate future in the way in which subsidies are paid that could have a long-lasting benefit. A modest top slice—say, 5 per cent—from mainstream payments, which currently damage not only the environment but also farmers, would double the funds available for the agri-environment budget and for the rural development budget. That money would still be paid to farmers but it would be for the public good, not for environmental damage.
That type of change in agricultural reform is now within the grasp of agriculture Ministers in the UK. It would enable double benefit to be obtained from the proposed wildlife legislation. It would be good for farmers and for rural communities, as well as for wildlife. However, that kind of agricultural reform needs leadership, as the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, indicated. I call in particular for positive leads from those bodies which represent farmers. At the moment, some of them are behaving like the worst kind of trade unions, showing a protectionism that, I believe, is not in the long-term interests of the agricultural industry.
The very damaging type of restructuring of the agriculture sector, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is exactly what will happen if we continue down the path of seeing global competitiveness as the only solution for our agriculture. The best defence in the face of the imminent world trade round is to produce a range of agricultural practices that are sustainable and that take account of environmental and social as well as economic objectives. We also need a positive lead to achieve that from the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in her promotion of a department for rural affairs. I do not believe that it is possible for a single department to solve all the ills of the countryside, many of which are based on issues like access to services, health, transport, the planning system and the development of regional funding. Not

261
all of those can be brought together in a single department. To try to create one is a little like rearranging the deck-chairs on the "Titanic". We need an urgent retasking of MAFF with some fresh and clear objectives that address economic, social and environmental issues. We need co-ordinated government across departments—joined-up government. I very much welcome the appointment of the countryside committee chaired by my right honourable friend Dr Mowlam.
Before I leave the issue of agricultural reform, I must pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on GM crops. I hope that we can move away from the promotion of the potential benefits of GM crops to a proper examination of the actual benefits; away from an analysis of the potential risks of GM crops towards a proper analysis of the actual risks. It is only if we can see the continuation of the field-scale trials through to their conclusion and a proper analysis thereafter that we will know what we are talking about. If I had a pound for the number of potential benefits in GM crops that have been outlined, I should be an extremely rich woman.
I turn to the provisions in the Bill which relate to access. I welcome the extension of access to the countryside. It is important to enable more people to enjoy and understand the countryside and its wildlife. I was slightly taken aback by several speakers on the Benches opposite who complained about lack of understanding of the countryside, but who were then rather loath to let anyone anywhere near it in order to find some understanding. Obviously, the access provisions need to take careful account in their detail of the needs of wildlife. However, speaking on behalf of the Government's statutory nature conservation body, I should say that we would not worry about the impact on wildlife in moorland, heath and other open habitats. There simply is no research evidence that there is a huge risk to wildlife. There may need to be some modest spatial and temporal restrictions, but no more than that. We are rather more worried about other habitats to which access might be considered for extension, particularly the impact on river corridors, on coasts and on woodland, where I believe that the research evidence of potential impact on wildlife is greater. Therefore, there needs to be careful examination—
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I am slightly intrigued by the fact that on the one hand, she said that there is not the same need to look after and have wildlife protection in the mountain and moorland areas; yet, on the other hand, she begins to argue that woodland and riverbanks are in fact a special issue. In both areas there are sites of special scientific interest. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would like to take us further along that path before she leaves it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her request for further illumination. I am saying that the research evidence is quite clear: on the open habitats on
262
mountain and moorland there is little evidence that access has an impact on wildlife, whereas on those restricted, tight habitats—river corridors, coastal strips and woodland— where access can become very concentrated, the research evidence is clear that there is likely to be an impact. I am merely, as usual in the case of English Nature, making a statement from a scientific point of view.
One of the points in the access debate that we should all recognise is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, we do not want to encourage people into their cars so that they can drive to open grounds to have a walk. There is a real need to promote linear access close to where people live. To be frank, I hope that the failure in the past of initiatives to try to promote permissive access on linear routes will be corrected by the legislation that is to come before us.
On the question of transport, as mentioned in the gracious Speech, I was a little worried when corning back to the reformed House that we might miss the presence of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who has been a doughty campaigner for green transport over many years. I was delighted to be relieved of my anxiety that I might have to help to fill his shoes rather inadequately by the impressive grasp of the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather sneered at the size of the transport Bill and hoped that its pursuit was not as part of an integrated transport strategy. Thank goodness it is a substantial Bill in pursuit of an integrated transport strategy. It is long overdue because of the total lack of vision or investment in transport policies over the lifetime of the previous government.
Meeting mobility needs without wrecking the environment and dealing with the nation's rather destructive love affair with the motor car is not an easy issue and needs the whole range of regulation and incentives which an integrated transport strategy involves. We need to see investment in public transport, incentives to travel wisely and disincentives to polluting and congesting travel. We must not run away from the issue because it is too difficult. There is no alternative. We know what will happen to transport if we shy away because it is too difficult.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves transport, does she recall a few weeks ago vigorously defending the policy of the escalator for duty on fuel for motor cars? In the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's about-turn on that issue, is she still happy with government policy; and on this subject, is she speaking on behalf of English Nature?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I stand very much by my words on the transport escalator. I am delighted to see in the pre-Budget Statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to continue regarding the fuel escalator on an annual basis to see what its contribution to this whole package in an integrated transport strategy would represent. We

263
cannot run away from these difficult issues and a whole range of mechanisms needs to be considered in a balanced fashion.
Perhaps I may conclude by referring to the education proposals in the gracious Speech. I welcome the proposal for the Learning and Skills Council to improve standards for the post-16 education and training provisions. It is a fundamental principle that lack of access to education equals lack of access to opportunity. My noble friend Lord Sawyer spoke with passion on the vision that we need to have for education and opportunity. We do not even begin to approach the basic numeracy or literacy standards of many of our European neighbours. However, some opportunities are coming as a result of the new digital communications media to enable access to education and lifelong learning for all. I should declare an interest as a Vice-Chairman of the BBC. The new integrated digital media of television, radio and the Internet can offer an entertaining and easy way into a virtual curriculum based on the digital archive for which, as licence payers, we have already paid, making it available to everyone in the UK on the Internet through schools, homes, workplaces and community centres. We have to grasp this opportunity firmly. It provides the route from entertainment to attainment for many who would otherwise not engage with education and learning. The BBC would very much like to be able to develop its unique role in this area.
I am fairly frisky about this gracious Speech. It may look a trifle bitty but it makes strides forward and brings the environment to the heart of policy, a manifesto commitment of the Government. I look forward to vigorous debate.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships with what I might describe as an element of surprise. I have to be honest and say that I did not expect to be here. Having said that, it is with great honour that I take part in the debate, though I have great sadness about the many contributions that we shall not be hearing from friends no longer with us. I think particularly of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, who made such a wonderful contribution to debates on agriculture. His presence is very sadly missed.
I should declare an interest as a landowner in north Yorkshire. Before going any further, perhaps I may say to the Government that I think it is a great pity that we have rolled agriculture, the environment and education into one debate as that dilutes the importance of all three subjects. Agriculture and the environment, yes, but education should be treated separately. In future I hope that the Government will take note of my request.
The problems of the countryside are well documented and are certainly too numerous for me to mention today. But for sure, the countryside is about many things—food production, different businesses, recreation, wildlife and so on—and they do not always
264
mix readily. The Government play a vital role in attempting to achieve a balance and harmony. It is not an easy task—I realise that—but in order to do it effectively an essential prerequisite is to gain the confidence of those who have to deliver these objectives. I am bound to say that, to date, the Government have manifestly failed to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they have successfully managed to antagonise virtually all sectors of the rural community, which is quite an achievement. That is exacerbated by the total lack of mention of agriculture in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I know that that has been mentioned by other noble Lords but I think that it is worth mentioning again. We are talking about one of the major industries in this country, but it was never mentioned in the opening speech in a debate on agriculture and the environment. That is quite astonishing.
There are many examples of where the Government are not looking after the interests of the countryside. There is no better one than the very contentious issue of the right to roam, as mentioned in the gracious Speech. In fact, I cannot think of a better example of legislation designed to drive a wedge between the town and country at a time when we should be working towards better understanding and reconciliation. Apart from there being no research base for the legislation, we are seeing the abandonment of the precautionary principle, which has served the countryside extremely well in the past. I was astonished to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say that she did not think there was evidence to show that the right to roam would have any effect on upland wildlife habitats. I ask the noble Baroness: where is the evidence and research to show that this will not happen? I do not expect her to answer now—perhaps we can discuss it at some stage. I should have thought it incumbent on government to prove that it will not have an effect before they start bringing forward the legislation.
On the face of it, this is one of the most potentially impractical, litigious and confrontational pieces of legislation possible. From the evidence I have seen it is not popular with the majority of those who wish to walk in the countryside, not to mention those people who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards. I believe that the Bill will undermine management, disrupt important habitats and their associated species and adversely affect people's livelihoods. At the same time it will criminalise those who have the responsibilities of management if they do not fully comply with the legislation, whereas those given the new freedom to wander at will simply have to abide by some code of practice. That simply is not good enough.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked the Government certain questions. I certainly do not wish to repeat those questions because I think that she covered most of the ones that I would have asked. However, perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to a report in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday headed, "Farmer's foibles set ramblers out to grass".

265
It reports on a particular individual who overheard a conversation in the Dent car park in the Yorkshire Dales, not far from where I live. The article states:
"Through his car window he overheard a group from the Ramblers' Association being briefed by their leader before setting out on a walk. They were reminded it was part of 'the agreement with central Government' that members of the association should act as 'eyes and ears' in terms of picking up 'legislative transgressions' in the countryside".
The article goes on to say,
"He explained these should all he reported so local authorities could check whether they had planning permission or not, adding that authorities in some cases pay informers who report such offences … The leader was aware that most of his followers were 'workers in the public sector' and would therefore be knowledgeable about legislation in their own fields".
One rambler who asked about the possibility of any later comeback from these reports was assured there was no fear of this, thanks to the Government's new 'whistleblower's charter".
I accept that this is a report in a newspaper, but like most newspaper stories, I suspect that there is an element of truth in it. I ask the Government to give an assurance that they totally disassociate themselves from these kinds of allegations of conspiracy. Those are exactly the kind of concerns felt by country people about this legislation.
Many resented the emasculation of the Rural Development Agency. I am bound to say that there was cause for some enthusiasm at the creation of the new Countryside Agency. The countryside desperately needs a champion to fight its corner and this new quango seemed the appropriate one to take up the mantle. Whether it does remains to be seen, but I wish it God speed and hope that it succeeds.
However, it is interesting to note, and worrying to say the least, that given the agency's role in trying to implement the Government's muddled policies on access, in its recently published policy document it failed to mention two important aspects of rural life that will be adversely affected by increased access. The first is rural crime and the second is field sports. Rural crime is a very real problem. While I appreciate that crime is reducing nationally, rural crime is not falling at the same rate as that of urban crime. Quite simply, the criminal realises that the lack of policing in remote areas makes them a soft touch and increased access can only give those inclined towards crime every excuse to be in places where they should not be.
Field sports contribute an annual £3.8 billion to the rural economy. They support jobs and ancillary activities, often in remote rural areas that are in crying need of all the support that they can get. Furthermore, vast areas of countryside have been protected and preserved, thus ensuring that important habitats and species still exist that otherwise would, I fear, have long since disappeared. This has come at no cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, as regards many of the SSSIs referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, many of these designations would never have come about but for the field sports interest.
Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to a report by the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports entitled Countryside Sports and the U. K. Biodiversity Action
266
Plan, which has been placed in the Library of this House. I declare an interest as I chaired the conference. Nevertheless, the report is worth reading.
For the Countryside Agency to fail to address either of these two vital points which in their different ways play such an important part in country life is astonishing. Is it purely coincidence or is it a degree of cynical pragmatism? Either way, it has been a serious omission.
That takes me on to highlight the need for additional resources in order further to conserve and enhance the habitats of wildlife within the United Kingdom countryside. There is much discussion on the reform of the CAP and Agenda 2000, but despite all the talk about redistribution of funds from the agricultural support systems to the agri-environment budget, unfortunately the sums remain derisory. However, there do appear to be some opportunities within the reform package. I hope that the Government will seize on those wherever possible, in particular within the discretionary elements under the horizontal measures.
But whatever the outcome, it is essential that any money saved on reductions to agricultural support must be retained within the rural economy and reinvested through a combination of agri-environment schemes along with support and help for new businesses. I do hope that the Government can give a firm assurance that that will happen.
Other noble Lords have already pointed out that agriculture will always play a major part in our countryside. Farmers must be there not simply to produce food but to shape the landscape that we all enjoy. However, they cannot do that if there is no money. For that reason, the necessary support mechanisms must be put in place. As Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers' Union, said recently:
"There is a dilemma for the public. They want extensive farming but with the prices that can only come from intensive agriculture".
That is the big challenge facing all of us in the countryside, not least the Government, in particular as we move towards World Trade Organisation objectives, free markets and less support for agricultural output.
I see also that the Government plan to introduce measures to strengthen SSSIs through the possible imposition of management orders. That is a rather ironic situation because on the one hand the Government wish to protect SSSIs and on the other they want everyone to walk all over them. Be that as it may, I can see the need for some protection and I have sympathy for this proposal. However, I believe that it is absolutely essential that such orders should be a means of last resort. By and large the Wildlife and Countryside Act has been a success, not least because of the confidence and understanding that have developed between land managers and wildlife officers on the ground, along with the positive incentive schemes that have developed. This must not he put at risk by new draconian powers.

