Sitting of 12 May 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Licensing (Young Persons) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Licensing (Young Persons) Bill
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF PART XII OF THE LICENSING ACT 1964
      9.33 am
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 8, after "in" insert "or from".
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 54, in page 1, line 8, after "in" insert "or through".
      No. 5, in page 1, line 9, after "he" insert "knowingly".
      No. 19, in page 1, line 9, after "sells" insert—
      'or offers for sale or otherwise supplies, whether for payment or not,'.
      No. 24, in page 1, line 23, after "in" insert "or from".
      No. 55, in page 1, line 23, after "in" insert "or through".
      No. 15, in page 1, line 24, leave out "knowingly".
      No. 58, in page 1, line 24, after "allows" insert "or facilitates".
      No. 26, in page 1, line 24, leave out "person" and insert "employee or agent".
      No. 9, in page 1, line 24, after "sell" insert—
      ', or is recklessly indifferent as to whether any person sells,'.
      No. 25, in page 1, line 24, after "sell" insert—
      'or offer for sale or otherwise supply, whether for payment or not,'.
      No. 27, in page 1, line 26, leave out—
      'Subsection (1) of this section applies to'
      and insert—
      'In this section "employee" means'.
      No. 28, in page 1, line 27, after first "in" insert "or from".
      No. 56, in page 1, line 27, after first "in" insert "or through".
      No. 57, in page 2, line 4, after "in" insert "or through".
      No. 30, in page 2, line 4, after "buy" insert "or otherwise obtain".
      No. 32, in page 2, line 7, after "buy" insert "or otherwise obtain".
      1120
      No. 59, in page 2, line 10, after "bar" insert "or similar facility".
      No. 37, in page 2, line 27, leave out "in a bar".
      No. 10, in page 2, line 30, leave out "knowingly".
      No. 17, in page 2, line 30, after "knowingly" insert "or recklessly".
      No. 39, in page 2, line 40, after "sold" insert "or otherwise obtained from".
      No. 18, in page 3, line 9, after "knowingly" insert "or recklessly".
      No. 44, in page 3, line 10, after second "sold" insert "or otherwise provided".
      No. 45, in page 3, line 15, at end insert "or provision.".
      No. 53, in clause 3, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
      '(4) The provisions of this Act shall apply to the House of Commons as if it were licensed premises.'.
      Mr. Gardiner: It may interest the House to know that I had a long-standing invitation from the residents of the Abbeyfield home in the Kenton ward of my constituency to partake of refreshment with them. However, instead of drinking coffee with some of our senior citizens, I find myself trying to prevent drinking among our most junior citizens. I tender my apologies to the Abbeyfield residents, but I am sure that they will appreciate the importance of this Bill, and I trust that I will be able to share a cuppa—and I dare say something even stronger—with them at a later date.
      Clause 1 states:
      A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in licensed premises, he sells intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
      Amendment No. 20 is intended to support the Bill and the aims set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), as are all the others that I have tabled. My hon. Friend is held in great respect in the House for his campaigning work on behalf of his constituents, and many colleagues have admired the work that he has done to close the loopholes in the Licensing Act 1964. That Act made it an offence for a licensee or his servant to sell alcoholic drinks to a person under 18, but no offence was committed if the servant was a person who was not directly employed by the licensee. Where off-licence staff are the employees of a large retail chain rather than of the manager who holds the licence for the branch, under the 1964 Act no action can be taken if a member of that staff sells alcohol to a child.
      My hon. Friend had particular and tragic cause to set about this reform of the licensing law. The death of his young constituent, David Knowles, was precipitated by sales of alcohol under the circumstances that I have described—indeed, two such sales took place inside five minutes. It is clear that the law must be changed. The amendment would not detract from the Bill; it has been tabled with the sole aim of making the Bill stronger.
      The clause talks about people "in" licensed premises selling intoxicating liquor. Colloquially, people often talk about things falling "off' the back of a lorry, and much of the alcohol sold in Britain today seems to have come from precisely that source. However, my intention with the amendment is to focus on the preposition "in", and on the ways in which alcohol can be sold.

      1121
      Any hon. Member who has been to a car boot sale will know that the law states that goods should be displayed in the car boot. However, all sorts of racks and tables are used that I have never seen in any Halfords store. It is clear that the use of the word "in" is often abused in practice.
      When I was much younger, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I used to spend my holidays just down the coast from your constituency, in West Kilbride in Ayrshire, which I am sure that you know well. In those days, it was common for Rose, a young friend of mine, to be sent by her parents for two cans "from round the back". That meant that Rose went to the back door of the pub, where she was able to purchase a couple of cans of Tennents lager.
      From that it is clear that the clause, with its use of the phrase "in licensed premises" is not sufficient to deal with all situations in which alcoholic beverages can be sold from licensed premises to minors. Therefore, the amendment, by inserting the words "or from" into the clause, would reinforce the interdiction against the sale of alcohol from the curtilage of a licensed premises.
      Amendment. No. 19 applies to the provision that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he sells intoxicating liquor to a person under 18. I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, have little time to watch television. One of the things that I have seen in the past few months, however, is an advertisement for a Belgian lager, Stella Artois, which prides itself on being very expensive. I have no knowledge of the brew myself, but I understand that it is quite popular in pubs up and down the country. In the advertisement, a person enters a continental hostelry with a bunch of flowers and offers it to the licensee in return for refreshment. The landlord drives a peculiarly hard bargain, because by the end of the advertisement, the hostelry is bedecked with flowers—red roses or red tulips, I think.
      The point of that humorous example is to prove that the clause's reference to selling alcohol is not sufficient to catch all the ways in which it may be provided on the premises to people who wish to obtain it. My amendment would make provision for any type of supply, whether through exchange or barter, or whether payment is involved when the refreshment is provided.
      Credit sales are not permitted under the existing legislation except when food is also provided—one must partake of a meal in order to deposit a credit card and run a tab. The law is already much abused in practice, and it has become customary for people to run a tab. I am mindful of the old cartoon strip in which Andy Capp used to go into the bar and put his purchases on the slate. Andy was frequently refused any more beverages because he already had far too much on the slate and his credit had run out. However, the law actually provides that one should not be supplied with drink on credit in that fashion.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Some pubs offer deals, so if they have an Oktoberfest, for example, and one buys a meal of Wiener schnitzel and German sausages, one might be able to have alcohol with it. Would such a situation be covered by the amendment?
      9.45 am
      Mr. Gardiner: My understanding is that that is the sort of situation in which credit would apply because a meal is provided. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it seems ludicrous that, for the duration of an entire beer festival, one should be able to keep on drinking on the basis of having bought one Wiener schnitzel.
      The amendment would strengthen the clause where it provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence
      if, in licensed premises, he sells intoxicating liquor …
      and would make it clear that accepting other forms of payment such as exchange, barter, gifts and credit would also constitute an offence.
      Amendment No. 25 applies to the provision of knowingly allowing any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 and would insert the same words as proposed in amendment No. 19. I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments, because it is clear that the rationale for the amendments, as I argued in relation to amendment No. 19—
      Maria Eagle: Is my hon. Friend absolutely clear that the rationale would be the same for each of these offences? They range from people selling alcohol, allowing somebody under their control to sell it, purchasing alcohol and sending someone else to purchase it. Is the rationale for the amendments exactly the same for all those offences?
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. The amendments make precisely the distinction to which she refers, between the sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 and a licensee or manager allowing such a sale to take place. It is important that licensees should be totally in control of the situation on the licensed premises in which they operate and over which they have authority.
      In the original tragic case to which I referred, which inspired my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey to introduce the Bill, I believe that the manager of the premises was not, even in the first instance, considered for prosecution by the police because he was deemed to have taken all appropriate steps in training and advising staff of the dangers of selling alcohol to minors. Therefore, only the staff who had actually sold the alcopops to the young man were initially subject to prosecution, which, sadly, had to be dropped at the third attempt by the Crown Prosecution Service after the case had been delayed.
      I thank my hon. Friend for having raised that point. It is important that managers and licensees are in control when they allow sales by people under their authority in the pub—their agents. They must appreciate all the different ways in which alcohol can be provided—not just through sale but through other methods of supply.
      Amendment No. 30 relates to proposed new section 169C of the 1964 Act, which deals with the purchase of intoxicating liquor by or for a person under 18. The Bill provides that a person under 18
      shall be guilty of an offence if he buys or attempts to buy intoxicating liquor.
      Previous parts of the Bill deal with agents on licensed premises—the licensee or manager—and this part creates an offence if someone under age seeks to obtain

      1123
      intoxicating liquor on the premises. I use the word "obtain" because it reflects the intention of my amendment. The Bill should not cover only attempts to buy, because alcohol can be provided in different ways, including exchange, gift or credit, and those should be taken into account.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. It seems sensible to try to close what might be a loophole, but can he give some statistics or assess the proportion of alcohol obtained, but not purchased, by those under 18? How serious a problem is that?
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Alcohol is provided to minors in many different ways in public houses. Many Members may be unaware that young people may legally obtain liquor on licensed premises. The hon. Gentleman may be as surprised as I was to learn that a 17-year-old may not buy intoxicating liquor at the bar of a public hostelry, but an 18-year-old may buy it, take it into the garden and—perfectly legally—provide beer, wine or even spirits to a child of only 10 or 11. That flies in the face of all that we want.
      Maria Eagle: Parts of my constituency have a thriving black economy in which the bartering, swapping and giving of alcohol and other consumer goods—virtually anything one could want—occurs. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern to define as tightly as possible. From experience, I can tell him that these things go on, even if it is not possible to produce statistics for the black economy.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and well aware of the ways in which children engage in barter and exchange. My eight-year-old son, Cameron, has not yet graduated to barter and exchange for alcohol—nor will he, I trust—but Pokemon cards are a frequent source of conflict in the playground and elsewhere in my community. No doubt, many parents would sympathise with me on that score.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about the amount of alcohol consumed by minors. In a 1998 survey of 14 to 15-year-olds, more than 50 per cent. of males and females said that they had, in the past seven days, obtained at least one of the following in one form or another: spirits, Martini, Cinzano, fortified wine, wine, alcopops, cider, low-alcohol beer, beer, lager or shandy. That is a startling statistic from a reputable study backed by the Department of Health's statistical bulletin. Many studies have been made, including by the Portman Group, of alcohol drinking and abuse among minors. It is vital to make the law as tight as possible. Amendment No. 30 would, therefore, make provision for forms of supply other than purchase, such as exchange, gift and credit.
      Amendment No. 32 would add a similar provision to proposed new section 169C(2), which states:
      A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in licensed premises, he buys or attempts to buy intoxicating liquor on behalf of a person under eighteen.
      The amendment would again reinforce the Bill by ensuring that drinks cannot be passed on by a proxy.
      1124
      Amendment No. 39 deals with the delivery of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18. Proposed new section 169F(1) states:
      A person who works in licensed premises, whether paid or unpaid, shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly delivers to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold—
      at which point I would insert "or otherwise obtained from"—
      in those premises for consumption off the premises.
      I thought carefully about that amendment as there are different forms of delivery.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield has outlined the case of provision for someone else, and handing over intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 constitutes delivery of the sort that we wish to exclude. However, there is a form of delivery that may be perfectly proper, and I am pleased that the proposed new section takes account of that at subsection (4), which states:
      Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply where—
      (a) the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser, or
      (b) the person under eighteen works in the licensed premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which includes the delivery of intoxicating liquor.
      The intention is not to stop a person—perhaps a trainee or a young man aged under 18—who, in the course of gainful employment, takes delivery of a consignment of alcohol. That would not be an offence.
      10 am
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my interventions are intended to be constructive so as to clarify a worthwhile measure. He might be aware that about 12 per cent. of all the alcohol consumed in the United Kingdom is imported through the channel ports. I was especially interested in this subsection because it refers to the delivery of alcohol. Does he believe that the provision and his amendment would cover the importation of alcohol that is then delivered to people aged under 18 for drinking at parties and so on?
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The clause is not intended—nor should it be—to reinforce Customs and Excise provisions. Hon. Members are well aware of the smuggling problem. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, smuggled alcohol affects young people and under-age drinkers disproportionately because, as it is already illicit, it is sold on the black market, so the scrupulous controls exercised on licensed premises by licensees and their agents do not obtain.
      Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman has not quite addressed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Alcohol coming in through the channel ports does not necessarily break Customs and Excise rules, nor is it always sold on the black market. Customs rules allow the import of alcohol bought in France for personal use. My understanding of that is that it would apply to a party.
      If one showed an invitation—for example, to a 21st birthday party—Customs and Excise would allow alcohol to be brought in for personal use. Under the proposed amendment, it would be an offence for a person to buy a couple of cases of beer from an off-licence in Britain for

      1125
      a family party where under-18s were allowed to drink it, but if the alcohol for the party was bought in France it would not be an offence because it had not been bought in the UK. Is there not a conflict?
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the intervention made by the hon. Member for Lichfield. I had not appreciated the full import of his question. However, the answer is no. The clause states:
      A person who works in licensed premises, whether paid or unpaid, shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly delivers to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold—
      and, if my amendment is accepted—"or otherwise obtained from"—
      those premises for consumption off the premises.
      The intoxicating liquor has to be obtained from those premises by someone employed there, so a person who imported intoxicating liquor from abroad would not be affected by the provision.
      Mr. Paice: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Proposed new section 169C(2) states:
      A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in licensed premises, he buys or attempts to buy intoxicating liquor on behalf of a person under eighteen.
      Surely that means that if I bought a couple of cases of beer from an off-licence or a pub—knowing that I was going to make it available for under-18s—I should be guilty of an offence. That is why the provisions could be conflicting when liquor is imported.
      Mr. Gardiner: I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing amendment No. 39—it was on that provision that the hon. Member for Lichfield intervened. It relates to proposed new section 169F. I hope that clarifies the matter.
      Maria Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—I hope I am not putting him off his stride. When I first read this extremely worthy Bill, it struck me—coming from south Liverpool as I do—that many under-age drinkers obtain alcohol not from licensed premises but from other sources. If my hon. Friend's amendment—plus the ingenious proposal of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—could be said to extend to those other deliveries that are not from licensed premises, would that not be wholly good for the prevention of under-age drinking? Of course, we should need to clarify the law so that people understand it—that is most important. Would it not help the purpose of Members on both sides of the House if we used our imagination, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, so as to extend these worthy provisions more widely than the promoter of the Bill originally intended?
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be prepared, during the course of the morning, to accept manuscript amendments to the Bill to enable us to extend it in the way suggested by the hon. Lady?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The answer will be no.
      Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you never fail not to surprise me.
      1126
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) about the inventiveness of the hon. Member for Lichfield. I should welcome many interpretations of the provisions that reduced drinking by minors. In some respects, the prospect held out by the hon. Gentleman of widening their scope is attractive. The White Paper and my investigations into the matter as a member of the licensing law reform panel make it clear that it is sensible for parents to be able to introduce their children to alcohol properly, in a measured way, within the confines of their own home, perhaps at the dinner table. The law has always allowed for that. The Government's view is that it offers a sensible way to introduce young people to alcohol under the supervision of their parents or of a responsible adult. Young people can learn to savour the quality of good beer, for example. Others might acquire a fine palate for good wine. They can be educated into sensible and moderate drinking.
      I am not opposed to drinking, and I suspect many hon. Members are not opposed to drinking per se. However, we are opposed to irresponsible drinking and to the abuse of alcohol. In particular, we want to protect the under-18s from the dangers of unregulated exposure to alcohol.
      I would shy away from extending the provisions of the clause in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston suggested.
      Mr. David Maclean: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's exposition, but I am a little concerned about the proposed new section 169F, which relates to the delivery of intoxicating liquor to persons aged under 18. I am worried by its implications for the vexed question of internet sales, which I have tried, and the delivery systems of some companies appear to be quite good.
      Let us suppose that, in a few years' time, the hon. Gentleman orders a case of wine from Tesco Direct, the licensed premises arm of the supermarket, and Cameron, who is now 17, answers the door, says, "Daddy is in the House of Commons" and takes delivery of the wine. The person who delivers is unsure whether the father has ordered the wine, so what would the effect of the new section 169F be in such a case? Intoxicating liquor has been delivered to someone under the age 18 even though a legitimate order was made by an adult.
      Although I pose that question to the hon. Gentleman, I am conscious that perhaps the Minister should reply to it in detail when he winds up.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's suffix to his question.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am not.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is so grateful.
      The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely interesting point. Although the first half of the scenario painted would be covered by the point that no minor would have the credit card necessary to make an internet order, the clever second half of the example, in which the right hon. Gentleman envisages the door-step scenario of a youngster being present when the delivery is made, is one to which I have no ready answer.
      Mr. Clive Efford: I wonder whether proposed new section 169F(4) would provide the answer

      1127
      to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). It deals with whether a person is in place to prevent the delivery and was part of the act of purchasing.
      Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has been perspicacious in pointing that out. I had forgotten that I began by saying that proposed section 169F(4) would cover that point. Under paragraph (a), the provisions would not apply if
      the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser.
      The Bill has taken account of the very point that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Would not the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), about sales that are made not through licensed premises but through other means, be covered by other provisions? Surely, it is an offence to sell alcohol outside licensed premises. Are we not right in wanting to channel sales into the lawful category of licensed sales and then to regulate them?
      Mr. Gardiner: Yes, I do not fundamentally disagree with that. Clearly, groups such as Tesco and Safeway own licensed premises that people do not need to step into; they can make telephone or internet purchases of alcohol. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
      10.15 am
      Amendment No. 45 relates to sending a person aged under 18 to obtain intoxicating liquor. It should be considered in conjunction with proposed section 169G, which states:
      (1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly sends a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises.
      (2) Subsection (1) of this section applies regardless of whether the liquor is to be obtained from the licensed premises or from other premises from which it is delivered in pursuance of the sale.
      The simple addition of the words "or provision" to subsection (1) would render it doubly safe by ensuring that gifts or exchange—and not just sales—would be covered.
      Mr. Heald: As I understand it, the amendment is designed to deal with a situation in which someone sends a child to the licensed premises with a bunch of roses to say, "Give us a Stella Artois." Does that happen very often, in the hon. Gentleman's experience?
      Mr. Gardiner: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the anecdote with which I started my speech. In West Kilbride in the early 1960s, my friend Rose would be sent—not with a bunch of roses for Stella Artois—to get two cans of Tennents lager on tick; it was all credit sales based on the assumption that mum would pay later. That is not a sale at the point that the alcohol is handed over.
      It is many years since I have been to West Kilbride and I do not know what practice is currently in force there. However, I would be very surprised if informal arrangements did not allow such transactions to be carried out throughout the land. My hon. Friend the Member for
      1128
      Garston clarified the fact that all sorts of transactions take place that do not comply with the existing law, never mind that which is proposed in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 53 would add a subsection (4) to clause 3 so that
      The provisions of this Act shall apply to the House of Commons as if it were licensed premises.
      I have no doubt that I have come to the most contentious and controversial amendment that I have tabled. I hope that Members of the House will not entertain the idea that I seek in any way to undermine the privileges that they enjoy. However, the fact remains that the House is not subject to the licensing laws of the land. Over centuries, it has had a role in the regulation of alcohol—indeed, the regulation of alcohol is older than Parliament itself. It goes back to the local controls that were linked with the curfew.
      Parliament became involved with the regulation of alcohol in the 13th century—more than 700 years ago—to impose controls simply on purity and pi ice. That was the object of Parliament's intervention in those days; there was no question of it being concerned about under-age drinking or anything like that. Parliament sought to control purity and price, and began to consider public order issues, the need to provide for wayfarers and travelling craftsmen, and how to keep the labour force sober and productive. Indeed, I believe that there are Acts that deal with controlling immorality, which was often linked to the sale of alcohol.
      I am not suggesting that the sale of alcohol in the precincts of the Houses of Parliament is associated with immorality in any way. None the less, if Parliament seeks to regulate the provision of alcohol to minors throughout the rest of the country, surely it should not envisage a situation in which minors are freely sold alcohol on these premises.
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading too many Edwina Currie novels, as he is talking about immorality in the House of Commons. I am not getting commission from Edwina Currie for making that remark.
      Has the hon. Gentleman seriously considered the constitutional issues raised by his amendment? He will be aware that the Palace of Westminster is a royal palace. Would not his amendment result in this being the first time that civil and criminal legislation has applied to a royal palace? Indeed, he will be aware that people cannot be murdered in a royal palace: they must be removed outside and then be declared dead. Is he not opening a can of worms that could create a constitutional crisis, possibly resulting in—
      Mr. Maclean: Abdication.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend suggests abdication, but I would not go as far as that. At the time of Her Majesty the Queen Mother's hundredth birthday—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone too far.
      Mr. Gardiner: I was speaking about the time when Parliament first became involved in public order issues, and I am glad to see that you have restored order in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      1129
      As ever, the hon. Member for Lichfield makes an interesting point. He asked whether I had examined the constitutional issues arising from my amendment. Indeed, I have. I refer him to a case heard on 12, 13 and 14 December 1934, which involved the King, Sir R. F. Graham-Campbell and others, and was brought by Mr. Alan Patrick Herbert. On 17 May 1934, the applicant laid two informations at Bow Street police court and made applications for summonses against 15 named Members of Parliament, who were members of the King's Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons.
      Of course, the House no longer has a Kitchen Committee. I believe that is now called the House of Commons refreshment Committee—
      Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Catering Committee.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am sorry, the Catering Committee.
      In one of those informations, the applicant stated that, on 10 April 1934, after listening to Committee proceedings on a certain Bill at the House of Commons, he and a friend visited a refreshment bar at 1.15 pm and were supplied with a glass of lager beer and a glass of gin and mixed vermouth. In the second information, the applicant stated that, at about 6.30 pm on the same day, he visited the House of Commons with another friend. They were proceeding to a refreshment bar when they met a Member of Parliament, who accompanied them there, where they were joined by a fourth person. The Member of Parliament ordered a round of drinks—which is noteworthy in itself—for the four and, even more notably, paid for them.
      The chief metropolitan magistrate, Sir Rollo Frederick Graham-Campbell, before whom the applications came, held that, assuming that an offence may have been committed, Members of Parliament carrying out duties entrusted to them by the House, and under its control in a manner long practised and approved by it, and within its precincts, were not amenable to the court's jurisdiction, but were protected by the privileges of the House and were answerable only to the House of which they were Members.
      That goes to the heart of the question posed by the hon. Member for Lichfield, in which he asked whether I had considered the constitutional implications of my amendment.
      Mr. Maclean: I have not intervened until now because the hon. Gentleman is giving a fascinating exposition of the constitutional question. Indeed, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about that important matter. I merely wish to tell the hon. Gentleman how pleased I am that his amendment relates to the House of Commons, not the other place, which is the first time that the Labour party has recognised the importance of allowing hereditary peers to continue administering alcohol to young people and their families in a trustworthy way in accordance with centuries-old tradition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to extend his amendment to include the whole Palace of Westminster.
      Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman makes an amusing point. I am sure that, when he takes constituents
      1130
      to the House of Lords, he, like me, points out to them, especially the younger ones, the arm-rest on the Bench of the Lords Spiritual. That arm-rest was provided on the King's instructions because, in earlier days, their Graces partook of alcohol quite frequently, especially at lunchtime, and would fall off the end of the Bench during afternoon debates. That is the only Bench in the House of Lords to have an arm-rest.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that, as all the Benches in this Chamber have arm-rests, the purpose was the same in this House.
      I return to the constitutional implications that my amendment would have in seeking to regulate the provision of alcohol in the House of Commons. It is clear that the sale of liquor in the precincts of the House falls within the House's internal affairs, which it, and it alone, is privileged to manage. The privileges of the House of Commons have never been defined and must be ascertained from what has been recorded as having been done by the House. According to Blackstone, one of the greatest authorities on our constitution, the privileges of Parliament are large and indefinite, and courts of law cannot determine the privileges of the High Court of Parliament. Blackstone's commentary, volume i, page 164, states that the privileges
      are well-known … to the two Houses, and to every member of them, as long as he continues a member; but the knowledge is as incommunicable as the privileges to all beyond that pale.
      Maria Eagle: It is perfectly proper that the House guards its privileges and it must do so for the future of democracy to be kept safe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] None the less, there are some exceptions to that. It is possible, for example, to be arrested here if one is to be charged with a criminal offence. The privileges of the House do not extend to that. Is not my hon. Friend's amendment about considering whether licensing laws are sufficiently serious to overrule the privileges of the House? Is that not the nub of his argument?
      10.30 am
      Mr. Gardiner: No, I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I accept willingly that a person committing an ordinary felony or misdemeanour, even on the very steps of the Speaker's Chair, would not be protected by the privileges of the House and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of criminal courts. That, however, is merely because the House has never claimed the right to adjudicate on such matters.
      In Stockdale v. Hansard, Lord Denman stated:
      The House sits for long periods and arrangements have to be made for heating the House when the weather is cold and the provision of refreshment for the mind in the library and the refreshment for the body in suitable places. The regulation of those matters is clearly within the area of the internal affairs of the House and connected with the affairs of the House.
      That is why Members' privileges relate to areas that have always been deemed to fall within the regular, traditional course and patterns of events in this place. We have never claimed that Members' privileges should extend to the sorts of ordinary criminal offence to which my hon. Friend referred.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of unintentionally misleading the House. As I understand it, the Metropolitan police have powers in the House of