267
Furthermore it is important to recognise that most of the damage done to SSSIs is not deliberate but is caused by neglect and lack of resources. The truth of the matter is—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to this and she is absolutely right—that modern farming encouraged by the subsidy system has taken its toll on such sites and it will take public money to rectify the damage. That is particularly the case in the uplands where overgrazing has been a problem.
I should like to raise a final issue. If rural people are not to be discriminated against they deserve to have the opportunity of accessing as many services as possible. However, by and large, services come from people and people come from jobs. As agriculture changes and buildings become redundant, those same buildings offer opportunities for other development. I am not advocating a free-for-all. Far from it. However, great opportunities are being missed that would allow appropriate development and therefore jobs. Some local planning authorities are still suffering from the notion that they are there simply to hinder rather than to help and create. That needs attention and we need to see change.
We need to see a genuine partnership and trust between Government, their agencies, local authorities and rural communities. We need well thought through incentive schemes that benefit those who succeed and deliver. Above all, the Government must begin to understand and recognise the difficulties faced by those who live and work in rural areas today. There is no point in producing endless consultation papers and then completely ignoring the responses, in particular when they come from those groups and individuals that have practical experience. The Government have a duty to consider the needs of all their constituents. At present one large minority feels thoroughly let down. I hope the Minister can reassure us that things will change.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I was heartened when the Labour Party chose to fight the 1997 general election on the theme, "Education, education, education". I note that in the gracious Speech that commitment is re-affirmed:
"Education remains my Governments number one priority",
though I have to say that that only appears on the second page. It was not just poor syntax and split infinitives that marred the Speech from the Throne, but also poor sub-editing: "number one priority" ought surely to have appeared in the first paragraph in order to copper-bottom the degree of commitment made to education by the Government.
While the Government have made some improvements on their predecessors' record, their performance to date remains disappointing in some respects, especially with regard to the universities, of which, very worryingly, there was no mention in the Speech. As a recently retired vice-chancellor, I should perhaps declare an interest.
268
I genuinely want to give credit where credit is due. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, I welcomed the two significant initiatives that have emanated from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First, last year's announcement of the Universities' Challenge Fund to stimulate venture capital funds for wealth generating technology transfer and spin-off companies was exactly the sort of inducement needed. Secondly, and more recently, was the announcement of collateral Exchequer funds to facilitate a strategic partnership between Cambridge, Britain's premier university, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. More such projects need to be promoted if UK universities are to maintain their position as being among the best in the world. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I, too, want to applaud the Science Enterprise Challenge Fund, introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as the restructuring and streamlining of the system of further education that are foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech.
All of those proposals are to be welcomed, but much more remains to be done, and it is a pity that no new initiatives for the university sector were outlined in the gracious Speech. After all, it is now two-and-a-half years since the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, reported. To date, it is fair to say, it has not received a comprehensive response from government.
The distinctiveness of Scotland's education system, encouraged and enhanced as it has been by devolution, has meant that good progress is being made to develop an overall and coherent policy for tertiary education north of the Border. The fees problem apart, which is symptomatic of the wider funding issues that affect the whole of UK third level education, the principals of Scottish higher education institutions, working in close and profitable partnership with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, are fashioning a modern system appropriate to the needs of the Scots and Scotland. In contrast, England and Northern Ireland are lagging far behind; as is Wales, although it shows signs of getting its act together.
Last March, Professor Howard Newby, Vice-Chancellor of Southampton University, now president of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, produced a stimulating paper on the problems facing UK universities in the medium term. In addressing the issues raised by globalisation, the changing mission of higher education, changes in the types and nature of students, the academic profession, finance and the need to reform governance, he highlighted some of the problems that must now be addressed, some of which the Dearing Report had not had time to consider.
Professor Newby pointed to the need for the formation of strategic alliances, both within the UK (such as that being formed by the White Rose consortium of the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York, also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick) and internationally (of the type that I have already cited between Cambridge and MIT). But currently, it seems, the Government are prepared to rely too heavily on the regional development agencies to promote such strategic alliances sub-nationally. I

269
hope I may be proved wrong, but I doubt whether they will be the appropriate vehicles to do that, also whether they will have the vision and drive that will be required.
Professor Newby also looked critically at problems of funding, which Dearing sought to address but which the Government have not had the courage to tackle comprehensively and head-on. And yet it is central to the situation. Professor Newby starkly compares the UK university system to,
"the British car industry in the 1960's … a sector which is under-invested and structured to meet a local/national need rather than to compete within a global market place".
I agree with that comparison, but I would go much further than he does by pointing to the problems of the three R's—recruitment, retention and remuneration—with which the Bett Report only tinkered.
As in primary and secondary education, where there are very acute teacher shortages in key subject areas, insufficient candidates applying for headships and a downturn in student applications, so there are similar shortages in higher education. Even the most prestigious universities are finding difficulty in attracting good applicants in sufficient numbers to apply for undergraduate courses in mathematics, some of the key sciences and engineering. At postgraduate level the same is true, although one should add economics to the list at the doctoral level. Because of that, the quality of future academic staff is now at serious risk.
The UK has moved from an elite o a mass system of higher education. Increased demand has been met by increased supply; and quality has been maintained. The productivity increases achieved by the universities were phenomenal. By contrast, the rewards for the staff who achieved that productivity were abysmal. And, as with schoolteachers, insult was added to injury by ministerial statements, particularly under the previous government—as Mr Michael Portillo's brief moment of mea culpa recognised—denigrating them rather than applauding what they had achieved. Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, rightly paid tribute to the dedication of members of the armed services. By the same token, academic staff and other university staff deserve plaudits for the strenuous efforts they have made in the past decade during a period of remorseless reductions in unit costs.
The fact is that the UK does not possess a fully worked out policy for higher education that addresses the issues raised in the Dearing Report and by Professor Newby. The patchwork of ad hoc initiatives, however welcome in themselves, does not add up to a coherent and comprehensive strategy. The failure to grasp fully the issues of funding, and particularly staff remuneration, will relegate the UK to the second division. The competition to attract the brightest intellects is increasing all the time, as are the salaries being offered. The universities will not be able to compete for their fair share of that talent. We are beginning to eat the seed-corn.
270
The Government have formed, among their chosen agents for change, no fewer than 318 task forces in the past two-and-a-half years—an amazing growth industry—but, incredibly, not one deals with the problems facing the universities. It is high time that one of them did, for time is running out. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will be able to give reassurance that, although omitted from the gracious Speech, the universities are fully included in the Government's "number one priority".
8.39 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I apologise for not being present for the early part of this debate but I particularly want to address that section of the gracious Speech dealing with proposals for local government. I declare an interest as Conservative leader of Essex County Council and a councillor for longer than I care to think. I am also vice-chairman of the Local Government Association. I speak to the proposed reforms as a long-standing advocate of local government.
Local government has undergone enormous reform over past years and I welcome much of what has happened. Local government reform is an evolutionary process, in which councils change to be better able to meet the needs of those they serve. Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. An obsession with modernisation, with little thought for the substance or impact that it may bring, is not a good thing. The proposals for local government reform concern me deeply.
After the publication of the Government's White Paper, which strongly suggested that they would prefer elected mayors, I thought that it would be a good idea to study other countries that have such a system. For the past two years, I have been looking at local government as far afield as New Zealand and the United States. There are some striking lessons for Britain to learn. Many of the Government proposals are akin to the arrangements in New Zealand.
The important lesson learned from my journeys is that local government relates to a specific locality and, as a consequence, is very diverse. I am not arguing against changes to local government. Far from it. Local government should continue to evolve and adapt, but we must look closely at the nature of the changes.
I believe in local diversity. If a council feels that it needs a mayor and has public support for such a proposal, let it have a mayor. If a council wants a cabinet, that is fine—but just three models is far too limiting. How can the same three models suit a large rural county, small county town, huge city, tiny rural district and London borough? Each of those communities has widely differing interests.
Each council should be free to determine its own decision-making structures. I am sure that the public are not overly concerned whether a council has a cabinet, a mayor, two committees or three. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, the public are more concerned about whether a lorry will arrive to collect their refuse on a Tuesday morning.

271
In the United States, it is not unusual for a state to have more than one form of local government. It is not uncommon for there to be more than five forms of local government in one state. When I visited Virginia earlier this year, I found that it has a dozen forms of local government. Different structures exist to serve the people of Essex County in Virginia, with a population of just a few thousand, from those that service Fairfax County, with a population of more than 1 million people. Flexibility is needed so that local councils can develop structures that are relevant to their specific localities.
Another striking lesson is that the UK has a huge number of councillors. If new local government structures are to be introduced, we need to look seriously at reducing the total number of councillors. Fairfax County has only 12 councillors, whereas Essex County Council has 79. If we are to have new ways of working we must adopt the whole package, not just pick parts of it. In Essex, an executive of 10 members would mean 69 other councillors not having a fulfilling role, which would not be acceptable. They feel insulted when told that they should do more work in their constituencies. What have they been doing in past years? If there are to be changes, a full and meaningful role will have to he found for many councillors.
As long as a council has transparency in its decision making, clear lines of accountability and proper scrutiny, I see no reason why the Government should not permit far greater flexibility, ensuring that local government is unlimited in the manifestation of its internal structure. If a council wishes to create a cabinet, mayor or committee, let it do so.
My noble friend Lord Bowness spoke about the Joint Committee he chaired on the draft Bill. The Local Government Association made several proposals to that committee, some of which were accepted. We eagerly await the Government's response to the committee's report, which we hope will be published before the Bill so that we know the Government's thinking.
On standards of conduct, I have long experience of working in local government and am certain that the majority of council officers and elected members uphold the highest standards of conduct. However, I fully support the proposals set out in Lord Nolan's report. The Government's proposals go far further and would create a great bureaucracy, which we are not keen to see. Essex has a local standards committee chaired by an independent person and that seems effective. We hope that the Government will think again about establishing a national bureaucracy when the Bill is published.
As to the effect on local government of post-16 education and learning and skills councils, I was a long-standing chairman of a local education committee and was for five years chairman of the Eastern Area Further Education Funding Council, so I have seen post-16 education operate and develop over the past few years. I do not think that people realise what has happened over the past 10 years, how
272
far we have gone and how far colleges have developed to meet demand. I am the first to admit that there needs to be more co-ordination of post- 16 training but to create a quangoland of 50 learning and skills councils is to return to the 1980s Manpower Services Commission and area manpower boards. I served on one of those boards. The previous Government decided to change that system for the better. We are now creating a quangoland of committees, not necessarily occupied by local councillors, which could take us back rather than forward. We need to build on what has been achieved, rather than create entirely new systems.
What particularly concerns me about the Government's proposals is the proposed legislation for youth and adult education. If anybody is qualified to decide where youth clubs or youth provision should be located, it is local government. I represent an area of 10 parishes, each of which is very involved in community youth clubs. Local government works in partnership with the district council and county council. To establish a whole new tier of quangos above youth clubs seems ridiculous. I hope that the Government will think again. Local government should be involved more in post-16 systems, not less. Let us build on what has been achieved over the past few years, rather than start all over again and return to the 1980s.
Post-16 education, particularly in rural areas, and the new local government Bill are designed for urban areas. About half the population of this country live in two-tier areas having counties and districts, and about 80 per cent of the country is covered by two-tier local government. The Government's proposals seem to be designed for urban areas, as though they do not understand what happens in two-tier systems. I hope that the Government will think again before bringing all those proposals forward. We want support and more involvement for local government. I hope that the Government will take those points on board.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I want to speak briefly about the post-16 learning and skills Bill that was foreshadowed in the gracious Speech. The Government have set out their policies in two documents. Bridging the Gap, published by the Social Exclusion Unit, is printed with a green cover but I am not sure that it is a Green Paper. The other is Learning to Succeed, which is incontestably a White Paper published by the Department of Education and Employment.
I begin by congratulating the Government sincerely on the way that they have approached the problem of social exclusion in our society. They have not rushed in but have taken a great deal of care to ascertain the nature of the problem and the best way to deal with it before they proceed. I have one or two suggestions to make in the context of their proposals. First, Bridging the Gap is about 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, training or work; that is to say, those who probably did not succeed in school. It proposes four solutions. The first is a graduation ceremony for all