      1131
      Commons only by virtue of the fact that we have given them such powers. The Serjeant at Arms has supreme power over control of order in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Gardiner: I accept that, but I seek to focus our debate more particularly on the purpose of the amendment.
      Although there are more proper points to be considered on how the amendment would affect the rights and privileges of hon. Members, I cannot in all conscience believe that hon. Members are so fastidious in guarding their privileges that they would not wish to apply the provisions of this estimable Bill to the House of Commons, as if it were licensed premises, in the sale, provision, supply and delivery of alcohol to those under the age of 18. That would mean that the law that we seek to impose throughout the country to protect minors from the dangers of alcohol would not be enforced in the confines of Parliament.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has been most courteous in taking interventions. One concern that I have about his amendment is how it would affect situations in which we are asked by charitable organisations in our constituencies—and other organisations not so charitable, such as party bodies—to provide a bottle of intoxicating liquor for a raffle or tombola prize. If in those circumstances a Member of Parliament supplied a bottle of House of Commons whisky and the winning ticket was bought by a minor, would there not be a danger of the Member falling foul of proposed new section 169F—delivery of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18—of the licensing Act 1964? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not be able to respond to that, but I hope that, before his winding-up speech, the Minister will have a full briefing on that point from those who are specially qualified to give him that information.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point. As someone who has presided over bottle stalls on numerous occasions and over raffles on even more numerous occasions, I can only tell him of my habitual practice, which I recommend to him. I automatically tell any minor holding a winning ticket, "You will have to go to get your mother, father or another responsible adult because I will not give a bottle of alcohol to a minor." I hold to that whether I am on a bottle stall at the local school fete or involved in a raffle for which alcohol is one of the possible prizes. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to follow that practice because, in his position, it is best not to be seen to be dishing out alcopops or any other form of alcohol to young people. It is as simple as that.
      I do not wish to detain the House much longer; I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
      Mr. Heald: During the hon. Gentleman's reminiscences about bottle stalls, it occurred to me that his amendments on other methods of provision, apart from sale, might affect raffles. The reason why a raffle does
      1132
      not require a licence is that it does not involve a sale. If other methods of obtaining were included in the law, would not raffles be covered?
      Mr. Gardiner: Let me think carefully about that. We are talking about licensed premises.
      Mr. Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gardiner: I shall respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), then happily give way to my hon. Friend.
      If I expanded the scope of the hon. Gentleman's example to a raffle on licensed premises, there would be force to his point that such a raffle might fall under the Bill's provisions. However, my understanding is that a raffle not held on licensed premises would not be covered by the Bill.
      Mr. Brown: On the issue of raffles and the purchasing of raffle tickets, I am sure that each and every one of us in this House has at some stage purchased a raffle ticket for our children or even grandchildren. I am sure that none of us has passed alcohol to our child or grandchild if we have been fortunate enough to see their ticket drawn. As responsible adults, we purchase such tickets in good faith, but would never intend to pass on the winning prize, should it be alcohol, to any of our children aged under 18.
      Mr. Gardiner: Absolutely; I concur with my hon. Friend. It has cost me quite dear on occasions to purchase, as it were, from my child the right to do him out of what he saw as his raffle prize. When my children have won a bottle of spirits or other alcohol in a raffle, I have bartered with them, as I said earlier. I say, "I will buy you a packet of Pokemon cards but you can't have the bottle." It is all a matter of negotiation with one's children, and I am afraid that, over the years, my children have become extremely adept in such matters. I take my hon. Friend's point; of course he is right. No responsible parent would allow their child simply to take a bottle of alcohol as a raffle prize and retain it at their own free disposal. It simply is not the action of a responsible parent.
      The amendments are positive and helpful. They are designed, not to detract in any way from the Bill, but to strengthen it and reinforce its provisions. They would help to create an environment in this country in which young people were not exposed unduly to the dangers of alcohol, or to the circumstances that gave rise to the case that prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey to introduce the Bill. We want no more tragedies associated with under-age drinking to occur.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are several amendments in the group; they are printed on the appropriate document, which is available to hon. Members.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On re-reading the Bill's long title, it occurs to me that it offers

      1133
      an intriguing possibility, which, at this stage, I mention only in passing, to allow the Minister and the Bill's promoter to reflect on it. It states that the Bill would
      Make provision in connection with the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in cases—
      note those words—
      involving persons under eighteen; and for connected purposes.
      My question for the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) is whether that excludes the sale of individual bottles. We can return to that issue later—
      Mr. Paul Truswell rose—
      Mr. Forth: Oh, it appears that I am to have an immediate answer.
      Mr. Truswell: Rather than protract the debate, let me say that the answer to that question is no.
      Mr. Forth: The promoter might say that, but further advice might be required. It is as well that I did not spot the provision earlier, because it might have given rise to some interesting amendments.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has given the House not only a tour de force, but an informative speech that has highlighted some of the potential difficulties inherent in the Bill, which others of us have also spotted. To ensure that the Bill fully achieves its purpose—let there be no doubt that that is the reason why we are all here today—we must satisfy ourselves that it neither goes too far, nor falls short of that purpose.
      The Bill would operate in a surprisingly complex area. The first complexity, which I and others have spotted, is the use in proposed new section 169A of the phrase "in licensed premises". That raises several questions, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, connected with the relationship between those making the purchase, those making the sale and the way in which the transaction is carried out. Even though the Bill uses the words "in licensed premises", the long title extends it far more broadly. In the references to car boot sales and raffles, we begin to see the potential difficulties arising from the bewildering variety of ways in which items, whether intoxicating liquor or any other goods, can pass from one person to another.
      In simpler days, in West Kilbride and elsewhere, we all thought that we well understood the direct nature of sale and purchase. I am an old man whose memory stretches back even further than the hon. Gentleman's, and I can remember the days long before credit cards, when all sales were cash sales—unless, as he rather ingeniously points out, they were achieved through some sort of informal credit arrangement, or, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has helpfully pointed out, through some sort of barter.
      10.45 am
      We might want to return to the issue, but, in passing, it is worth saying that we realise that, for the Bill to function fully and properly, it must cover all the bewildering variety of means of transaction available for the sale and purchase of intoxicating liquor. That is the
      1134
      intention behind some of the amendments standing in my name, which would add the words "or through" after the word "in". They would help to broaden the scope of the Bill properly to encompass all the different sorts of transaction.
      We can well imagine the many different ways in which transactions can take place. There is the conventional way, through the use of cash, occurring in licensed premises, which is the most basic, straightforward and simple method of transaction and the one that probably springs to mind first. I suspect that, when he was framing the Bill, the hon. Member for Pudsey envisaged a person walking into licensed premises, ordering intoxicating liquor, handing over some cash and then leaving with the cans or bottles in his possession. It is relatively easy to frame provisions to deal with such transactions.
      However, broadening our notion of modes of transaction makes the issue more complicated. The ordering process can be carried out over the telephone, or by fax—I would imagine that many licensed premises now have fax facilities, and people generally have such machines in their workplace and increasingly in their home—or via one of those ghastly e-things that I keep hearing about.
      Mr. Gardiner: E-forth?
      Mr. Forth: No, certainly not, although I am grateful for the pun.
      I do not want to dwell on such issues at this stage, as I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) or my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), both of whom are expert in these matters, might wish to elaborate, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I hope that they will. I merely introduce the subject. However, even with my almost zero knowledge of such matters, I am aware that commercial transactions can now be effected through the use of e-things. I presume, therefore, that it is possible to order intoxicating liquor e-wise. Given that the ordering process is possible via voice telephony, fax—I managed to operate the fax machine in my office for the first time this morning, which engenders a feeling of triumph—or some sort of e-facility, we have to broaden our conceptualisation of the Bill and its purpose to encompass the modes of transaction that are now widely available to people under 18.
      Related to that is the fact that transmission of the product—in this case, intoxicating liquor—from the person who makes the sale to the purchaser now occurs to a lesser extent on licensed premises. Increasingly, the product is delivered, or it is distributed by the less than legal means mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, North, or is passed on through barter. I am not sure whether barter is illegal; perhaps the hon. Member for Garston can advise us. I see that she has a sheaf of papers in her hand and I am aware of her enormous legal expertise. Given that it was she who raised the issue of barter, it is possible that she can advise us as to its legality in the context of the Bill, if not otherwise.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be able to advise the House if and when she catches my eye. However, I should like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to mention the