273
young people at 19. There are different paths to graduation, some academic and some less academic, which are not as yet fully defined. It is also proposed that there should be financial support for young people in education on a modest scale.
However, the fourth element that I want to talk about this evening is a new support service to help steer 13 to 19 year-olds "through the system". The new support service is mainly, but not exclusively, for severely disadvantaged, disaffected and socially excluded young people. Here I declare an interest as chairman of the youth department of Toynbee Hall. The fact that I have participated for the past 11 years in summer holiday camps for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties may perhaps give me some modest authority when I speak on these issues. The Government appear to assume in Bridging the Gap that it will be easy to access these disaffected and socially excluded 16 to 18 year-olds. It will not be. At 16 a young person in that category has probably been truanting for several years. At best they see school as irrelevant; at worst, they see it as the enemy that has failed them.
By 16 many of the young people I know have become part of an alternative street culture. Having been rejected, as they see it, by school and mainstream society, they live in an alternative culture with its own values and taboos. Most of them survive in the black market. A boy who has been betrayed by the system, as he sees it, and has learnt to survive on the streets will normally be very reluctant to return to the system which rejected hire. Remember Kimball O'Hara, the hero of Rudyard Kipling's Kim—and he was a good guy.
Such young people will have to be tempted away from their own sub-culture and persuaded to try again in the mainstream. That can be done only by someone whom they learn to trust. First, one must gain the confidence of these young people and then build it up to the point where they will give it a try. Finally, one must be prepared to keep on supporting them until they can fly. Sometimes that takes several years.
Youth work of this kind is being done as we sit here: it is being done across the country by committed youth workers in both the statutory and the voluntary sectors. There are youth clubs in the inner cities and on the estates; there are clubs that focus on sport; and there are detached youth workers. I mention one project in Kent of which my wife is chairman. There detached youth workers in several North Kent cities wander about and pick up young people off the streets, in clubs and coffee bars. Gradually they win their confidence and encourage them by offering them the opportunity to get accommodation on condition that they enter into training, and then they support them in doing so. That scheme has been highly successful.
I refer to the work that is done at Toynbee Hall, where gaining the confidence of young people and building it up is tackled in a different way. We offer them a free camping holiday. There they meet slightly older young people, many of whom are undergraduates from Oxford and Cambridge, who
274
come along on a voluntary basis to work and make friends with these young people. Together they undertake the Duke of Edinburgh's Bronze Award Scheme in the form of a 16-mile hike with an overnight bivouac. Most of those young people have probably never walked further than to the nearest bus stop and do not have the slightest hope of getting a GCSE as matters stand now, but when they have done that hike they stand 10 feet tall. I believe that youth services of this kind are absolutely crucial gatekeepers. These services are crucial if the Government's new support service is to work for those who need it most.
I should like to draw attention to two problems: first, in some cases the provision of statutory youth services and grants to youth services by local authorities have been cut to the bone. There is an unacceptable difference between the worst and the best. The Government's audit of youth work in September 1998 showed a range in expenditure on services for 13 to 19 year-olds. The best authority spent £292 per young person and the worst £18. That represents a difference of between 4.5 per cent and 0.4 per cent of budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, suggested that responsibility for the Youth Service should be handed back to local authorities. If so, the local authorities must do their job and there must be a system to ensure that the bad ones do as well as the good ones. In some local authorities there is a terrible funding problem and voluntary youth services must rely entirely on voluntary contributions without any support from local authorities.
The second problem is that by a perverse quirk it seems that the Government's own plans may be the worst enemy of the Youth Service. In Tower Hamlets, which is one of those areas in which the Government are trying out their excellent idea of learning mentors, local schools are advertising for learning mentors at a salary that is £3,000 to £4,000 above that paid to youth workers. Exactly the same qualifications are required. If a youth worker becomes a learning mentor, he or she works only nine to five, has full school holidays and gets £3,000 or £4,000 more. One can imagine what happens. I declare an interest. We have lost our senior youth worker in that context, as have many other organisations. The Government must face the fact that there is about to be a crisis in the Youth Service as a result of the best staff being siphoned off as learning mentors.
I apologise for not giving the noble Baroness notice of the two questions that I should like to ask. I shall fully understand if she prefers to write to me. Do the Government have any plans to ensure that in every local authority where it is needed there is a properly funded youth service that is adequate to cope with all disaffected and socially excluded young people in the area? Secondly, will the Government put in place funding, recruitment and training to start to rebuild a national cadre of youth workers properly trained to work with disaffected children and recruit them into the Government's new support service?
8.58 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for both the commitment that he has explained and the searching contribution that he has made. A number of noble Lords would like to have answers to the questions that he posed. This debate has surprised me. One would imagine that everything began in May 1977. We have heard formidable speeches from noble Lords and Baronesses opposite who have described the scale of difficulty which the Government now face. Very little reference has been made to the problems that the Government inherited, some of which will be more difficult to resolve than others.
One is astonished by the nature of the amendment that the Opposition has tabled which uses the word "vision". That is not a word that one commends Conservative politicians to use. I think back to 1979 when the then new Prime Minister quoted St Francis and offered a Franciscan vision as the approach which the new government would follow, and then swiftly propounded that there was no such thing as a community: that everything depended on self. That change in government approach went to the heart of many of the problems that our society faces today, of ensuring that people devote themselves to voluntary service in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, explained. There is the difficulty of persuading good people to stand for election in local authorities since they are likely to be subjected to demeaning comment and cynical assessment.
I shall watch with interest the way in which the Government approach the problem, but I do not think that they should take advice from noble Lords opposite. I cannot recall any structural change or any fiscal arrangement introduced by their government between 1979 and 1997 which was helpful, reassuring or gave confidence to those concerned about the welfare of local government in Britain. I have only to compare the way in which Westminster City Council was stuffed with money. I do not wish to spend much time on that issue; I have other matters on which I wish to speak perhaps more fiercely. But my own local authority faced great social problems, and had twice the proportion of its population in school as did the borough of Westminster, and since education covers almost two-thirds of local government spending, it was not reasonable for the Westminster local authority to receive an amount five or six times higher per head. It was able to declare a rate of £35. On the same basis of support, my own local authority would not have had to change the rate but would have been able to give at least £250 a year to every man, woman and child of our population of a quarter of a million. One can understand why people like me became very cynical about the last government's approach to local administration. They brought forward Westminster City Council as their flagship in electoral triumph when the party was wiped out in virtually every other part of the country.
I should like to have made a number of comments on the broad subjects of the debate. I would have been tempted to speak on education, as a
276
former schoolmaster with experience, reasonable qualifications and substantial employment at the sharp end of education. However, we should wait to make a proper assessment of the contribution which the Government are making.
I should like to have followed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on energy, and to point out that the world will burn more coal in the future than it burns today and that it might be highly desirable for us to keep our footing in the industry to provide the world with a more adequate basis of clean coal technology. But I have been involved in conservation for decades and I think it appropriate to make some comments about that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, referred to our involvement in debate in these matters. My mind goes back to 1979 when my report as chairman of the appropriate committee of the Council of Europe led to our attending the Environment Ministers' conference in Berne. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, was the Minister representing the United Kingdom. He gave me an assurance that the Government would not merely sign the Berne convention but would implement it. They did so by bringing in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was a useful measure but matters have moved on. Needs have intensified. We need the Government properly to fulfil the commitments into which they entered in the manifesto of 1997. I am delighted that the Queen's Speech makes reference to the protection of wildlife. It needs protection.
Some species are doing quite well. The otter benefited from the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 which I took through Parliament. But far more species are in decline. The bank vole may well be in danger of disappearance from most if not all our island. Many other examples could be given.
I am anxious about access. I do not object to the principle that responsible access by foot to open country is desirable. While it is right and reasonable for people to have the capacity to enjoy our countryside—after all, it has inspired art and culture, and has given pleasure to millions for generations—the Government should insist that there is a responsibility too. There has to be adequate rural policing. I listened with interest to the important comments made by my noble friend Lady Young as chairman of English Nature. But I also know my own area. I can point to the very real dangers which unfettered access will provide. I stated in the House recently that I was greatly reassured by the fact that close to my home were four pairs of skylarks. Within a fortnight of those comments, two of those pairs have disappeared because people insisted on driving 4x4 vehicles over the area where the skylarks were about to breed.
Close to my home is a small lake; it is not mine. But I have been horrified by the way in which motor cycles and 4x4 vehicles have ripped up the footpaths around the lake. Although it is not my lake, over the summer months I have been collecting two or three sacks of

277
litter; and during the school holidays 250-odd plastic bottles were simply chucked aside. As far as I understand, the legal situation is that the owner of the land is responsible for removing litter and material dumped upon that land. If we give the right to people to enjoy unfettered access, and they use that as an opportunity to dump and discard their litter all over the place, are we going to say that the landowner then has to take responsibility for and bear the cost of that removal?
There is more mobility, and mobility has increased to an astonishing extent the amount of litter in the rural areas of England and virtually everywhere else. When I raised the issue in the last Parliament, the Prime Minister said that things were getting a lot better. They are not. In some parts of our country, the problem is almost obscene and the litter legislation is of no effect whatever. If we are to protect our environment and landscape, and to safeguard wildlife, we have to recognise that the pressure and irresponsibility of quite a lot of people will be—as it is today—counterproductive. I trust that those dangers will be properly considered; and the open country close to the conurbations which is most vulnerable to the devastation of that irresponsibility needs to be especially considered. We need more hobbies on the rural beat, as well as their presence in the towns. But we need the police to have adequate support both within the community and the courts.
A young man living not far from me has been using his air rifle irresponsibly. He was fined in court recently and then his gun was returned to him. I take the view that if we are to protect our environment properly, the courts should be much more willing to order the confiscation of items used in the committing of an offence. For example, the amount of limestone paving in some of our upland areas is diminishing rapidly because it is being stolen and put in people's rockeries. The people who are taking it are grossly irresponsible because they know that it is against the law. If they insist on breaking the law in that way and they are apprehended, the courts should say, "Well, you took the material in your vehicle. Your vehicle will be confiscated".
That would certainly happen in the case of young people who are allowed by foolish parents to drive their off-the-road motorcycles uninsured, unhelmeted and unlicensed on private land. I suppose that that is a matter for the people who own the private land, but in most of the cases which come to mind, they use the public highway to reach the land where they become a nuisance.
It is not merely a problem in South Yorkshire. There are thousands of areas in this country where there is little peace and quiet for people living near open country where such motorcyclists—often, I am told, with stolen bicycles—operate. The chances of wildlife surviving in those areas is not high. Even worse is the number of fatalities and serious injuries among those young people, one of whom was killed not far from my home a few months ago. We must have a sense of responsibility and if parents cannot act responsibly then the community must do so.
278
I recognise that there are many problems in rural Britain. A noble Lord opposite said that people should have long memories. Farmers should recognise that, while the Government have not become terribly popular, and while they do face great problems, it was a Labour Government which gave rural England, and probably rural Britain, not merely the basis of prosperity after the war, but light and power and a standard of living which rural Britain would not otherwise have enjoyed—certainly not if it had been left to the private sector.
At the same time, I should like to commend some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I live in the Dearne Valley in a brownfield site which is going to be very attractive. It is essential that we safeguard our green land and that the brownfield sites are developed. It is only through that development and through the replacement of blight by hope that jobs will come. If that sort of area is not developed, then the movement to the south-east will never be prevented and the prospects for the proper management of the British countryside will not be adequately fulfilled.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, following the White Paper on transport, the department published a daughter paper about the bus industry—and it is about the bus industry that I should like to speak. The paper was entitled From Workhorse to Thoroughbred. I am not a horseman, but I am told that such a transition is impossible to achieve. However, I should like Ministers to consider carefully the measures which many people in the bus industry believe are essential to bring the workhorse up to the status at least of being "best in class".
Two-thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus in Britain, yet nearly the whole focus of the public transport debate is on railways. Significant shifts of passenger journeys would be made from car to bus if the quality of bus travel were significantly improved. That may be achieved quickly and at modest cost to the public purse. On the other hand, improvements to railway services, or the building of light rail systems, or of new roads will take far longer to achieve and will cost much more money.
In Oxford, bus use has increased from a high base by at least 65 per cent over the past 10 years. That is the result of a partnership between two large bus groups and the local authority. Easy-access, low-pollution vehicles operate along priority routes, offering low fares, high frequency and good services at weekends and in the evenings. I should like to discuss briefly how that good practice might be spread.
Before doing so, in the light of some remarks made by a spokesman for noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, I draw attention to the fact that we had the benefit, if that is the right word, of a visit from the Opposition spokesman for the environment and transport, the right honourable Member for Wokingham, John Redwood. Despite the fact that he states regularly—we have heard it again today—that there must be good alternatives to the use of the car,

279
his derogatory remarks about the bus industry have infuriated the large national companies which have invested extremely large sums of money in buses in Oxford.
He has said also that we should reduce car-parking charges and encourage more cars to come into the cities, knowing that that will choke city streets and make quite impossible the operation of efficient bus services. Furthermore, he goes on to talk about creating more capacity. Again, we heard those words today. That is shorthand for, "We should build more roads", and yet the same person says that we must not cover the country in concrete, building more houses. In fact, as regards the covering of the country in concrete, the people who live along the A34 in north Oxfordshire or, indeed, in Somerset or Devon, along the A30, know that the noise from those roads can be heard for miles on either side of the roads, causing people great misery.
I return to the bus industry. First, the Government must make it clear in the legislation that they are about to bring forward that quality partnerships which offer clear advantages to users—for example, through ticketing, joint timetables and good interchanges—will not be struck down by the competition authorities. The Minister will be aware of the quality partnership in Flintshire where two rival companies replaced six disconnected routes to offer a regular service of eight buses per hour from Deeside into Chester. Although that offers significant advantages to passengers, it has been branded by the Office of Fair Trading as anti-competitive. A simple test needs to be introduced in the new legislation whereby if a quality partnership can be demonstrated to offer real benefits to users, it should be exempt from action by the Office of Fair Trading.
I submit that the test should be the benefits enjoyed by users, not a theoretical test of the structure of the producer side of the industry. I reflect the interests of users because I am chairman of the bus appeals body which hears appeals from bus users about the inadequate services with which they are often provided.
Obviously, there are potential abuses in a quality partnership and a requirement to keep fare rises in line with the retail prices index would be welcomed by users and would serve to prevent a de facto monopoly provider abusing a position of dominance in the market. Real rises in fares have been shown to be a major influence in respect of the loss of bus passengers.
When addressing the competition elements of quality partnerships, another feature of competition in the bus industry needs attention when the law is reformed. At present, any operator may decide to enter the market and register a new competitive service to run just ahead of that of a rival. One has the ridiculous situation of a route on which there are two buses per hour—that of the incumbent and that of the new entrant—which run within two or three minutes of each other and then there is a wait of 57 minutes for the next bus. Such registration is usually undertaken
280
not with the intention of developing the market or offering a better service to users but with the object of levering a rival operator off the road.
I trust that the Government intend in new legislation to review the powers of the traffic commissioners. In my submission, the commissioners should be allowed to insist that new services being registered should divide the interval so that if somebody else wants to enter the market, a service is provided at half-hourly intervals. The waiting interval would then be spread evenly.
I have two simple points for the Minister, the answers to which I hope we shall hear in the summing up at the end of the debate this evening. I do not believe that either require legislation but they would give a great fillip to those of us anxious to see the rural bus grant initiative succeed. The needs of rural areas have been referred to by many noble Lords during the debate.
My first point relates to a promise in the White Paper to introduce an arrangement whereby pensioners should enjoy a minimum concession of half-fare travel. That proposal was published in the White Paper in July 1998 and most local authorities expected the arrangements, including the necessary finance, to be in place by April 2000. I have heard from other sources that that may be postponed until April 2001. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to assure the House that April 2000 is still indeed the target date.
Many poor, elderly people in rural areas find the cost of bus fares a major barrier to their inclusion in a wider range of activities. The initiative for providing all buses under the rural bus service grant has not, unfortunately, enabled those people to take full advantage of the opportunities which have arisen.
My second point relates to the rural bus grant which was introduced last year to run for three years. Many services which are supported with that money have to be retendered in the year 2000 and the tender periods usually run for four or five years. Such services are supported by a mixture of local authority revenue grant and rural bus grant. On the same route, some journeys are supported by one form of support and others by another form.
I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's future intentions for the rural bus grant beyond the third year so that local authorities may plan and let tenders for contracts in April next year with some degree of confidence. If operators are to buy new, easy-access, low-pollution buses, there needs to be some certainty about levels of public support extending beyond 2001. Concessionary fares and an extension of the rural bus service grant would receive a warm welcome in rural areas where, for other reasons, as we have heard, the Government may seek some approbation.
Persuading young people to continue to use buses is vital to stem the lemming-like rush to buy an old car and drive to school or college. That is particularly prevalent in rural counties, many of which do not provide free travel to over 16 year-olds who go to

281
school or college. I ask the Government to consider a further extension of half-fare concessionary travel to include all in full-time education. The cost would actually be very low.
Whatever bus operators themselves undertake in the way of investment, the appeal of the bus will not increase unless buses have sufficient priority on the highway to provide reliable journey times. The productivity of the vehicles and the drivers also depends on that. I hope that the Minister—perhaps not this evening—will reiterate, for the benefit of those who do not seem to have appreciated the fact, that the bus lane on the M4 has brought great benefits to bus, coach and taxi users and at the same time has benefited car users even at peak times. Will she also tell us whether those authorities proposing significant bus priorities will receive favourable consideration in the allocation of credit approvals in the review of the provisional local transport plans now taking place?
Returning to my horse analogy, in considering local transport plans it will not do to award each contestant a rosette. There must be winners—and they must be the authorities which have the plans and the courage to manage traffic growth. The bus industry can do much for itself, but it is dependent on government and local authorities for the management of the highway, investment in bus priority measures, and enforcement of waiting restrictions. I, along with many bus users, look forward to buses receiving an appropriate share of attention in tae forthcoming legislation, the first significantly to affect the industry for 15 years.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join with so many of my noble friends in expressing my disappointment that there was not more reference to agriculture and, in particular, rural development in the gracious Speech. I declare an interest in that I am a farmer. I am also the president of the AONB in the Cotswolds, so I have great interest in the diversification of the growth and development of the countryside and in protecting the interests of the countryside.
Much reference has been made to the despondency and the despair that exists in the farming community throughout the length and breadth of the land. I hear it said by farmers who are quite substantial landowners that they believe that there is a hidden agenda to get rid of agriculture altogether and to import food into this country. That would be a very sad state of affairs for our economy.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm who expressed the anxiety of many farmers. He said everything that I wished to say so I shall concentrate my few remarks on access to the countryside, which is very much part of the declaration in the gracious Speech.
In the aftermath of a conference held in Cork in 1996 on rural development, attended by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the European Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals carried forward the concept of integrated rural development as a second pillar in Europe's common agricultural policy. The rhetoric of
282
that move is currently much stronger than the reality of the proposals, but the concept has attracted much attention from policy makers and commentators throughout Europe. Support for a longer-term shift towards a common rural policy is clearly growing.
Sustainable land use policies are therefore of growing importance and in the light of the present growing crisis in agriculture, farmers and landowners are looking for all forms of diversification. The "Right to Roam Bill" therefore must be seen as of considerable significance to farmers and the whole of the rural population. While I welcome the initiative of government to improve the protection for SSSIs, that must be matched by a real commitment by government to negotiate positive management agreement with owners with adequate funding. As my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said, that too must meet with a full understanding of what it means to those people who are involved.
Access to the countryside does not mean that anyone or everyone has the right to roam. Of course there are people who wish to go to the countryside—the Ramblers Association and others—who act responsibly, but that responsibility must be taken seriously. The Labour Party manifesto in 1997 said that its policies included greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. Let that be spelt out in more detail so we can better understand what it means by "greater access" and "open countryside".
It is important that the countryside does everything possible to satisfy people's needs, particularly in the area of recreation. But farmers and landowners will feel angry and disappointed if the agenda for change takes us down the legislative route of imposing additional burdens on hard-pressed owners and occupiers of open country who are already facing additional cost burdens arising from environmental and other legislation. The day-to-day management cost of open access on farmland, together with occupiers' liability costs are, as we well know, substantial. By their decision the Government seem to have completely misunderstood the fact that what they define as "open country" is actually made up of individual farm businesses, many of which are already operating—as has been said so often during this debate—at the margins of economic viability.
The Government have also underestimated the significant cost to the public sector of proper wardening and management of their favoured approach. I welcome the commitment to strengthen and develop the system of rights of way. I speak with some knowledge of farming a farm that has many rights of way across it. I believe that that approach offers more satisfying recreational opportunities to more people with less interference with farming and, ironically, closer to their homes with a general right of access to open country. What farmers do not want in their present circumstances is yet more red tape, more legislation and quangos that are going to appear to govern their lives.
So there are many questions that need to be answered. What definitions of "open country" will be employed and what legal status would they have in