      1135
      amendments that are the subject of this debate. He appears to be making a more general speech, and I am sure that he does not want to do that.
      Mr. Forth: Certainly, it was far from my mind to make a general speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not making it clear that I was speaking in the context of amendments Nos. 19, 25, 30, 44 and 45, all of which touch on possible methods of payment and whether or not transactions take place on licensed premises. These matters are, I believe, germane.
      I mentioned barter. That emphasises the fact that, faced as we are with such a bewildering array of methods of purchase, we must ensure that the Bill encompasses all those and deals satisfactorily with them.
      The same applies to amendments Nos. 26 and 27. We must be satisfied that the more complicated relationships that can now exist between the licensee, the licensee's employees or agents of the licensee, and the person making the purchase are all adequately covered.
      When the promoter of the Bill sums up the debate on this group of amendments—I hope that the Minister will be able to guide the House as well—we will require from him reassurance that all the matters raised by the hon. Member for Brent, North, which I am trying to reinforce and, in some cases, to amplify, will be covered by the Bill in its present form, or by amendments to strengthen the effect of the Bill.
      That is the point of the Report stage, and those are the matters that must be dealt with. We must satisfy ourselves that all the conceivable and likely circumstances that may arise with regard to purchase, whether through an agent or an employee or through the licensee himself or herself, will be adequately covered by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 59 touches on a different matter, which rather worries me. In the Bill, the word "bar" is used. For example, proposed new section 169E states:
      A person under eighteen shall be guilty of an offence if, in a bar in licensed premises, he consumes intoxicating liquor.
      Unless I am told later that that is some term of art of which I have hitherto been unaware, my concern is that the use of the word "bar" is far too restrictive. Traditionally, we have been used to terms such as cocktail bar, public bar or lounge bar, although those are rapidly going out of fashion. They were the terms that I was used to when I was introduced to drinking alcohol.
      We have gone far beyond that. The sorts of premises on which intoxicating liquor is now sold vary enormously from the traditional concepts that I have just mentioned, and include, as the hon. Member for Brent, North said, pub gardens, which are becoming increasingly popular, to say nothing of theme pubs, where the point of the exercise and the attraction of the premises is that they are much more varied. Theme pubs may contain many more different rooms, styles and areas in which the consumption of intoxicating liquor can take place.
      The worry is that the use of the term "bar" may turn out to be overly restrictive. There is at least the possibility that loopholes could arise in cases where the physical premises were not properly covered by the terms of the Bill.
      That is even more the case in the light of the Government's excellent proposals—as I told the Home Secretary when he introduced them a few weeks ago—to
      1136
      liberalise in a responsible and sensible way the licensing of intoxicating liquor. I praised the proposals at the time; I am not sure that the Home Secretary was pleased about that, but he was gracious, as ever he is.
      However, we must pause and reflect. To the extent that we may sensibly and responsibly liberalise the consumption of intoxicating liquor, we must make sure that the terms of the Bill will cover the possibilities that may arise in the fairly near future, as I understood it from the Home Secretary. We will be guided by the Minister. In the context of what the Home Secretary has recommended and the consultative manner in which he did so, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the Bill will be able to deal with the changes that may well occur in the foreseeable future.
      Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I endorse his comments on the use of the word "bar", which occurs in at least two subsections. From those, it seems that the opportunity for consumption in a part of a pub or licensed premises without a bar would get round the legislation. I do not understand why the word appears at all. If the wording had been "consumption in licensed premises" or "within the curtilage" of such premises, to cover pub gardens, it would have been a much clearer description. I wonder whether the word "bar" is defined in law, anyway.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend reinforces my anxiety. Any of his suggestions would probably be an improvement. I tried rather inelegantly to get round the problem by adding "or similar facility", which I thought would cover all the eventualities, but the unnecessary use of the word "bar" may be unduly restrictive, unless we are told that "bar" is a legal term of art whose coverage is much wider than I thought.
      Maria Eagle rose—
      Mr. Forth: I may be about to get some legal advice.
      Maria Eagle: I do not propose to offer legal advice, not least because I am no longer insured to do so. I do not recall whether I ever came across a definition in law of "bar", but I suspect not. However, it has a common meaning, which the law would pick up immediately. To me, it means the place from where the beer is sold and from which the barman or bar staff serve it. Other rooms would not count as being the bar. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the wording that he proposes—"or similar facility"? Does he mean other rooms within the curtilage, or the garden as well? What is his definition of "or similar facility"?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I had in mind the place where the intoxicating liquor was dispensed. On reflection, I may not have achieved my purpose. The hon. Lady has been helpful. Perhaps I had a mental block and thought of "bar" in the traditional sense of cocktail bar, public bar and lounge bar. The legal definition may be anything over which the liquor is passed in the course of making a sale or a purchase. A trestle table might do—for example, in a pub garden.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, in his rigorous style, has come across—I was going

      1137
      to say "stumbled across", but that would be unfair—a possible lacuna. We are dealing with a 1964 Act, which in the section under discussion envisages only two systems for selling alcohol—licensed premises, which would be the off-licences, and bars, as they existed in 1964.
      My right hon. Friend's terminology "or similar facility" is too tightly related to the old-fashioned concept of a bar. We may need a wider form of words, which would allow for theme park situations, where there may not be a trestle table, a bar or a counter, and people may be served alcohol in odd locations. The alcohol may all come from a kitchen or a bar pantry, and there may be no bar or counter as such. My right hon. Friend is on to a valid point, but his amendment is still too tight.
      Mr. Forth: The more I think about the matter as the debate proceeds, the more I am inclined to plead guilty to what my right hon. Friend has just said. My amendment is defective. I can envisage circumstances in which, say, on a hot day, someone was serving drinks out of a large refrigerator direct to the public for payment of cash. There might be nothing remotely like a bar or trestle table in sight, but the serving and the transaction would still take place.
      Maria Eagle: In some premises, which have been described in newspapers in the past year, one can serve oneself because there is a tap on every table. Where is the bar in those circumstances?
      11 am
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government to make a statement on the worsening crisis in Sierra Leone? We learned through the media yesterday and this morning that the Government have shifted their position and extended the mandate for British troops to stay in Sierra Leone by four weeks beyond the original task. Conservative Members—I hope all hon. Members—are worried about the families of those serving in Sierra Leone. They need much greater clarification.
      There seems to be confusion between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. It has been suggested that there might be a commitment for as far ahead as 2001. The Government owe it to the House to clarify the position. What is the mission statement? What are our troops expected to do? The Government should explain that as quickly as possible because the families of those serving will be worried until that moment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the appropriate Ministers have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      Mr. Forth: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston for her intervention. The more we consider clause 1, the more we need solid reassurance from the promoter, or the Minister, that he is satisfied that it is both as tight and as wide ranging as it should be. Section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964, to which the clause applies,
      1138
      provides that previous sections do not apply when the sale, purchase or consumption of alcohol takes place at a meal in the part of the licensed premises that is not a bar and is usually set aside for the service of meals. In a roundabout way, that gives a hint of the variety of ways in which intoxicating liquor can properly be purchased and consumed.
      Mr. O'Brien: It may help the right hon. Gentleman if I explain that a bar is an area designated by the licensing justices in granting the licence. It is therefore specified in the licence.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. On the face of it, his comment appears to set the matter at rest. I shall not therefore explore it further.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) explained about the training of children to drink alcohol sensibly by buying drinks and giving them to children in small quantities in pub gardens. Would not my right hon. Friend's amendment make that impossible? Specifying any facilities in licensed premises would make it an offence for a child under 18 to consume the alcohol that had been bought on the premises in a pub garden.
      Mr. Forth: The more I consider the matter, the more that I realise that I shall probably not want to press my amendment. I shall not make a final decision until I hear the Minister's comments. However, in view of my hon. Friend's point, I have probably missed the target by a wide mark.
      Mr. Gardiner: I want to correct the impression that I had said that part of the education of young children about responsible drinking would take place in pub gardens. I used the example of the pub garden on a separate point. There should be a proper role in the home for parents to give children under the age of 18 the chance to acquire a taste for alcohol responsibly. I was happy for that to happen in the home, but less happy about its occurrence in pub gardens.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that clarification.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend shares my interest in our relations with the United States. Does he believe that the Minister's definition of bar is adequate? Perhaps my right hon. Friend has visited Ye Olde King's Head in Santa Monica, California. I was a student there—at the university of Southern California, not Ye Olde King's Head. However, I spent some time at Ye Olde King's Head. Although it had a bar, most Americans tended not to sit at the bar because there were also tables there. Strangely enough—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he is making an intervention. I call Mr. Forth.
      Mr. Forth: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to weave those comments into his speech. However, I am grateful to him, because his intervention reinforces my

      1139
      point and shows the Minister that, despite his helpful intervention, he will perhaps want to set our minds totally at rest when he winds up.
      I want briefly to consider amendment No. 53. Despite the marvellous, succinct history lesson given to us by the hon. Member for Brent, North, I was not entirely satisfied with his explanation for wanting to change the status of the House of Commons. My hon. Friends and I were puzzled that the amendment applied only to the House of Commons, not to the Palace of Westminster; it would be anomalous for it to apply only to this end of the Palace. It is possible to deal with the Palace from this end, and for their lordships to consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place, as it will shortly.
      Even if we accepted the aims of amendment No. 53, I am not satisfied that it makes sense to restrict them to the Commons end of the Palace.
      Mr. Fabricant: Surely my right hon. Friend does not support this potential constitutional outrage? It would be bad enough to perpetrate it on the House of Commons without extending it to the House of Lords.
      Mr. Forth: I certainly do not support it. I am simply making my preliminary observations. I had not begun to describe my feeling about the thrust of the amendment and was making the point almost in passing. I am surprised that my hon. Friend is not able distinguish between my passing and substantive comments. However, my point was valid and the hon. Member for Brent, North implied that he agreed. If we want to accept amendment No. 53, it would be better to apply it to the Palace of Westminster rather than the House of Commons. However, I do not want to accept it.
      Mr. Gardiner: I appreciate that the rights and privileges of hon. Members are a sensitive issue, and an amendment that applies only to the House of Commons can be properly debated by its Members. The House of Lords will be able to table amendments in due course and introduce a similar provision for the other place.
      Mr. Forth: I give the hon. Gentleman some friendly advice. I would not want to suggest amendments to be made in another place at this stage of the legislative year, for reasons that he will doubtless understand on reflection. If we want to amend the Bill, we should do it properly here, so that it requires no amendment in another place. I am sure that the promoter understands that. The amendment is therefore defective.
      My genuine objection to the amendment arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, North. He said that we should treat the House of Commons, or the Palace of Westminster, like any other premises for the purpose of the Bill. I disagree. This is a special place in many ways, not only because it is a royal palace, which grants it different status. I was worried by the implication that it is almost as easy for someone under 18 to be tempted to, or manage to, purchase intoxicating liquor on these premises as it is anywhere else. I hope that that is not the case.
      I would add in passing that it has long been my view that we perhaps encourage too many very young people to visit the House. Although I am keen to encourage young people of a proper age to come to the Palace of
      1140
      Westminster and learn what we do here, some excessively young people cannot possibly understand what is going on. Given that, I should have thought that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a young person to buy liquor in the House. If that is easy, we should consider our procedures rather than legislate in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever in giving way to me again. If we expect the rest of the country to understand, and comply with, the law, is it not important that we are seen to do so ourselves? Is not the problem public acceptance of the Bill, given that the licensing laws are not applicable here and this place is subject to the sensitivities of parliamentary privilege? The public may think that we have made an exception for ourselves. Is that not the nub of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)?
      Mr. Forth: That is a respectable argument, but I do not accept it. I know that the hon. Lady is not trying to be devious in any way, nor even trying to be seductive in the way in which she puts the argument, but in my wilder moments I might think that she was trying to introduce the thin end of a wedge with which we have become familiar recently: why should we not have the same working conditions, working hours and so on as people elsewhere? My answer is that the House is not a factory or an office; it is a legislature. It is legitimate to discuss the fact that we do things differently and, some might think, rather eccentrically here, but I am not yet persuaded that we should necessarily make what we do, how we do it and the environment in which we do it the same as in an office or factory. I am always prepared to say, "Yes, of necessity, we do things differently here," because legislating is an unusual process. This morning's proceedings illustrate that all too well. The environment in which we legislate is, of necessity, often very different.
      I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Members for Brent, North and for Garston that we should always be role models for people outside. I accept that there is a place for role models, but it is often over-emphasised. If one considers the idolatry heaped on people as eccentric as footballers or pop singers, considerable difficulties arise. I suspect that few people try to emulate Members of Parliament. Offhand, I cannot think of anyone who, in his right mind, would do so in any circumstances. I am not too worried about people considering what we do here and saying, "Let's have some of that." I suspect that that is a minuscule, almost infinitesimally small risk to run. I do not want to flog this to death, but, although I understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Pudsey, I do not agree with him. For the reasons that I have given, the amendment is defective.
      The thrust of my speech is that, although it is accepted that the House very much wants to support the Bill and to give it a fair wind, it is our responsibility to ensure, as far as possible, that it covers all eventualities, that it is fit for its purpose, that it will do what we all want it to do—no more, no less—and that we can spot no loopholes in it. That is the purpose of my amendments and my few remarks. I hope that the Bill's promoter and the Minister can guide the House to a conclusion about which we feel happy so that we can pass it on to its next stage.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Truswell: I am exhausted with respect for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). If he would like to join me in proposing a Bill to license and regulate Pokemon card sales, I would welcome his assistance. As always, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made an admirable, perceptive and incisive contribution.
      I need not remind the House that I have lobbied for two and a half years to close the loophole that the Bill primarily addresses. Everyone will be aware of the tragic death of David Knowles, which gave rise to the Bill, so I shall not rehearse those details or circumstances today. However, I was somewhat perturbed that the Library had catalogued its briefing on my Bill under the heading "Sport and Leisure". I asked myself, "Whose sport and whose leisure?" However, given the number of amendments tabled, I suspect that the Library staff were blessed with paranormal foresight, because my Bill is clearly giving Members good sport. I do not use the word "sport" in any demeaning or pejorative sense, because all the issues that have been raised today are of the utmost seriousness.
      Faced with the amendments, I feel like the holder of the parliamentary equivalent of the fairground dodgem concession. I have some ownership of the structure and its contents, but now find that hon. Members are understandably and legitimately piling in and driving around in host of directions. No doubt they will bump into each other occasionally. That is their prerogative, but I hope that they will not bump too heavily into me or my Bill.
      Hon. Members will know that, from the outset, my aim was simple and straightforward: to close the loophole in the Licensing Act 1964 highlighted by the tragic death of 14-year-old David Knowles, my constituent. I need not rehearse the circumstances in greater detail because all hon. Members will be aware of them. In securing the assistance of the House in closing that loophole, I shall fulfil my pledge to David's parents to do all I can to secure that objective. The Bill, as amended in Committee, will achieve it fully and comprehensively.
      I stress that the amendments are not necessary to improve the Bill, which has a narrow remit. I entirely take on board all the comments that have been made, especially by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that many of the matters that have been or are due to be discussed are not important or valid in a much wider consideration of licensing law. They most certainly are. I find myself to be the parliamentary India rubber man; I completely agree and sympathise with many of the amendments, but cannot support them for the reasons that I have given. I have always wanted the Bill to be as targeted and precise as possible.
      I was tempted to include other measures, many of which are the subject of amendments. The licensing laws are generally thought to be outdated and, as we know from the White Paper, they are in need of major overhaul. I succumbed only once to that temptation, to include a measure—which, I believe, the House supported unanimously—to outlaw proxy purchasing. However, I remain conscious of the need to avoid over-stretching my
      1142
      ambitions and over-balancing into the oblivion of that dark pit filled with the remnants of so many private Members' Bills.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might be interested to know that I had a vision—perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a nightmare—of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) standing in that metaphorical charnel house of perished private Members' Bills, holding a decaying copy of my Bill and uttering the words, "Alas poor Pudsey, we knew him, Bromley. He must have been a man of infinite jest to think that he could get away with this lot." I must apologise for referring to the right hon. Gentleman when he is not in the Chamber. That terrible vision has guided my every step in this matter, and it is why I have tried to be specific and have concentrated on closing the loophole.
      The Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill were admirably summed up by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). He said that we were all hon. Friends with regard to the Bill, and I hope that that still obtains. However, some of the amendments in this and other groups would clearly break that unanimity.
      My Bill was intended to repair anomalies in the 1964 Act. It is not intended to build a brand new production line model, tempting though that objective may be. That is a broader and more comprehensive task than can be discharged by my humble private Member's Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members will raise matters that should, and I hope will, be taken into account by the Minister in the comprehensive review of licensing legislation outlined in the recent White Paper.
      Nevertheless, a number of issues have been raised that I hope the Minister will want to discuss with me if we have the opportunity, with the possibility of enshrining them in the Bill if that is possible within the narrow confines that I have described and that I have been working to.
      As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, I am pleased that my Bill has fulfilled this further purpose of promoting much broader debate. It has prompted a broader discussion on a much wider range of very important issues. Most of the amendments, if not all, are intended to signal to the Minister the feelings of the House on those broader issues. I know that he will be mindful of many of them, and will no doubt treat each of them with the seriousness that they deserve, and will respond accordingly. I shall not attempt to steal his thunder.
      It is an added benefit that my Bill has acted as a catalyst for such a wide-ranging debate. It is fair to say that it is a dress rehearsal for a much more comprehensive series of debates that I hope will take place in the near future. Those debates will be based on the issues raised by the White Paper and subsequent proposals for legislation.
      In conclusion, although I am pleased that my Bill has acted as a catalyst, I remind the House that a catalyst is an agent that, while promoting a reaction—a beneficial reaction it is hoped—remains unchanged itself. I hope that the outcome of today's debate will be that my Bill will stand as amended in Committee, and that Members will understand the reason why I am arguing that particular line.
      Mr. Fabricant: Like many other hon. Members, I give the Bill my general support. Under-age drinking continues

      1143
      to be a problem in the United Kingdom, and it is important that we try to close the loopholes that enable it to happen. I praise the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for promoting the Bill, and also the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who has tabled some worthwhile amendments. I do not know whether the amendments will be pressed to a vote, but they warrant the House's consideration. They would improve the Bill and would close the loopholes that the Bill is designed to close.
      I shall address in particular the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, North. Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 concern the buying or obtaining of alcohol. The hon. Gentleman rightly argued that there are alternative ways to obtain alcohol that may not involve the passing of money across a bar. Alcohol may be bought on credit—on tick, to use his words. Drinks may be put on the slate.
      The hon. Gentleman gave the example of the cartoon strip character Andy Capp, which I think is still published in The Mirror. I invite Labour Members, who probably read The Mirror more often than I do, to correct me if I am wrong. I gather from their silence that I am not wrong. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that Andy Capp is syndicated throughout the United States. What they make of the character I do not know.
      People can obtain alcohol by various means other than simple purchase. Without amendments Nos. 30 and 32, that dangerous loophole would continue to enable young people to obtain alcohol. I invite the Minister to explain his position on that.
      Amendment No. 39 concerns the delivery of alcohol, and is of particular interest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised the issue of internet sales. There are also telephone sales, as a result of which someone may make a delivery to a home and find that they are delivering to a younger person. Waitrose.com operated such a service when the John Lewis Partnership acquired Findlater Mackie Todd. No one would accuse a company as respected as John Lewis of being anything other than a highly responsible organisation. Should we put such a burden on delivery drivers working for John Lewis that they may break the law if they deliver alcohol to a home and unwittingly give it to someone under the age of 18?
      I do not have to remind the House that, nowadays, younger people tend to look older.
      Mr. Ms Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: In a moment.
      It is depressing that when I am occasionally invited to give prizes at a school speech day, the 18-year-olds to whom I am giving the prizes seem considerably taller and much more mature than I.
      I shall now give way to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I shall first give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I suspect that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and I want to make the same point. Deliveries to someone's residence or working place would not be in breach of the law, and we need to
      1144
      explore that matter later. My concern is about the charity event, the function or the political do. People may be setting things up and someone arrives to deliver the drink for that event. A 16 or 17-year-old working there may take charge of the delivery and assist in setting up the bar. That would not be covered by the provision in new section 169F(4).
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is right. Under proposed new section 169F(4),
      if the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser
      subsections (1) and (2) do not apply. Is that in itself a loophole? Would that allow younger people legally to order alcohol so that delivery is made to the home? Does that issue need to be addressed?
      Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that to hold the difficulties of e-commerce against such a Bill as this is unrealistic, as everyone knows that e-commerce is fraught with all kinds of regulatory problems?
      11.30 am
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point in relation to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has referred to the e-word and will not bring himself to say e-mail. Huge problems will arise from the growth in e-commerce, not least in terms of the collection of indirect revenues by Customs and Excise. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) chooses to buy his compact discs from Tower Records in New York off the internet. One wonders whether the VAT is paid when the goods are delivered to the UK.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendments before us.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am not so sure about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Give the Deputy Speaker the benefit of the doubt.
      Mr. Fabricant: I always give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is right to say that nothing we try to do in limiting the powers of the Bill should impact on e-commerce. Nevertheless, we must recognise that more and more purchases are likely to be made from home, rather than at retail premises.
      I welcome the fact that the Bill includes a proposal concerning deliveries made at a residence or working place of the purchaser. However, that in itself could be a loophole. What if a young person at his place of work were to place an order for alcohol to be delivered to his place of work or home? Would that still be legal because of the proposal?
      Amendment No. 59, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, concerns the legal definition of "bar". I accept the Minister's advice on this, but I remain concerned that the definition might be restrictive in terms of where alcohol should be sold. It

      1145
      was right for my right hon. Friend to table the amendment to include the words "or similar facility" to broaden the definition.
      We have heard about beer gardens, theme pubs and so on. I wish to refer to the different ways in which drink is served nowadays in pubs. When I was doing a doctorate at the university of Southern California 20 years ago—
      Mr. Gardiner: More than that!
      Mr. Fabricant: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic may be more accurate than mine. While I was studying for my degree in southern California, I spent some private study time in Ye Olde King's Head in Santa Monica. I was relieved to find last year that that bar is still running. Often, trends in the United States are copied here in the UK. It was not like a pub that one would find in the UK and it was built in 1953. I was not around in 1953.
      Mr. Heald: Oh yes you were.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right, but I was not drinking beer in Ye Olde King's Head in Santa Monica. The point is that, more often nowadays, drinks are served at the table and not at the bar. If so, despite the assurances given by the Minister this morning, I wonder whether there is a major loophole in the Bill—a Bill we all want to succeed.
      Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: I will give way to the hon. Lady, who is a respected lawyer not only in Liverpool, but throughout this House.
      Maria Eagle: I was not aware that my fame had spread beyond Liverpool in that respect. I do not pretend to be a lawyer any more, as I am no longer insured and I no longer give legal advice. I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Would he attempt to define "similar facility" so that we can better understand precisely how the phrase extends the definition of a bar? I am not certain that it does.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady says that she is not a lawyer, but the perception shown in her question demonstrates that she still is. She makes an interesting point, and we can only go by common sense. "Similar facility" means a facility that is similar to that which has been described as a bar. If we define a bar as a place of serving, then a "similar facility" is inadequate. If we say that a "similar facility" is a facility at which alcohol can be served, that is adequate. [Interruption.] I should go into more detail, as the House seems confused. There are facilities at a bar, including pumps and optics. A table is the recipient place for alcohol, and there is no mechanism for producing drink.
      Maria Eagle: There has been publicity in the past year about a pub with pumps at each table, and the newspapers
      1146
      wondered whether this promoted too much drinking. Does not that destroy the distinction that the hon. Gentleman has just made?
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady is right on the point of law, but it seems unlikely that such places will spread. It would seem that a great deal of trust would be involved if one could put coins on the table and get as much alcohol as one liked—unless people are more trustworthy than I give them credit for.
      Mr. Gardiner: The licensing law reform panel, of which I was a member, visited a pub in Denmark that had barrels at the end of each table. It was an extremely popular facility and one that the proprietors had franchised and were hoping to propagate throughout Europe. It is possible to gauge the amount of flow, as one does with a petrol pump, and charge accordingly.
      Mr. Fabricant: That is an interesting point. One wonders how the drink is paid for. If one puts coins in a slot, one is purchasing at that point, and—this is directly relevant to the amendments, in case you were thinking of ruling me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if one can swipe a card, as at a petrol station, that is credit, which is one of the forms of payment dealt with in some of the amendments.
      In any case, such facilities are a worrying development, both because they may encourage people to drink more and because they widen the definition of "bar", which is an issue that we must address before enacting the Bill.
      Now we come to the very vexed question of amendment No. 53, which is designed to extend the legislation to the House of Commons. I fully accept that codes of behaviour that we seek to impose on others ought to be followed by ourselves. We do not want to be hypocrites. Indeed, I believe that the word "hypocrite" applied to another Member of Parliament would be unparliamentary language. We should not legislate and then, in principle, break the laws that we have created. However, I worry when small but important pieces of legislation erode the privilege that has existed for hundreds of years in this place.
      This is not only a legislature: it is a royal palace. If we are to include the House of Commons and the other place, as the hon. Member for Brent, North has suggested, should not we include all royal palaces? Perhaps he will intervene to say whether we should do that to set an example.
      Mr. Gardiner: I can never resist the temptation to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, especially when he offers so courteously.
      There is a principle involved. If we want respect for the laws that we pass, we must be seen to abide by them ourselves. There is no good reason why any institution should be exempt simply by virtue of its being a royal palace.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes his arguments powerfully. I am suggesting not that individuals in the House of Commons break the rules, but that the rules may not necessarily apply or be enforced here. I would not want any Member of Parliament to commit a crime outside or inside this place, even though