283
advance of a new statute? What would be the position of "island sites" to which no right of access currently exists? Will consideration be given to appeals on mapping, for example? That is a very serious issue because it is not easy to map out the particular areas that we are concerned with. It is essential, in the interest of fairness, to give owners and occupiers the chance to appeal.
What we have before us promises to be the worst of all worlds for farmers who would be on the receiving end of a statutory right of access if a compulsory scheme were adopted. There is inevitably a likelihood of friction and confrontation between the public and landowners which would not help to further town and country relations which we are all trying to achieve in one form or another at the moment.
A sense of injustice encourages negativism and minimalism. What farmers need is encouragement and support to assist them in providing good recreational opportunities for the public, not the politics of punishment seeking to claw back agricultural payments where footpaths are obstructed. The Rights of Way Act 1990 is surely sufficient and the correct mechanism for dealing with these problems.
I am sure that this debate will continue. I hope that it will because it is a matter of concern to all of us. I hope that all parties concerned will have a full opportunity for participation.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the new consensus on transport policy is quite remarkable, not least in that the Treasury now allows the heresy of hypothecation its place at the heart of government. The time spent on preparing for this transport Bill has been well spent, not least in the excellent series of consultative documents such as Breaking the Logjam published a year ago.
It is arguable that the solutions available today were not available until recently either politically or technically. The fact that congestion is growing apace has driven us all to what was unthinkable earlier. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was correct in one respect about the technology for congestion charging. It will be another two years in fact before that technology is on stream.
The principle of hypothecation has transformed the transport debate out of all recognition. It has demolished once and for all the caricature that only the man in the Rolls Royce with the big cigar in his mouth, scattering £50 notes to passers-by would benefit. Apart from anything else, if his £50 notes are now used to finance public transport, that will help alleviate social exclusion and will be a powerful engine for greater equality of opportunity.
There was no chance of an acceptable approach to congestion charging or workplace parking charging without hypothecation. But the Government have grasped the nettle and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor are to be congratulated on their joint approach to this matter.
284
After years of debate, now is hardly the time for anyone to describe the new policy consensus as anti-car. That phrase is not worthy of the Official Opposition, especially as the agenda for the present policy was emerging well before the change of government. Moreover, I note that the chairman of Vauxhall, Nick Reilly, who is one of the most forward-looking leaders of the automotive industry, has backed the proposals on the two new charges after receiving fresh evidence that congestion levels would otherwise soar over the next decade.
However, all of this will be set at nought if the message does not reach the grass roots. Here I should like to declare a minor interest having been the chair of a committee of the Round Table on Sustainable Development which reported last year. The report was entitled The Multi-stakeholder Approach to Sustainable Business. It advocated that companies—certainly large employers—should discuss their impact on the wider environment with the major stakeholders, including local authorities, trade unions and the environmental NGOs.
The need for companies to have green transport plans fits like a glove with this concept of multi-stakeholding. I hope that the Government will initiate some kite-mark tests for drawing up such plans and perhaps a national award for the best achievement. The idea of multi-stakeholder meetings can be heretical for local government; it is certainly heretical for some environmental NGOs. But it is surely not too much to ask as a millennium initiative that the different stakeholders sit round a table to see what they can achieve together, rather than continuing to lob hand grenades at each other from what they hope is a safe distance.
This is where the workplace parking charge will find its proper place. It is logical—as, indeed, in another context might be the hypermarket parking tax—but the logic requires very careful discussion or we will have a knee-jerk reaction as we saw with the out-of-town retailers. The consultation on the parking levy seems to assume that small firms or small numbers of vehicles could be exempt. I have to say that Ministers should think very carefully about the credibility of this. As we are constantly told that small firms account for over half of the labour force, there will be charges of inequity. It would be perilously close to bringing into mind my favourite true anecdote when the TUC met Mrs Thatcher, then Prime Minister, to discuss the question of small firms. John Monks asked ironically—never use irony is the moral—why she did not exempt small firms from the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit. "Take a note of that", the Prime Minister said to her private secretary.
However, if I may say so, the balance of presentation must also strike some positive notes for the motorists as for the residents of areas with heavy traffic flows. It would be helpful at this stage if the Government could combine messages on congestion and the environment with proclaiming that they are in fact building more new bypasses, underpasses and other such improvements than they were two years ago. I believe that to be the position.

285
What is often not accepted by everyone in the environmental movement is the degree to which environmental protection may require more road expenditure rather than less. I have been involved—and I give this as an illustration—in a local debate in Farnham where it is clear that the £20 million or so needed for an underpass is not only compatible with but also an essential condition for enhancing the environment. There must be many such examples.
The overall message has to be a better quality of life. It is an overwhelmingly popular principle. John Kenneth Galbraith entitled his famous work a generation ago, Private Affluence and Public Squalor. That phrase is instantly recognisable in the field of transport today. There will be pride in the new Jubilee Line. That will be true of public investments in every part of the country; in other words, there is the public expectation of high quality. The days should be long passed when one would have to carry one's suitcase up 39 steps at Tottenham Court Road station or accept that air conditioning—here I follow the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches—is standard for aeroplanes or cars but not for commuter trains or for local bus services. Superficially this is the concern that people have when they say in a rather defeatist mode that there is no way in which we shall ever stop the increase in congestion. I think that we are on the edge of a break through but that breakthrough needs to be powerfully exploited. I believe that the Government's approach strikes exactly the right balance and that it deserves, and will. receive, wide national support.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise, funnily enough, to talk about agriculture! The noble and elegant Baroness who is to reply to the debate does not look at all "agricultural". I have been trying to get away from looking agricultural all my life, without success. When I made my maiden speech in the Commons, I thought that I was dressed perfectly in my new suit. I thought that I was a smooth fellow. After my speech an old Tory Member said to Jo Grimond, -Ah, Jo, that fellow of yours made a good speech-. Jo said, "Thank you" and then the Tory spoilt it all by saying, "You can see he comes from Caithness, a great shaggy brute". However, we do not all look like that in Caithness.
I want to bombard the noble Baroness with some more figures. I do not think that we can do this too often because the state of the depression in agriculture is not fully understood. I want the figures to be placed on the record. These are figures provided by the Scottish Agricultural College which has put forward estimates based on the 1998 crop year. The net farm income figures for less favoured area (LFA) specialist sheep show a profit of £6,147; the direct subsidy receipts were £27,385. The LFA cattle made a profit of £3,805; the direct subsidy receipts were £25,707. The LFA cattle and steep made a profit of £2,693; the direct subsidy receipts were £36,228. Lowground cattle and sheep lost £6,572; the direct subsidy receipts were £14,218. Cereals lost £5,854; the direct subsidy receipts were £27,977. General cropping made £8,352; the
286
direct subsidy receipts were £27,021. Dairy made £47; the direct subsidy receipts were £8,444. Mixed farming made £416 profit; the direct subsidy receipts were £26,284.
Those are horrifying figures, but they are absolutely true figures and they show the state of the industry. There is one more set of figures that the noble Baroness must endure. These figures are also provided by the Scottish Agricultural College. I refer to the cost of farm general workers. Their estimated annual average cost is some £15,000 a year; that of tractormen, £16,750; dairy stockmen, £21,740; other stockmen, £16,230; shepherds, £16,490; grieves—that means "foremen", for the Englishmen here—117,840. Therefore, one can see that the rewards for farming are not great, to put it mildly. Farming is in its worst state since the early 30s and the difficulty of coming out of it is much greater than it was then.
Farmers are now taking action. A friend of mine has a nice 300-acre farm; next door his friend has another 300-acre farm. They have put the two together and bought the requisite machinery. They have no men at all; the two farmers are the only people working that land. There used to be five men on each farm. The decline in numbers has been steady since the end of the war, but the past two years and this year have been catastrophic for the numbers engaged on the land, not including those who are in part-time farming.
Farmers will get by if they are decently financed. Others are getting by through niche farming. I have a neighbour with 50 acres. He grows turnips for shopping and he has a flock of pedigree Suffolk sheep, but probably the best-paying things he has are six loose boxes, which he lets to ladies who have horses. But not everyone can grow turnips for shopping, and there are already too many flocks of Suffolk sheep.
The Government say that organic farming is an answer. I have nothing against organic farming. I think that it is a goodish thing and they should encourage it—I do not think that ordinary farming is as bad as it is made out—but, inevitably, as more and more people take up organic farming prices will fall and, with production so low, it will not be profitable. It is certainly not the long-term answer to the problem of agriculture in this country. It is a part answer, but it is not the long-term answer.
Then we have the great hopes of the environmentalists. I am an environmentalist. I planted a lot of trees on my farm when I was farming; I preserved a herd of roe deer on some rough ground that I had, and so on, but farming was the main thing. But environmentalists—many of whom I know—are rather impractical about farming. They now have great hopes about a thing called "cross compliance", which is a form of blackmail to make farmers take measures that they may not want to take. They say that if farmers do not comply under Agenda 2000, they will not get their agricultural subsidies. The figures I have given show quite clearly that farming cannot survive in the present circumstances without those subsidies.
If, in addition, we are to have a lot of people renting land from owners to farm—able young men farming perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 acres with good equipment and

287
combining all crops—they will need a new system to keep up fertility and a different rotation. That is one of the things that people have to do to make a profit. It is not socially desirable but it is coming; it is here now, and there will be more of it.
The Government should also think of encouraging local industry. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is not in his place. He always says that when the mines were closed down, the miners did not squeal. But all governments were good to the miners; they put extra money into evolving industries in areas where they closed the pits, many of which are now areas of high employment. But that cannot be done in farming areas; on the contrary. The Government should spend money to encourage small industries and to encourage people to develop and to run their own affairs, either part time or with niche objectives.
The Government must also encourage, with help and with money, co-operation—not only in production, but in selling. There is no doubt that Milk Marque has been broken up because it had a monopoly position. The monopoly position held by Milk Marque was nothing compared to the monopoly position that the supermarkets in this country have today, and it will get worse. Therefore, we need to look at all these matters and the Government must have them in hand.
I see that I have spoken for nine minutes and I have been beefing about people who have spoken for over 10. Therefore, I shall say only that the Government, when talking about world trade, should remind the Americans who complain about subsidies in Europe of the 7 billion dollars that they have just given to their farmers. Perhaps that should be stressed. They should also remember that the primary producer has always had the rough end of the stick.
Frankly, I am sorry that the Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board have gone. I believed that those were good measures. I believed that they were Labour measures, but apparently they were not. We have returned to the condition of extreme competition in which the primary producer is always in a bad way. I believe that the Government need to ensure that some protection is given to the primary producer—I talk about the small ones; the big ones can cope—to keep away the worst of the wolves.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, one of the benefits of being, once again, the tail end Charlie is that the speech that I would have made has been made by my noble neighbour Lord Mackie. I declare my interest as both a beef and a sheep farmer not 100 miles away from the old farm of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and from his new residence. However, he knows me well enough, and knows the area well enough, to agree that the figures he has produced are not a mile out from the results which I have tried to achieve and which we are still trying to achieve.
I believe that both my noble neighbour and myself are extremely lucky to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Plumb. During the problems that we have
288
had, particularly in trying to sell our beef to Europe, let alone other problems on agriculture, it occurred to me that my noble friend Lord Plumb is but a telephone call away from the Minister of Agriculture. So there may be help and guidance through the thicket of European regulations and, indeed, personalities in Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg. I declare a small interest in that about 12 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, gave me a particularly Lucullan feast on my only visit to Strasbourg. We did have beef, but I learned a great deal from him there and indeed from the European institutions.
My noble friend Lord Plumb made a salient point in his speech. He referred to the increasing burden of what he called red tape and administration that is increasingly demanded of farmers who are, by and large, practical men and in some cases in Angus practical women as well. However, from the wonderful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, we have found that there may well be information technology and aids to farming that provide helpful information. But among the more efficient farmers of Angus and, I suspect, throughout Scotland there is perceived to be a major burden of what they call "red tape" but what we might call "controls and problems".
My second point is about markets and level playing fields. That was particularly well covered by my noble friend Lady Byford, who referred to all the problems and controls which are particularly prevalent in the pig sector as well as elsewhere in the livestock sector. I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to convey to her right honourable friend that it is possible that one solution to the agricultural problems which are particularly prevalent in Scotland, but also I suspect throughout the United Kingdom, is what I would describe as good housekeeping. That solution lies with the Minister and with government departments; namely, the prompt payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances. It is the fair payment of those allowances. In other words, the amount that comes from the European Union should be passed on in full at the proper rates of exchange, green pounds and so on.
Although it is a long time ago, I have had some experience of the other side of the fence, where the noble Baroness is sitting. In Northern Ireland I always watched out. They did not call me CB—citizen's band or cynical so and so—for nothing. When I was on the other side of the counter I was quite often advised that the Treasury or the department might find some problems. If the noble Baroness will pass on my queries about what I call good housekeeping that will be a valuable first step in assisting the increasingly difficult situation in agriculture, especially in Scotland.
My third point is about science. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Soulsby is not in his place. Perhaps I may say that if the rest of the remarks in today's debate, particularly my own remarks, were to pass by, I would certainly retain today's copy of Hansard in order to read my noble friend's speech. I would keep it, cherish it and above all digest it. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, might not agree