      1147
      it may not be defined as a crime inside. It behoves us all to set a good example, but whether the example should be set by virtue of its being demanded in the Bill is a moot point. If Members of Parliament choose to behave honourably, as we would expect others outside the House to behave, not because it is demanded by an Act of Parliament but because we want to set an example, surely that is even better.
      11.45 am
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman came perilously close to suggesting that parliamentary privilege extends to criminal activities. Our privilege allows us to speak freely, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy, but does he accept that it does not extend to allowing us to commit crimes?
      Mr. Fabricant: That is an interesting point of law, to which I do not know the answer. The Minister is looking especially blank at the moment, so I suspect that he may not know the answer either, although he may perhaps find it out before he winds up the debate.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do know the answer, but I was enjoying watching the hon. Gentleman squirm a little.
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether I might invite the Minister to elucidate, because the answer is directly relevant to whether we would want to support amendment No. 53.
      Mr. O'Brien: We are covered by the criminal law. We are privileged in respect of what we say, and not so much in respect of what we do. If the hon. Gentleman were to commit a crime here, I am afraid that he could be prosecuted—although I am sure that he would not do such a thing.
      Mr. Fabricant: That is helpful and suggests that my concerns about amendment No. 53 may be unfounded—it may not create a precedent. However, I rather suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may want to make a counter-point.
      Mr. Heald: Page 74 of "Erskine May" says that there was a resolution in 1626
      that the privilege of this House is that no peer of Parliament—
      which apparently includes us—
      sitting the Parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House, unless it be for treason or felony, or for refusing to give surety of the peace.
      That was apparently extended later to cover other crimes.
      Mr. Fabricant: That would seem to be in direct conflict with the advice that we have just received from the Minister. We need to take time to determine whether we can be prosecuted—not that I am advocating that anyone in the House should commit a crime. Regardless of whether we are protected from the criminal law, nobody would wish to commit a crime or to set a bad example in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend reflect on this point? If it is appropriate for the Palace of Westminster and the House to set an example, surely we can do that with our own simple code of rules and procedures, without having to incorporate every jot and tittle of the criminal law, which is designed to prevent unscrupulous people from exploiting loopholes.
      We have a host of rules, such as no smoking in the Corridor behind the Speaker's Chair. I hope that a rule will shortly be introduced banning the use of mobile phones in the Pugin Room. We have a whole range of rules of etiquette and procedure that rightly do not apply to people outside, and we can discipline ourselves internally. if we want to set an example by not selling or handing alcohol to youngsters, we can do that through our internal rules in all the relevant bars.
      Mr. Fabricant: That is an interesting point, but are those rules not similar to byelaws? Are not they additional laws rather than replacements for those that exist outside? I suspect that they are additional, so my right hon. Friend's point, powerful though it is, may not be entirely relevant in this case.
      Mr. Gardiner: I agree that regulations on such things as mobile phones would be part of the rules of any institution, club or group in the country, but all such groups are covered by the laws governing the sale of alcohol, and would be covered by this Bill. However, the peculiarities of the House mean that its catering and refreshment services are not governed by the licensing laws. Amendment No. 53 would simply ensure that the Bill would apply to the House as much as to the rest of the country.
      Mr. Fabricant: What the hon. Gentleman says is right, from the point of view of the law. However, the House is the second oldest Parliament in the world, after Iceland's Althing, and we must not risk throwing away its traditions and independence. The ratchet effect evident in the reform of the House of Lords means that, once made, a change is difficult to reverse.
      It is interesting that the Bill as drafted did not contain the provision proposed in amendment No. 53. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) deliberately chose not to include the House of Commons in the provisions of his Bill. The hon. Gentleman is well known to have a great sense of historic tradition, and to understand that the House's value lies in its freedom and independence. Hon. Members can legislate here without fear of outside intervention.
      Mr. Truswell: To clarify that point, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I left untouched most of the existing legislation. I touched only those parts that I had to in order to close the loophole that I had identified.
      Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North said that the Bill would affect the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons. I have the great privilege to serve on the House of Commons Catering Committee, which was mentioned earlier. I hope that hon. Members do not expect me to pass on complaints to members of staff, but the

      1149
      hours worked by both Houses of Parliament set this organisation apart. The laws that govern organisations outside the House cannot apply here, although I repeat that there is no wish to be hypocritical: we must not make laws that we subsequently ignore.
      I do not agree with amendment No. 53, and consider that it would not be wise to accept it. The hon. Member for Pudsey is right: effective law is simple and addresses the point. Overall, the Bill does just that. The hon. Gentleman has explained why he has introduced it, and both he and the family of his constituent will have the sympathy of the whole House. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has the admiration of the House for introducing the Bill, but its proposals must be kept simple. Amendment No. 53 merely complicates matters, and it should be rejected. However, I wish the Bill as a whole well, and hope that it receives a fair passage this morning.
      Maria Eagle: Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), the promoter of the Bill. I listened carefully when he told the House why the Bill is drafted so narrowly. I understand that approach completely, as I attempted to promote a Bill last year and know the restrictions and difficulties that can be encountered. I have no intention of diverting my hon. Friend from the purpose that he set out so clearly. The amendments in my name are probing amendments that will allow one or two points to be made, but I shall not press them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) promoted a Bill similar to this last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey won a higher place in the ballot than did my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley last year. Her Bill managed to get a short Second Reading, but it did not get the time that has been devoted to this Bill. My short but intense experience of these matters leaves me with no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will have been helped by the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley went through last year. We should not forget her when we pass out congratulations on this Bill.
      Mr. Truswell: I should like to clarify one matter. I introduced a Bill to try to close the loophole highlighted by the tragic death of David Knowles a year before my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) introduced her Bill. Moreover, my hon. Friend's Bill went considerably further than this Bill, and would have been more contentious.
      Maria Eagle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was forgetting his ten-minute Bill on this subject.
      Mr. Truswell: I also had a Presentation Bill on this subject.
      Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend has put in even more effort than I realised, over a sustained period of time. I am sure that the parents of his constituent will be grateful to him for the effort that he has put in, and we all wish the Bill well.
      The debate has made it very clear that it is much more complicated to change the licensing laws than is generally realised. That is one reason why I want to emphasise that
      1150
      I shall not press the amendments in my name, but I shall take this opportunity to explain why I decided to table them.
      Amendment No. 5 would insert the word "knowingly" in clause 1, thus making express knowledge a requirement of the selling offence. Licensing laws fail because they are so complex, and because it is difficult to bring prosecutions under them. The amendments probe the extent of the offence and how easily the prosecuting authorities can prove that a licensee or purchaser has committed an offence.
      Some of the amendments that I wish to speak to in the first group relate to amendments in the second group. I make no complaint about the grouping of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that it is difficult to group amendments in a way that always puts together the ones that should be together. However, I will have to make some further points when we reach the second group of amendments.
      The amendments in the first group appear to be contradictory. Some appear to make the offence harder to prove, while others appear to make it easier to prove. Would express knowledge in the selling offence help or hinder in terms of getting more prosecutions? Would having an absolute offence, with defences, make it easier for prosecutions to be successful, or would having an absolute offence and no defence, while requiring express knowledge, make it easier? My amendments explore what the licensee should be required to know for a prosecution to go ahead. One of the important issues is how easy it is to prosecute and how successful prosecutions are.
      12 noon
      Mr. Fabricant: Is the word "knowingly" necessary? Is it not the case that in English law, one must have a guilty mind—mens rea? To be guilty, one must knowingly commit an offence, so "knowingly" would be tautologous in this instance.
      Maria Eagle: There are some offences in which mens rea as well as actus reus are required, and there are other offences of strict liability in which only actus reus is required. That is the basic legal position—I remember some of my legal training, even though I no longer practice law.
      To include the word "knowingly" in the selling offence restores the position that applied before 1988. The Licensing Act 1988 removed "knowingly" from the selling offence. The House should consider whether the legislation was successful in its aim of making it easier to prosecute. Including "knowingly" requires express knowledge by the licensee. It is quite a hard test to meet. To prosecute successfully, the prosecuting authorities would have to be able to show that the licensee had express knowledge—not that he suspected, or did not check—and that it was in his mind when he made the sale that the person to whom he was selling alcohol was under age.
      I have checked with the police in my area about this, and I shall come on to their views soon. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will remember the Licensing Act 1988, as he was active in Home Office affairs at the time. The purpose of removing "knowingly" from the offence of selling, according to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North

      1151
      Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who was the Minister in charge of the legislation and proposed the amendment, was to try to make it easier to prosecute the offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:—
      The main change that we propose is to delete the requirement of "knowingly" from the first limb of the offence—
      the selling offence. He went on:
      The justification for making that change is that it is too difficult to prove, in the context of that offence, that the person had the required knowledge.—[Official Report,3 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1005.]
      That was why "knowingly" was removed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that would put more of an onus on the licensee and make it easier to prosecute him if he sold alcohol to someone under 18.
      As a counterbalance to that additional burden on the licensee, some defences were added to the legislation. If the licensee could show that he had exercised all due diligence before making the sale, that was a defence. If he could show that he had no reason to suspect that the person to whom he sold alcohol was under 18, that would also constitute a defence.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady will be aware that the licensing trade is introducing voluntary identity cards. Would not her amendment detract from that useful initiative?
      Maria Eagle: There are amendments on the Order Paper about proof of age. I am well aware of the Portman Group's identity card, which appears to be very successful, from what I have read. It seems to have been taken up quite widely by young people, although it is voluntary, and by licensees. Of course, most licensing justices have codes of practice and they encourage people who apply for licences to consider various proof-of-age schemes. If my memory is correct, the White Paper "Time For Reform: Proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws" refers to proof-of-age schemes, which the Government probably think are a good idea. Perhaps schemes should be not voluntary, but statutory, requiring that a licensee must make inquiries about a person's age.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, in the next group, would, unfortunately, insert defences. My amendments would restore the 1964 position. The research paper on the Bill produced by the Library contains, on page 16, section E, statistics on prosecution. The black line showing successful prosecutions rises sharply after the passage of the Licensing Act 1988, but has declined precipitously since. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that changing the selling offence should make prosecution easier, but it seems that there was a blip, since when successful prosecutions have plummeted. Is that because the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to make prosecution easier was not achieved?
      My amendment is intended to provoke the House to consider whether putting the onus on the licensee is the right balance. The Bill sets out several separate offences: sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18; allowing sale; purchase; consumption; delivery; and sending a person under 18 to obtain. In a more comprehensive scheme—I do not want to import such a scheme entirely into my hon. Friend's Bill—it might be appropriate to have different tests that the licensee would have to employ
      1152
      or levels of proof that the person charged would have to satisfy. Perhaps we should consider the guidelines and principles required for such requirements, and the amendments are intended to provoke discussion about that.
      In some cases, there is a personal responsibility. In the selling offence, the person charged is the licensee who sold the drink. Perhaps the standard expected of such a person should be higher than that for someone charged with allowing someone else to sell, or where selling has happened in his premises while he was not keeping a sufficiently careful eye on it. There could be different requirements for different offences. The highest standard expected of the licensee should apply where he himself sells and is able to influence the outcome of the selling. But it may be sensible to provide a lower standard to make it easier to prosecute the licensee where the offence is more directly his.
      On offences such as those in proposed in new section 169C, which relate to purchasing by persons under 18, the licensee could be fooled, and it may be more sensible to include the word "knowingly" so that it becomes more difficult for the licensee to be successfully prosecuted. Additional safeguards could be included, requiring, for example, that the licensee actively seeks proof of age and satisfies himself about it. The fear is that an indifferent landlord might get away without being prosecuted.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. Let us suppose that an obviously young person ordered a drink in a bar and had an identity card fallaciously showing him or her to be over 18. Does she think that, despite the fact that the identity card was forged, the barman or the person selling the drink could be successfully prosecuted under the measure, without the inclusion of the word "knowingly"?
      Maria Eagle: There are two ways to protect that person. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the licensee should be protected in such cases and that one should concentrate more on the person who fraudulently claimed to be over 18 in order to purchase alcohol. One way is to require express knowledge, although there are circumstances in which that would allow culpable people off the hook.
      The second way would be to remove "knowingly", but to include defences that would cover cases such as those outlined by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, amendment No. 9 was intended to be helpful in that respect. It would introduce the word "recklessly", which would apply to the allowing offence. It may assist our discussions if I say a little about the meaning of recklessness.
      There are two definitions of the word as it is generally understood in common law—a subjective one and an objective one. They are known as the Cunningham and the Caldwell definitions. Cunningham recklessness is the subjective type. It requires that whoever is accused of recklessness must
      be shown to have foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done, and has nevertheless gone ahead
      and committed, or not committed, the act that has led to the risk being taken. The Caldwell definition is the more objective one. Under that, the accused person has not thought about the action at all, and has done something that an ordinary person, with any common sense, could

      1153
      foresee would result in danger from recklessness. To use that concept of recklessness would be a halfway house between nothing and "knowingly". The inclusion of that concept would aid the prosecution of some offences.
      We must consider where it is most appropriate to include that provision. If "knowingly" is thought to be too much of a barrier to prosecution—for example, in the selling or the allowing offences—"recklessness" could be inserted instead, as a halfway house. Thus, if there is evidence that the licensee was recklessly indifferent—that he knew his obligations but did not carry them out, because he was unsure whether the person was under 18—he could be prosecuted.
      The insertion of the word "recklessness" in the offence may be helpful; it might do what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was trying to do in 1988, when he removed "knowingly" from the selling offence and inserted some defences in the hope that that would lead to more prosecutions and convictions. Perhaps we need to ratchet that down a little by introducing the concept of recklessness. I should be interested to know whether my hon. Friend the Minister is considering that concept as an aid to ensuring more prosecutions, as part of the general review occasioned by the White Paper.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady's argument is most persuasive. It reminds me of the concept in English law—indeed, in Talmudic law—of duty of care. Is not that the point? It puts the onus on the seller to have a duty of care towards the person to whom he or she is selling.
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to be introducing civil law to a discussion on criminal law—
      Mr. Fabricant: I was thinking of the Talmudic sense.
      Maria Eagle: I regret that my legal and religious studies did not extend to Talmudic law. Legally, duty of care is more of a civil issue in respect of negligence, so my view remains that "recklessness" is the appropriate word.
      When we consider changing the licensing laws to make them more effective and to ensure that we prevent under-age drinking, it is also important to consider what will work. There is no point in having complex or even simple offences that can be easily understood and defined if the practical effect is that prosecutions are difficult and the deterrent effect, which successful prosecutions represent, does not come into force.
      12.15 pm
      It is interesting to examine what has happened since the last major change was made to the licensing laws. Page 16 of the Library research paper contains licensing and prosecution statistics. They show that the general trend is a decline in the number of prosecutions and convictions and a fairly steady trend for the number of licences in force. The number of licences has gone up and down slightly, but the trend is fairly steady. However, the number of convictions secured against people for selling alcohol to under-age drinkers has plummeted, even though the number has just begun gently to climb back up.
      1154
      The most important thing that we can do, in redefining the offences, is to simplify them and make them more effective. That requires that they work, so that prosecutions are successful when they are mounted. I assume, of course, that prosecutions are not undertaken unless the prosecuting authorities believe that they can secure a conviction. For the graph to show that the number of convictions has fallen so far suggests that there is a problem with the definition of the offences.
      The graph suggests that there might be a problem with the enforcing authorities and that they might be taking too lax a view of under-age drinking. To investigate that possibility when I was considering whether my amendments would be helpful, I contacted a sergeant in the licensing section of Merseyside police and asked him about his experience. He told me that some requirements of the law on express knowledge are so complex that they do not just prevent successful prosecutions, but prevent prosecutions from being mounted at all. Therefore, other sanctions, such as warnings, tend to be used. If someone has a record of breaches of the licensing law, a revocation of his licence may be pursued. However, prosecutions are low on the list of sanctions because it is difficult to mount them successfully.
      The figures in the Library research paper suggest that that problem is widespread and that it is not found only in the area covered by the licensing justices in south Liverpool. That is because the requirement to identify express knowledge is such a high hurdle that people no longer attempt to do it. The introduction of the concept of recklessness may assist and do everyone a service by ensuring that more prosecutions are mounted and that, when they are, more of them are successful. That can only act as a deterrent to irresponsible licence holders.
      Later, we shall deal with the problems that do not arise from licence holders themselves, but it is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey felt confident that the proxy purchase provisions, which were in last year's Licensing (Young Persons) Bill, would achieve a consensus in the House. Therefore, he felt able to reintroduce them in Committee given that they were not in this Bill as originally drafted. He is attempting to deal with the loophole that has been brought to his attention, and he has done everyone a service by introducing the proxy purchase provisions. It is important that those provisions are included in the Bill if licensing law is to be improved and simplified.
      We must consider the position of prosecuting authorities and police officers on the ground, and how practicable it will be to mount prosecutions. I do not intend to press my amendments, but I hope that they will provoke in the Minister's mind—if not in anyone else's—thoughts about how to proceed. The key point is to ensure that people can be charged with offences that they have committed and prosecutions can be brought successfully without barriers being too high.
      We shall consider defences against prosecution when we debate the second group of amendments, and discuss whether due diligence and express knowledge are important and whether the licence holder can show that he has no reason to believe that a young person is not over 18. However, we must get the balance right because simplifying the law will not work if securing convictions is not possible or practicable.

      1155
      We shall discuss raising the number of convictions when we come to debate the third group of amendments. Statistics show clearly that under-age drinking is a serious problem, although loopholes in the law on that are being addressed. Nevertheless, the number of convictions is too low. Only when we get across to licence holders and those responsible for selling and delivering alcohol the seriousness with which Parliament and society view such problems will we be able to make a real impact on the number of offences and, at last, reduce them significantly. Only when that happens will the problem of under-age drinking be seriously tackled. I have made my point on the present group of amendments, so I shall not detain the House further.
      Mr. Maclean: All the amendments are important, but those in this large group are especially significant, as they contain some key elements. It is therefore right that the House has spent a considerable period discussing the group. We should be able to complete our consideration of the Bill within the allocated time today, allowing it to proceed to its next stage. However, I do not believe that we should curtail unduly our comments on the many amendments in this group.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for getting the Bill this far and for the changes that he has made. I believe that he has looked at previous legislation on the matter. On that point, I am grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) who recited the history of some of last year's private Members' Bills and told us what happened to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I played a part in discussing those Bills which, for various reasons, did not proceed further.
      The hon. Member for Pudsey has had the wisdom to limit the scope of his Bill, which is still complex and amends section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964. He has not attempted to do too much by including in the Bill test purchasing, which we may discuss in a few minutes. However, the Bill is reasonable and its subject matter is entirely appropriate for a private Member's Bill. Of course, it cannot deal with the case of David Knowles, but it can help to prevent such tragedies in future.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey on getting this far and wish him all success for the remaining stages. I echo the sentiments of my right hon. and erudite Friend in suggesting that, as far as possible, we make all necessary amendments in this Chamber. Given the backlog of legislation that might be accumulating in another place, attempting to table amendments there and to get the Bill back here on time might be too tall an order. No doubt, Government business managers know better than I do, but it might be safer to make any amendments in this place because we might run out of time.
      I listened with fascination to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Garston. It is always refreshing to listen to someone who knows their legal subject and who is able to cast some light on some of my concerns. The word "knowingly" does not feature in proposed new section 169A, but it is included in sections 169B and others. Why is there a different emphasis?
      I must confess that I did not do the research that the hon. Member for Garston conducted, and therefore did not discover that my right hon. and learned Friend the
      1156
      Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the previous Conservative Government removed the word "knowingly" in the hope that it would make prosecution easier. I listened also with fascination to the statistics that the hon. Lady quoted. Removal of the word "knowingly" might not have made the dramatic difference that my right hon. and learned Friend had hoped for in 1988.
      New sections 169A, 169B, 169C, 169D, 169E, 169F and so on, attempt to deal with quite different problems: who sells the liquor; who buys it; the manager-type person who allows the sale; who sends someone to buy alcohol for someone who is under age; and delivery. There are many different areas and perhaps there should be different penalties and standards of proof.
      The law always comes down more heavily on the licensee—the seller. I am one of those who believe that the law should come down more heavily on the person who initiates the criminal offence by buying the alcohol. The under-age person who deliberately sets out to buy alcohol is committing the greater moral wrong and a greater crime than the person who knowingly, unwittingly or without due diligence sells it.
      That might be an odd view; it is not generally accepted and I perfectly understand why it is much easier to prosecute the licensee. It is much easier to penalise that person because he or she has more to lose, can usually afford to pay higher penalties and is easier to catch. I merely flag up the point that, if we are to tackle alcohol abuse, although we must of course clobber people—whether they work in supermarkets, off-licences, pubs, bars or other facilities, whatever they may be—who carelessly, negligently or deliberately break the law by selling alcohol to young people, with potentially disastrous consequences, as we have seen, we must not at the same time sit back as legislators and say, "We have clobbered the sellers and plugged every possible loophole in the sale, delivery and supply of alcohol, let us congratulate ourselves and not target potential under-age buyers." We must target them even more so—not necessarily with the full panoply of the criminal law, but through more education programmes and advice and, yes, if necessary, the criminal law. Such people are equally, if not more, guilty than the person who sells.
      I was going to pose a range of questions to the Minister to justify inserting the word "knowingly" into line 9, but having heard the exposition of the hon. Member for Garston, I do not need to do so at nearly such great length. However, I would like the Minister to tell me whether he thinks that reinserting "knowingly" into the new section 169A offence and thus restoring the pre-1988 position would constitute an improvement. Would it lead to more convictions and, if it were done, would it be preferable to drop some of the defences mounted in new subsections (2) and (3)?
      12.30 pm
      My next question is why we are not to drop "knowingly" from new section 169B. That appears to be inconsistent. I do not challenge the order of selection, but it has to be said that it forces us to wrestle with widely varying concepts. It is not fair to ask the Minister why the previous Government, of which I was a member, maintained the word "knowingly" in the section 169B offence, while it was apparently legitimate in 1988 to omit