289
with all of the points that he made, but for those of us who care about the countryside, the environment and, above all, about agriculture, having an expert such as my noble friend Lord Soulsby in your Lordships' House to explain the problem of genetically modified crops and other aspects of science is particularly valuable, since it is only through a knowledge of science that any of us will be able to make progress on environmental or agricultural matters.
The battle for farming is not yet won. My noble neighbour Lord Mackie will know that I am an Angus boy. I tend not to spend 85p. when I can get something free. In your Lordships' House we get a daily copy of the Financial Times. On the last Thursday in October I happened to scan down the front page, which referred to the results of a well-known brewer. The column said that the brewer "hits" at UK beef quality. The article, which is certainly more authoritative than anything I can dig up-went on to quote the brewing company—it was in brewing but it is now in what is called the beverage market—as saying that UK farmers were unable to supply it with sufficient beef of acceptable quality and that it was unable to buy more than half the beef that it required from the United Kingdom in spite of a "Buy British" policy. The company stated that it sells 7½ million steaks a year but it could not find the quality good enough to meet its rigorous standards from British farmers.
That seems to be 150,000 steaks each week. My noble neighbour may be able to tell me how many prime beasts might be required to provide 150,000 steaks a week. But that article went to my heart like another stake—I ask noble Lords to forgive me for the pun. I produce what I hope is quality beef. I am very proud that we put through to the market between 250 and 300 fat Aberdeen Angus beasts a year. Most of them go to the premium market. It hits home to me the fact that there is still a problem.
It is not necessarily my fault and it is not the fault of your Lordships' House that the Government's business managers interposed transport in the debate. I have referred to the county of Angus, I have referred to Scotland and I have referred to Kirriemuir. I can come from that Arcadia to your Lordships' House only because of the increasingly efficient transport. I shall make one final point about education. I have before me a 45 year-old German grammar book, which is part of my on-going education in your Lordships' House once a week when we receive German lessons. I hasten to add to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that computers do not do everything. One still has hard work to do with one's irregular verbs and other nouns, which is what I am doing.
When my book was being used 45 years ago it took 10 hours to go by train from Dundee to King's Cross. Nowadays—and I believe that my noble friend can confirm this—it is possible to make the journey in six hours. There are trains every hour and sometimes from Edinburgh every half hour. My noble friend Lord Monro mentioned the West Coast line and we shall discuss that in detail when we come to debate the transport Bill. My noble friend Lord Peel said that he
290
had had one or two problems with the East Coast line, but I pay enormous tribute to the companies that run that service.
I should like to make one final comment on education because it is the subject of the noble Baroness who is to wind up the debate This Government have pointed out repeatedly that their main priority is "Education, education, education". Twenty years ago there was a programme on Italian television that stated, "It is never too late". One saw marvellous pictures of people at least 50 per cent older than I attempting to become literate. I am now attempting to become information technology literate, but I still try to use such talents as I may have to learn foreign languages. As a good Scottish boy, I am delighted that once a week we have lessons in foreign languages. I am particularly grateful to receive those lessons here in your Lordships' House.
However, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am saddened that there was no specific mention of agriculture in the gracious Speech. Furthermore, many noble Lords have pointed out that this subject will be closely intertwined with other matters such as access to the countryside and the rights of ramblers. We shall come to all those issues, and I look forward to a busy spring and an even busier summer.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate today and that is perhaps inevitable when the subjects range as broadly as education, transport, the environment and agriculture. We have covered everything from information technology in the 21st century classroom to hunting with dogs. Most recently we have been told of a noble Lord learning German from a 45 year-old grammar. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there could be a task for him to do here in this House as well.
I do not envy the Minister in her attempt to respond to all the points that have been raised in the debate, although I am not entirely sure what my noble friend Lord Mackie meant when he said that the noble Baroness does not look "agricultural" to him. Perhaps we should not speculate on that tonight.
We have heard two excellent maiden speeches today. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, spoke of the role of information technology. I am sure he is right when he says that the role performed by new technology will change not only the classroom but also our current teaching methods. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord when he suggested that it will make class sizes largely irrelevant. I believe that class sizes will always be relevant. However, I certainly agree with him on the importance of coming to terms with the changes in teaching methods as well as new learning strategies that will emerge from the information revolution.
We heard another excellent maiden speech on education and the arts from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. As I reflected on the unconventional teaching methods she experienced as a child, I felt saddened by the rather prescriptive nature

291
of education nowadays. I doubt whether our children will have that kind of experience. My only regret about the speech of the noble Baroness was that she resisted the temptation to treat us to some of the folk songs she said that she could still remember singing. I cannot help feeling, with the greatest of respect, that that would have considerably livened up our debate, even at that relatively early stage.
Unlike the Minister, I do not even have to attempt to reply to all the points that have been made today. As a suburban Londoner—I suspect that I look like one as well—it would be best if I leave agriculture and the countryside to those with far greater firsthand experience than I. However, as a suburban Londoner it is also probably better if I try to resist the temptation to speak on transport matters, albeit for exactly the opposite reasons. In common with many noble Lords I experience transport issues every day. Were Ito start on the subject I fear that I would have no time to say anything else. All I shall say on the subject, particularly in the London context, is that I have no doubt that it will be "the" issue in the forthcoming GLA elections. I say to the Government with the best of intentions that they will have a very hard job persuading Londoners not only that their solution for the London Underground is the best solution, but that it is any solution at all. Indeed, they seem to have been having some difficulty in persuading one of their own candidates that it is the best solution and, if reports are to be believed, have failed even to persuade their own most likely candidate.
Mention of the GLA leads me to the few comments that I want to make on local government before I turn to the main part of my speech, which will be on education. First, on the subject of elected mayors, it is tempting for a speaker on the Liberal Front Bench to feel slightly triumphant following the events of the past week and we have allowed ourselves an occasional wry smile. But that would be short-sighted of us; it would be a mistake. The events of the past week have done no long-term good to the future of democracy or the future of London. For those of us who believe in active democracy, what has happened has been a major setback.
In common with 97 per cent of local councillors, I am not a fan of elected mayors and remain to be convinced. If cities, and other places for that matter, wish to experiment with elected mayors, and if that is what local people really want, so be it. I have no problem with that. But I have learnt one lesson from the events of last weekend. When we come to examine the local government legislation, I urge the Government to consider providing for the recall of directly elected mayors. We debated the issue in this House during the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill and your Lordships formed a view which, sadly, the other place overturned. I hope that we do not come to regret that experience. If we are to go ahead with elected mayors in other cities, there must be some means of impeaching—if one wishes to use that word—or of recalling, the powerful elected
292
mayor. It is a major gap in the Greater London Authority Act, and one that should not be repeated in future legislation.
As several speakers have commented, I urge the Government to concentrate on the desirable outcomes for local government. There are outcomes on which most of us would probably agree. The public are concerned with outcomes; they are not concerned with the process—and neither should be the Government. The Government should concentrate on what should be the outcomes for local government, and give local government the freedom to reach those outcomes by whatever means it wishes in accordance with local needs and priorities.
I turn now to education. I was pleased that in opening the debate the Transport Minister confirmed again that education remains the Government's number one priority. It seems that this year the flagship of the Government's legislative programme as far as concerns education will be the Bill to establish a new learning and skills council to plan and fund all post-16 education and training.
Liberal Democrats have long advocated a more streamlined system for the post-16 sector with greater equity of funding. For too long the further education colleges have been the "secondary moderns" of the 16-plus sector. We also look forward to a great deal more detail on how the arrangements will affect school sixth-forms and indeed the local education authorities, whose functions Mr Chris Woodhead is so anxious to slim down. More equitable funding means improving the worst, not reducing the best.
If the Government's press releases are anything to go by, they seem to have offered to a bewildering number of interest groups the prize of being at the very heart of the new post-16 arrangements. Perhaps I may mention just three. First, the employers; secondly, the national training organisations; thirdly, the lifelong learning partnerships. There were others. An embryonic organisation that goes through more than three heart transplants in five months sounds to be in for a difficult birth.
The Liberal Democrats want the Government to give more importance to the role of regional development agencies. The 47 local learning and skills councils ought to have a direct relationship with RDAs. If some parts of England are to move to democratically elected regional government, as we hope, that democratic process should oversee all the target setting, planning and direction. I raised exactly that point in Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill and still believe that is a major gap in the powers and duties of that authority.
I hope that when the Minister replies—this is more her subject than some of the matters mentioned today—she will indicate whether she sees a role for regional government in post-16 education.
We would like some reference to the role of the universities for industry. It is already clear that the UFIs will not operate within the same boundaries as learning and skills councils or local learning partnerships. That seems a sad example of disjoined

293
government. Coterminosity, or the lack of it, is all too familiar a problem to local government. We should not make that problem even worse with the legislation.
The special needs Bill will be another significant piece of legislation. We welcome the move to encourage conciliation between parents and LEAs in dispute over services for children with special needs. We welcome in principle the proposed requirement for LEAs to set up partnership schemes that will offer advice, information and independent support for families of children with special needs. I say "in principle" because of course that is a good idea but I say, as someone who led a local authority until recently, that it is a false prospectus to keep giving councils new duties without giving them new funding.
The same caveat applies to the proposal to establish special needs tribunals. Local education authorities will apparently be forced to implement tribunal decisions against tight deadlines. Duties on councils to make school buildings more accessible to disabled pupils will equally prove a cruel illusion unless councils have the extra money they need to fund improvements. We look forward to reading the report of the Disability Task Force in early December to learn how its recommendations may influence the special needs Bill. I note that the Government are to establish a right for disabled children not to be discriminated against at school.
I join my noble friend Lady Hamwee in welcoming the Government's decision to use the opportunity of a local government Bill to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I have campaigned to protect school pupils who are perceived to be gay or lesbian from discrimination, harassment and physical assault at their schools. The repeal of Section 28, although it is almost entirely symbolic, will be a powerful challenge to homophobes and bullies.
Another group of young people at risk are those who have been—in some cases, throughout their childhood—in the care of local authorities. We are pleased that the Government intend to give more help to such young people.
I was concerned that earlier in the debate we had a proud boast from a member of the Government Front Bench that they were well on course to meet their target of reducing infant class sizes to below 30 by the end of this Parliament. Of course that is welcome. We supported the moves when they were introduced a couple of years ago but warned then—and I point out now—that in many primary schools it has the effect of making classes larger for pupils between the ages of eight and 11.
Even more significant is the deeply worrying fact that secondary school classes are the largest they have been for 20 years. We shall no doubt be assured that those difficulties, like so many others, are being put right by the Government. The most recent figures show that education is still failing to attract good graduates to shortage subjects. While there can be no doubt that rates of pay are a significant factor, the Government should give serious thought to the fact
294
that many talented students regard school teaching as a job where one is not only told what to teach but how to teach—which is not attractive to clever, imaginative and creative young graduates.
It has been said that this is to be the last full legislative programme before the next general election. It certainly provides the platform for that election. With so many Bills it is a large platform but it is also remarkably small and timid in terms of ideas. It is almost as if the Government have already run out of steam, in which case the sooner we have the general election the better.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been a long but very interesting debate. As others have said, we heard an excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who focused on the role of arts and music in the curriculum and outside it. One of my pet beliefs is that the role of music in particular—I include art and drama—provides a vehicle for children with learning difficulties. Educational therapists up and down the country now use art and music to help young people not only to build up their confidence but to improve and enhance their learning abilities. I agree with absolutely everything that the noble Baroness said. We look forward to hearing more from her.
I refer also to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. In everything that he said his enthusiasm for information technology not only in the education of children but for all—even my noble friend Lord Lyell could benefit from it—was evident. He is very much 21st century man. We also look forward to hearing further from the noble Lord in future debates. There are genuinely exciting opportunities in the use of information technology in order to improve the delivery of education in our schools.
It is not possible to do justice to the enormous breadth of the subjects encompassed by today's debate. I plead with the Government to reconsider the wisdom of combining education, employment and all the subjects which are the concern of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I share the view of all noble Lords who have spoken today that it is unforgivable to make one of the shortest opening speeches—only 13 minutes—on the gracious Speech without any mention of agriculture, which is one of the headings of today's debate. I shall be happy to receive in writing from the noble Baroness after the debate all the answers to the questions and concerns that I shall raise on education in order that she can major on the answers to the questions raised on the countryside and agriculture.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon dealt most effectively with transport issues. My noble friend Lady Byford led an impressive list of speakers in a powerful speech on behalf of agriculture and the countryside. I add only two points. What a pity that the introduction of a Bill on the right to roam now

295
flies in the face of an incredibly effective voluntary relationship between the owners of land and those who want access to it. My noble friend Lord Peel is absolutely right. This legislation will drive a wedge between town and country people. The voluntary principle works and it should be allowed to develop.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell majored on environmental, planning and economic development issues in an effective way. My noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Bowness, Lord Hanningfield and others referred to local government matters. I agree with all of them. On one point I am in strong agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We hope that when the Bill in question comes before the House it will give as much flexibility as possible to local authorities to determine their own structures and to be more concerned with outcomes. Change is a costly business and it must be managed. If there is to be change, will local authorities be paid by government to manage it? When the Bill reaches Parliament in its final draft, as a result of the sterling work of my noble friend Lord Bowness and his joint committee, I expect it to be word, dot and comma perfect.
Much has been made of the so-called £19 billion allocation of funds for education over three years. I say "so-called" because, as has been pointed out by those responsible for parliamentary statistics, there has been triple counting. When challenged on the issue on television, the Secretary of State, Mr Blunkett, claimed yesterday that he had made no secret of cumulative counting. I have trawled in vain through speeches, Hansard and press cuttings from the Department for Education and Employment for references to triple counting. The truth is that hardly a day goes by without a project being announced which is funded from that £19 billion. Each time that occurs, the core funding for schools is eroded.
The Secretary of State announced yesterday more allocation from the service development fund for beacon schools, special units for the behaviourally sub-normal, mentors and learning centres. No one argues that those are not important, but the allocation is coming from core funding for schools. Unprecedented sums which should be going into schools are being top-sliced and controlled from the Department for Education and Employment; and to that must be added the massive increase in costly bureaucracy which is pre-empting much-needed funds destined for our schools, colleges and universities.
I want to read one of many letters I have received; it is typical of what is now coming from schools. It is from the head of a grant maintained school. He says:
"I have to confess that I too was sadly deceived by the Government. The assurances were fulsomely and repeatedly given but, as you say, the situation is little short of disastrous. We are coping with a reduction of £170,000 per annum which has meant three temporary staff contracts not being renewed, cuts in capitation and building maintenance and so on. The desperately sad thing is that we see no tangible benefits from being back within the 'network' of the LEA with its 'services'. As in common with all good GM schools, we neither missed nor
296
needed the services. We certainly miss the 070.000 … I live in hope, but with no conviction, that the Government will eventually see sense".
My own local authority, Cambridgeshire, put out a press release supported by the Labour, Liberal and Conservative leaders. It states:
"Education chiefs at Cambridgeshire County Council have reacted angrily to a new Government announcement which will mean less money than expected for schools next year.
"Local Government Minister Hilary Armstrong has written to all local authorities with the shock news that the additional cost of government plans to introduce performance related pay for teachers will not be entirely funded with new money as expected.
"Instead it will come from cash previously thought to be available for improvements in the funding of Cambridgeshire schools … The whole of the education movement will be annoyed at this U-turn by the Government".
A secondary head said:
"Once again we seem to be facing a twist in the way funding is allocated to councils, and hence to schools".
A primary head said:
"This news is extremely disappointing and very demoralising … Primary headteachers and their hard-working, dedicated staff across Cambridgeshire will be bitterly disappointed to hear this news".
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, made references to Westminister City Council. We did some smart footwork after the noble Lord spoke. My authority, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire and Darlington all receive between £200 and £300 less per pupil funding than North Yorkshire. But the rub is that, after two and a half years of this Government, Westminster receives between £500 and £800 more per pupil than North Yorkshire, Darlington, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Derbyshire. So whatever were the noble Lord's criticisms, the position has got worse in two and a half years.
We do not have the details as regards the consultation on the 16-plus issue. It is difficult to do anything other than pose questions. For example, how will the funding of post-16 education and training be provided? Will it recognise genuine variable costs of different post-16 courses? For example, we all know that engineering and engineering-related courses are costly. Given the proliferation of organisation at regional and local level—for example, the Rural Development Agency, small business services, franchises, local learning and skills councils and local learning partnerships, in addition to local authorities and many other commercial and industrial bodies, does the Minister accept that duplication and costly bureaucracy will displace focus and will siphon off again much needed resources from education and training providers? To what extent will the national learning and skills council replicate the work of the FEFC—the Further Education Funding Council? For example, will the staff simply transfer with a wider remit? Will there be sufficient flexibility for large organisations to contract with the national learning and skills council, and for other employers to contract with providers having the choice to contract either nationally or locally directly rather than through third parties?

297
Approved private training providers are concerned that they should he funded on the same basis as the public sector and not through FE colleges, since they are, after all, competitors. There is considerable concern also about the number of local learning partnerships and the demise of the training and enterprise councils. What is the rationale for that? What is the future of our school sixth forms? What will be the criteria for funding them and what account will be taken of the desire of a school, its staff, its pupils and its parents who wish to keep the sixth form? What power does the adjudicator have in relation to those matters?
Only one contributor today has referred to universities in any detail. I am fascinated by something that the Chancellor, Mr Brown, is reported to have said: that almost all young people will be expected to go to university by the year 2010. That is a fairly absurd statistic. What is the latest target for places in universities, and again, how will those extra places be funded? Where is the response to the Dearing report, and what is the Government's response to the Betts report on universities?
I turn now to the important subject of special educational needs. We have no details as yet. I can tell the Government that we will give wholehearted support to any strengthening of early intervention, which is critical. Early intervention will go a long way towards providing a long-term solution to some of the points rained by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, there has been a disturbing increase in the numbers of unstatemented children identified as having special educational needs. Do the Government have a view on that issue and do they have any plans to break down the data in that area into the way that boys, as distinct from girls, are affected?
I support the concerns and the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the education and training of disaffected young people. I know that the noble Lord has considerable knowledge in this area. I have seen the holiday schemes run by Toynbee Hall and I must say that they are impressive and most effective.
I turn now to the thorny question of Clause 28. It will come as no surprise to the Government that we shall oppose the repeal of this clause. The promotion and proselytising of homosexuality as an acceptable or desirable lifestyle—which is what Clause 28 was installed to prevent—is different from dealing with those sensitive issues in the curriculum.
What is the Government's view about the news which broke today that children as young as 14 are being encouraged to act out homosexual scenes in the classroom? A game called "Spot the Heterosexual" and role-playing such as pretending to be a married man who has sex with another man in secret are included in the educational pack for teenagers. It has been put together by part of the National Health Service, and, because it purports to be educational, it is not governed by Section 28 of the Local Government Act which prohibits education
298
authorities from openly promoting homosexuality. The people who produced the pack say that it is well within government guidelines on sex education. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether that is the case.
No one can take issue with the constant drive by the Government for higher standards in education. However, the Government's efforts are more than countered by their attack on grammar schools; an attack on selection of children with an aptitude for all subjects except for academic ability; the threat to reduce fees to support the college tutorial systems at Oxford and Cambridge; the abolition of grant maintained schools and consequent loss of autonomy; and the refusal to honour promises to young people who were offered a place on the assisted places scheme all through primary and secondary schools. All the evidence shows that, 'where education meets the needs of all children from those with special educational needs to those with exceptional academic ability, all children benefit. You do not improve the rest by weakening the best.
The amendment to the gracious Speech proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on Thursday last states that the Opposition,
"regret the failure of Her Majesty's Government to reduce the burden of taxation and regulation and deplore the incoherence and the lack of vision of the measures proposed by Your Majesty's Government for the coming Session of Parliament".—[Official Report, 18/11/99; col. 38.]
That applies as much to today's debate as it does to all our other debates on the gracious Speech. The level of taxation has been commented on by the OECD and the House of Commons Library statisticians as having grown faster here than in our neighbouring European countries. There is a lack of coherence in education and employment policy and a serious lack of vision in tackling the problems of agriculture and rural Britain.
The attack on hunting and the right to roam, like House of Lords reform, has little to do with foxes, care of the countryside or strong independent second Chambers but has more to do with class warfare and the politics of envy.
The Greater London Bill was the worst example ever of poor drafting, both in terms of quality and quantity. I know that noble Lords will not wish to see a repeat of such drafting in respect of any Bill in the new programme. There is no doubt that the programme announced in the gracious Speech will keep us burning late-night oil well into the summer and maybe even the autumn of next year. There is a great deal of legislation before us, some of it contentious. I fully expect this House to be robust and vigilant in defending its right to scrutinise and revise each Bill in detail without fear or favour of the other place. I thank most warmly in advance my noble friends and colleagues on these Benches for their support and involvement in that important work.
10.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall on her excellent maiden speech. She demonstrated that her village primary school has not only given her the exposure to the arts which she enjoyed so much at the time but also a gift to speak which has continued throughout her life, and earlier this afternoon we saw a manifestation of that.
I wish to congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, on what was again an excellent maiden speech. He is a great expert on information technology and in particular on its application to education. My department has benefited greatly from the advice which he has been able to provide and I hope that we shall continue to benefit from it.
At the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston outlined the DETR's legislative programme and the thinking which underpins it. The transport Bill will help to bring about the modernisation of public transport, improve the road network and bring greater choice for all.
Our local government Bill will lay the foundations for more responsive, ethical, accountable and innovative local government. Our manifesto commitment to give people greater access to the countryside and improve protection for wildlife will be fulfilled through the countryside Bill. Those measures will help to improve the quality of life for people in this country.
In my response, I wish to concentrate mainly on education and in particular my department's two Bills. However, I shall try to respond to the major points raised in the debate on both DETR and agricultural policies. Some of the issues raised perhaps belong to the debate on the following two days and I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench will try to pick up some of those points.
I need about three hours to do justice to the range of issues that have been raised by your Lordships this evening. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but on this occasion I agree with her that it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate on the wide range of issues covered in the debate today.
I shall try to do justice to the points raised on agriculture. I shall not pick up all the questions that the noble Baroness put to me, although I must pick up some points made on education as my noble friend was not able to say a great deal on that subject in his opening speech.
The Learning and Skills Bill will contain proposals to promote learning among people over the age of 16. It will take forward the ideas in our White Paper, Learning to Succeed. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, to my noble friend Lord Sawyer and to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, all of whom broadly supported the changes that we are making.
300
The Bill will set in place a new body, the Learning and Skills Council, which will plan and fund all post-16 education and training in England. The new council will work with the schools sector to ensure that we have coherent provision across education for all 16 to 19 year-olds. It will assume responsibility for funding colleges, work-based training for young people and workforce development. It will also develop adult and community education by working with local authorities and provide information and guidance to adults.
Perhaps I can assure noble Lords who raised the question of the role of local authorities in the new system. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Hanningfield, both raised that matter, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Local authorities will be important partners in the new arrangements. They are uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership in local communities. For the first time they will have influence over all post-16 education and training, not just adult and community funding. They will certainly have a central role in the local learning partnerships.
The national Learning and Skills Council will work through 47 business-led local arms, which will replace more than 70 training and enterprise councils (TECs). It will also work with the RDAs. I believe that that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The Bill will ensure that there is a direct link between the RDAs and the national Learning and Skills Council and its local arms.
At this point I want to express my gratitude to the TECs and the TEC National Council and also to the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and its regional committees. They will be abolished, which I thought perhaps was not entirely clear having regard to what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. Their continuing efforts will help us to create a smooth transition towards our new goals.
The Bill will clarify the powers of the Secretary of State and the LSC to intervene in colleges to ensure high standards—that must be part of the vision to which my noble friend Lord Sawyer referred—and it will root out mismanagement.
It will also set in place new independent inspection arrangements. The legislation will integrate inspection processes for young people learning in schools and colleges up to the age of 19. That will be achieved by making the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) responsible for the inspection of all provision. In addition, it will create a new Adult and Learning Inspectorate (ALI) to work with OFSTED within a common inspection framework.
Those measures are vital to the modern provision for learning. Our changes will not produce more duplication but will stop duplication as well as put in place a rigorous inspection regime to drive up standards. I hope that the Learning and Skills Council will help to make lifelong learning a reality and create a more rational system of funding for both colleges and private training providers—and for employers. Our proposals will encourage business to

301
become involved in setting the agenda. Industry will work through national and local LSCs on a range of issues, particularly on-the-job training. They have an unprecedented opportunity to drive the change process.
Too many young people struggle to make career choices amid the turmoil of growing up. Too many fall through the net and miss out on the opportunities that lead to successful and fulfilled lives. We shall put in place a new service offering a comprehensive structure for advice and support for all young people from the age of 13. Drawing on the recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit's report, Bridging the Gap, the new service will help them to make choices and will promote, social inclusion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his welcome of the Government "s proposals in this area. I agree with him that a lot of good work is being done by both voluntary and local authority youth services. I shall certainly look into the point he made in relation to the impact of mentors on youth workers. The answer-therefore to his questions is "yes" in both cases.
According to recent statistics, 170,000 young people were not in education, training or employment. This Government are committed to dealing with that terrible waste of potential through the formation of the new support service.
I was a little sorry that no one in the course of this debate, until we reached the Opposition spokesman on education, mentioned the special educational needs Bill. It is an important new piece of legislation to help to support the raising of standards of achievement of all children with special educational needs. It also reinforces our commitment to fairness of educational opportunity for those children.
The Bill will place a duty on LEAs to offer a parent partnership service. The service would include providing parents of children identified as having special educational needs with access to an independent parental supporter for help and advice. I shall leave further discussion of that Bill to its introduction, whenever that takes place.
I shall not say much today about universities in response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, other than that the Learning and Skills Bill will give the Learning and Skills Council powers to co-operate with the Higher Education Funding Council, similar to the powers of the FEFC. The local learning and skills councils will work closely with HE institutions in their areas and listen to their advice.
I am grateful for the comments made in relation to higher education and enterprise and the changes the Government introduced in that area. But in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, I can say that the Government have already provided a comprehensive response to Dearing. The response was published well over a year ago and I am happy to make it available to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. However, we will be debating universities in this House again quite soon.
302
The noble Baroness raised a number of questions in relation to educational funding in general. Perhaps I may respond briefly rather than replying in great detail to all her points. There will be an increase of at least 5 per cent per year in cash terms for school budgets in each year of the CSR. The £19 billion is a three-year programme. We are still announcing the third year of that programme which does not begin until next April.
I turn now to some of the other points raised on education. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that the reductions we are making in class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds are at the expense of other age groups. That is not the case. Between January 1998 and January 1999, the overall pupil: teacher ratio improved. That was the first improvement for 10 years.
I pick up a couple of points made about ICT which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. The importance of the Internet is enormous. The role of the BBC and other broadcasting bodies is huge. We now have a £1 billion programme linking all our schools to the Internet. In the past year alone, there has been a fourfold increase in connections with primary schools. Ninety per cent of secondary schools and two-thirds of primary schools are now connected. We shall certainly see a further transformation of our classrooms as a result of these very significant changes.
I very much agree with the point made about ageism. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is getting to grips with the Internet as well as with his 45 year-old book on German grammar. Perhaps I may borrow the book from him and brush up on my German grammar which is extremely rusty.
We are also making important changes as regards literacy and numeracy, which were raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It is right that the area with which she is concerned—the arts—should not be neglected. I am sure that she will be the first to agree that if we are to have primary Shakespeare that really works, it is extremely important that young people are literate and learn to read early.
I now turn to questions of transport and spending. Under the plans of the previous administration, we would now be spending nearly £1 billion less on transport each year than we are doing at present. In contrast, our plans over the next three years will provide an extra £1.8 billion, excluding rail franchises and London Transport. That is a very significant increase.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised questions as to whether money raised from road user charging would be additional funding. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall also mentioned hypothecation in that respect. The Bill guarantees that local authorities beginning a charging scheme in the next 10 years will keep all that money for spending on transport for at least 10 years from the start of the scheme.

303
As regards road user charging, we inherited high and growing levels of traffic congestion. Statistics show that unless something is done, car traffic will grow by more than one-third over the next 20 years. Congestion costs the United Kingdom billions of pounds every year; frustrates motorists; and harms the environment, health and quality of life. So, doing nothing is really not an option. That is the most anti-motorist policy that we could possibly pursue.
The Bill guarantees, as I said, that any local authorities starting a charging scheme will be able to keep the money available. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, suggested that there was no point in such schemes until we have better public transport. Surely we need to do both at the same time. It is very hard to attract people back on to buses, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was particularly concerned about, unless we can create space on the roads.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked two questions. He asked about pensioners travelling on half fare. We shall be introducing that as soon as possible, subject to the progress of the Bill. We shall also be considering the rural bus grant in the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked a number of other questions. I wonder whether he would mind if I wrote to him in response. I have all the answers before me, but I will not have time to say anything about local government or agriculture if I go through them. However, on the point about bypasses, I can tell the noble Lord that 19 of the 37 schemes in the roads review were bypasses, and that is more than the last government built in the previous five years. The noble Lord raised a number of questions on the National Air Traffic Services and our plans for PPP in this area. Again, I could go through all the points now, but I think it would be better for me to write to the noble Lord.
I should like to say a few brief words about modernising local government. The modernisation of local government is very central to our plans to modernise Britain. Our framework for its reform stretches for 10 years or more and will open the way for councils to meet the challenges and needs of the 21st century. We took the first steps with the Local Government Act 1999 in the last Session, replacing inflexible and outdated schemes on compulsory competitive tendering with a new duty of best value. The Government are committed to local government which is open, accountable and secures the delivery of efficient, high quality local services.
A number of questions were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Dixon-Smith, about the joint committee of MPs and Peers providing pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. The Government were very grateful to Members of both Houses who took part in the proceedings of the joint committee. We have reflected on the opinions that were expressed and have refined proposals in the draft Bill in order to bring them forward as part of this Session's
304
legislation. We intend to publish a government response to the joint committee's report, which should be available to read alongside the Bill. On the question of secondary legislation, I can tell noble Lords that we intend to make drafts and guidance available wherever possible during the Bill's passage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked about local government structural reform and innovation. Councils will ask local people how they want to be governed; indeed, I believe that that issue concerned a number of speakers in the debate. Councils will also have to consult with local people in the new structures and all councils will be expected to move to whatever new ways of working meet the needs of their communities today.
Again, I would be grateful if I could respond in writing to a number of the other issues that were raised on local government. Perhaps I may also write to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who made some interesting points about energy efficiency, about the climate change levy and about the implications for CHP and renewables. Similarly, I hope that I may write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding her points on housing and homelessness. Of course, a number of these issues will be picked up in the Green Paper that will be published later.
I turn now to the countryside and the Bill that we will be bringing forward. Again, I shall have to be very brief. Various views were expressed about what the Government propose to do in this area. However, I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, felt that there was a serious conflict between what is being proposed on access and on the preservation of wildlife. The Government's view is that making the countryside more accessible should help to foster a greater sense of concern and understanding of its well-being. There is not uncontrolled and unfettered access. The new right of access will be limited in scope. There will be clear restrictions to prevent damaging activities. I of course acknowledge the concerns on this but perhaps that reassurance will be helpful.
I turn to agriculture. I feel rather as if I am in the firing line here. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that I do not look "agricultural". He should see me in the country at the weekend sometimes! My parents used to rear pigs and therefore I have a little experience of small-scale pig farming.
A number of speakers questioned the fact that agriculture is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Of course the Queen's Speech deals with the legislative programme. There is no major agriculture Bill in that programme this year. However—
Earl Peel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Surely she must understand and accept that the

305
proposals in e so-called "green" Bill will have a profound effect on agriculture and those who work the land.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Earl will hang on a minute I shall try to say a little about the Government's commitment to agriculture. The Government recognise that agriculture is going through a difficult time at present. This is due to a number of factors such as the strength of the pound; the collapse of export markets in Asia and Russia; perhaps the expansion of supply, particularly in the case of pigs, in the profitable years of the mid-1990s; and a worldwide cyclical fall in agricultural commodity prices. Successive Ministers of Agriculture, my right honourable friends, have succeeded in injecting new funds, particularly to help the hard pressed ruminant livestock sectors and to improve agricultural marketing.
The Government do not for a moment fail to recognise the problems in agriculture and will continue to work with the industry to try to find a way through what is a difficult situation. I assure noble Lords that we take the current difficulties in agriculture extremely seriously. The new approach to agriculture which we are developing depends on reforming the common agricultural policy. The UK has pressed hard for a more economically rational CAP that brings prices nearer to world levels so that our farmers can competitive in world markets free from World Trade Organisation restraints.
The reforms agreed under Agenda 2000 are an important step in that direction. The way in which we implement the options available in Agenda 2000 will have an important influence on the future direction of agriculture in this country. That is why we have consulted on where this Government see the priorities. As many of your Lordships have indicated, the rural development legislation is an important aspect. It provides a framework to integrate environmental aspects into a competitive agriculture through agri-environment schemes such as organic farming, through diversification and through support in less favoured areas. That forms a significant part of our recent consultation. A significant aid package has been announced. The industry is being relieved of £90 million in charges, and aid to hill farmers is £60 million higher than planned. That is a substantial improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned many figures. I shall certainly write to him on the matter. I am sure that there is much truth in them. They were confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I shall make sure that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture sees Hansard tomorrow and that he is made aware of the very many concerns raised in the debate.
A number of other specific questions were asked as regards agriculture. Unfortunately, I do not have time now to deal with them. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, about some of the
306
issues that he raised on beef; and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, with regard to the questions that they raised.
As to GM crops, the Government are not running scared on the issues raised here. The trials will continue; we shall not be swayed by the rather overheated debate that takes place on both sides of the argument. We shall certainly work closely with GM producers to ensure scientific advance and food safety. We recognise also the long-term issues surrounding biodiversity.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath. He said it all in the comments that he made about the amendment moved by the Opposition. I do not wish to say any more than he did.
We have had a good, if a very broad and rather lengthy, debate. I should like to end by thanking all Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I, on behalf of these Benches, thank her for attempting to cover agriculture matters at the end of her reply. The only problem we have is that her reply took 30 minutes and she spent only seven minutes dealing with agriculture. As she quite rightly said, she could not spend longer on it. However, that highlights what the farming community feels: that the Government do not understand. The Minister said that she was surprised by the reaction of my two noble colleagues to the question of diversity and access to the countryside and the view that it will cause a problem. That is one of the real issues. The farming community feels that the Government do not understand.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for raising that matter. I thank her that tomorrow she will refer our comments in the debate to Nick Brown. We are very grateful.
Lord Bach: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move that the debate be now again adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow. —(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 2 November, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 28 October, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
Alliance and Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]

  United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolutions of 5 November, the Bills had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declarations of the
  308
  agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, passed through all their remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.

City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
  Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]

    Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
    The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolutions of 4 November, the Bills had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Unopposed Bill Committees.
    House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Armed Forces Revised Pay Structure
  Armed Forces Revised Pay Structure
  Armed Forces Discipline Procedures and Human Rights Act 1998
  Armed Forces Discipline Procedures and Human Rights Act 1998