      1157
      "knowingly" from the section 169A offence. Perhaps it is more appropriate to ask him why the current Government think that "knowingly" should be maintained—if, indeed, that is their policy. If the Minister intends to reject the amendments to remove the word "knowingly" from new sections 169B and 169F, what is the justification for that, given that the Government may choose not to reinsert it in new section 169A? That appears to impose a far heavier burden of proof.
      Mr. Heald: Might the answer to that question be found in a contractual interpretation of the relationship, if there is one, between the person selling and the person permitting the sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under 18? Would it not be wrong to say that the latter is guilty of an offence, just because there is an employer-employee contractual relationship? Surely, the mischief only occurs if it is done "knowingly"?
      Mr. Maclean: I take my hon. Friend's point. In the legislative process, it is always helpful to have a certain number of lawyers present, and his presence on the Opposition Front Bench, with that of the hon. Member for Garston on the Government Benches, gives welcome aid to our deliberations.
      As I said, I originally had much to say about the word "knowingly", but the hon. Lady's speech has enabled me to curtail my remarks. I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute and that we all want progress to be made. However, I want to comment on the amendments that would add to new section 169A(1) the words "from" or "through", after "in", with the result that it would read:
      "A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in licensed premises
      or "from" licensed premises, or "through" licensed premises—
      he sells intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
      I am not sure which of the two words suggested is the best, but I approve of the concept behind both. I would be persuaded not to support them—I hasten to say that I do not want to force any Divisions today, lest that disturb the relationship that the hon. Member for Pudsey has carefully built up with both sides of the House and with Ministers to ensure smooth passage for his legislation—only if the Minister said that the amendments were absolutely unnecessary, because the phrase "in licensed premises" does not mean strictly within the four walls of such premises, but can encompass, conceptually or legally, liquor being sold from licensed premises, or through the medium of licensed premises.
      That brings me to the important subject of internet sales. I have tried internet sales for intoxicating liquor, or rather, wine. If one admits to purchasing intoxicating liquor, some strict Presbyterian constituent may write and complain about a Member of Parliament touching such filthy stuff. I was merely referring to wine, which of course still is intoxicating liquor, but does not sound as bad.
      Internet sales seem to work reasonably well, and one gets delivery promptly, at the time that one specifies. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is no longer in his place. Only last week, I tried out Waitrose.com and, with a bit of luck, there will
      1158
      be a delivery through our new incoming mail, courier and parcel service, which the Department of the Serjeant at Arms has set up. I may get a delivery to my office fridge any day now.
      There is a whole new medium for selling intoxicating liquor. I come back to my earlier intervention: we are amending the Licensing Act 1964. In 1964, the mediums for selling intoxicating liquor were off-licences—whether on tick in West Kilbride or not—or pubs. I am not sure whether any supermarket had a licence to sell liquor then, but I suspect not. I do not recall, and I cannot find in the Library paper, a reference to the first time that a supermarket could sell intoxicating liquor. That may have been in the 1960s, but it is more likely that that boom occurred in the 1970s.
      It is understandable, therefore, that when Home Office officials briefed the parliamentary draftsmen in 1964 to deal with the problem and amend previous legislation, they thought about the ways in which liquor could get into the hands of young people. They could go to a pub and get it; they could go to an off-licence and get it. Consequently, the law was drafted to deal with the people who would sell liquor from a pub or from an off-licence, and the people who would go in and buy it from a pub or an off-licence.
      Now we have telephone ordering and fax facilities, but internet ordering in particular offers a new outlet and delivery mechanism. People no longer need physically enter a licensed premises. Alcohol can be delivered by a organisation that presumably has a licence to sell and distribute liquor. I assume that Waitrose.com, Tesco.com or other.co.uk firms such as Safeway, all the other supermarket chains and Bordeaux Direct have a warehouse somewhere which is licensed to supply. I am not sure under which part of the Act, or what the mechanism is, and it may not technically be licensed premises, but the company will have a licence to distribute intoxicating liquor to individuals in their homes.
      Section 169 does not on the face of it deal with those possibilities. It refers to a person being guilty of an offence "in licensed premises". We need reassurance from the Minister about the applicability of the provisions of the 1964 Act to internet and e-mail sales and whether there are provisions elsewhere.
      Mr. Phil Woolas: In the right hon. Gentleman's experience of ordering wine by e-mail from supermarkets, wine clubs and so on, which is now a widespread practice, have there been any checks on his age? Did that feature in the transaction?
      Mr. Maclean: None at all. There may be a box on the web page to tick if one is under 18. In one case, there was a warning that the company did not sell to anyone under 18.
      I do not have children, but I know people with children who are 15 and older. Once Dad or Mum's credit card is registered with Safeway or Tesco, anyone in the household can use it to order items from the internet. One hears of cases—not cases of the 12-bottle kind—of parents discovering that their offspring, aged 15, 16, 17 or 18, have ordered items from the web. Nothing on the wine suppliers' web pages prevents young people from ordering alcohol. Suppliers are interested only in the

      1159
      credit card number. There is no way of checking up, and suppliers can depend only on the honesty of the person who claims to be over 18.
      Mr. Gardiner: The primary check is the credit card, as cards they are not available to someone who is not yet 18. However, the right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, if someone who is under 18 fraudulently claims to be the owner of a credit card, any number of boxes to tick will make no difference because the initial fraud is impersonation of a credit card holder.
      Mr. Maclean: I accept that point. A company that supplies wine or any intoxicating liquor, ordered through the internet with a credit card is probably entitled to rely on the customer's honesty about age. It could probably use the defence that it had no reason to suspect that the customer was under 18. When asked why, a company could say, "A credit card was used, therefore the customer had to be over 18, my lord."
      In the real world, many parents who are satisfied with the honesty and integrity of their 17 or 16-year-olds will happily trust them to order items. [Interruption.] Wise parents opposite say that they would never do that. However, families will order drinks for a party or for Christmas. Children are experts in technology and the web. Their parents may not be such experts, and they may ask the children to get onto the Tesco website and order a bottle of this and a case of that. The children may ask, "Can I have your credit card number, Dad?" He may reply, "Here it is. Don't use it again without my permission." That is use with parental consent.
      There will be other cases. If colleagues have ordered anything from the internet, they will know that computer-literate children can look up the history page, go into "favourites", or look at the registration details and pick up the credit card number. They can thus order anything without parental consent. They must of course face parental wrath, however administered.
      The legal point is that the Bill is not designed around the new technology and the new possibilities, which are not fanciful. It is invidious to cite a supermarket from which I rarely shop, Tesco, and thus give it an unnecessary advantage, but it boasted a couple of weeks ago that it would create 10,000 new jobs because of its internet sales. A large part of its internet sales is alcohol. The internet is the big growth industry. It is therefore reasonable to assume from all the forecasts for web sales that, in two or three years, most alcohol will change hands, from whichever source, through the internet.
      Some hon. Members and I have asked whether various clauses are internet proof. We have discussed proposed new section 169F, which covers delivery. There may be a loophole there because subsection (4) does not apply
      where the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I do not know how often the right hon. Gentleman has ordered goods on the internet, although he mentioned ordering
      1160
      from Waitrose.com. We in Leeds cannot do that as we have no Waitrose. However, there are many other such suppliers. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that credit or debit card details on the internet are registered in a secure form with the web page through a password? That offers some protection against a 15-year-old clicking on to the website's history page, finding out the password, logging in and extracting credit card details. If an under-age drinker has the card in his or her hand that is different, but card details, once registered, are usually released by using the password. So long as people keep their password to themselves, they should be secure.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but, given the huge growth of online supermarket shopping, it is not unreasonable to think that many households will carry out the boring task of grocery shopping over the internet, even though that is not a fast way to shop. It is sometimes quicker to whiz around the supermarket than to access the registers of all the different household goods that people want. Members with children aged 12 and upwards will be better able to comment than I am, but is it not likely that parents will say to their children, "Get on with it and order the groceries. Here's the list of the stuff that we need. Here is my password; order the toilet rolls and the bleach"? Those children might spend two hours ordering the basic essentials.
      That is not a fanciful scenario; it will happen more and more. Internet shopping may be exciting the first couple of times, but it can become pretty boring if people have to order dozens of items. In such circumstances, youngsters will have ready access to the internet because parents will give it to them. Most children will not abuse that access by ordering a crate of booze on their parents' credit card, but I suspect that we shall have to return to the measure in a couple of years because developments on the internet and with delivery mechanisms and the little matters that we do not spot today will create loopholes. We are trying to amend the 1964 Act, which contained no concept of internet shopping or ordering by telephone. Clever criminals will exploit that, but it is more likely that clever youngsters with changing life styles and attitudes will create problems, which the House will have to solve. I shall now move on from that point because we have flagged it up enough.
      I am tempted by amendment No. 26, under which the word "person" would be replaced with the term "an employee or agent", because it deals with the problem in the tragic David Knowles case of 1997. The word "person" has been used for the person who is under 18—the potential buyer—and the person who may be selling. We do not want to use the word "licensee", because doing so was the problem: it was far too restrictive and we wanted it to cover the manager, the shop owner and the part-time salesperson. However, I am unsure whether replacing the highly restrictive term "licensee", which has a specific legal meaning, with "person" would go too far and be too vague. We want to catch the licensee and his employees and his agents—the staff. That is the problem, is it not? I am not sure whether the use of the terminology "any person." is the right approach. I am tempted to

      1161
      support, at least in spirit, amendments tabled by Labour Members that delete the word "person" and insert "employee or agent".
      Mr. Gardiner: I see the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he will be conscious of the fact that the loophole that the Bill seeks to address came about from wording that referred to
      the licensee and his servants.
      Trends in the sale of liquor have developed since then. In 1964 when the original Bill was drafted, it was not predicted that people would be employed by company chains and would not be servants of the licensee. In 20 or 30 years' time, there may be further developments, and a restricted wording such as the right hon. Gentleman proposes would no longer be appropriate and a loophole would arise similar to the one that we are now trying to plug.
      Mr. Maclean: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is always wise never to assume that we are passing legislation that is loophole free and will last a lifetime—or more than one Parliament. No Government like to admit that they may have to return to their legislation in a few years' time, whether it is on dangerous dogs or anything else. We stand here, especially on Fridays as we discuss Third Readings, and say that we have passed perfect legislation that will ensure that a problem never happens again.
      In a fast-moving, technological world with e-commerce, with rapidly changing attitudes and with young people becoming more and more sophisticated, the wise course is to say that we are passing legislation that probably deals with every problem that we can envisage at the moment, but next year we may have to reconsider it to deal with another matter. That is no slight on the promoter of the Bill or the Government. It is a recognition of how fast things are moving in today's world.
      Mr. Efford: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? What is the definition of "agent"? Would a computer be defined as an agent of someone selling alcohol?
      Mr. Maclean: I honestly do not know, but a computer would certainly not be defined as a person, so that could be a loophole. A computer would have a better chance of being defined as an agent than as a person. We either use the word "person" and do not define it, or we include in the Bill references to "employee", "agent", "servant" and "licensee". That could be messy and may miss out a category of person who is employed or may next year be employed, such as internet salesgirls. We could use the term "person" and provide that "persons" shall include employees, agents, computer technology, virtual reality purchasing systems or whatever. Labour Members have tabled an amendment to delete the word "person" and have suggested the term "employee" or "agent", and we must have the Minister's reassurance on the matter.
      I am conscious that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and some of my hon. Friends have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we want details from the Minister before we move on to the next group of amendments, so I shall conclude my
      1162
      remarks on amendment No. 53. I was going to talk about the term "or similar facility", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has suggested, but that has been discussed enough for the Minister to respond.
      I am not sure that we should accept amendment No. 53, which would apply the same licensing laws or the same general body of law to the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster as apply to other organisations. The Bill mainly applies to off-licences and bars. There may be quite a few Bars in this place, and I suppose that our shop may be considered an off-licence, but it is not the primary purpose of this legislature to sell alcohol, especially to children, or to conduct the commercial activities that are the primary purposes covered by new section 169.
      It is perfectly right to say that we will not apply licensing legislation carte blanche to the Palace of Westminster. How do we deal with the valid point raised by the hon. Member for Garston who said that we should set an example? If we pass a Bill saying that people outside this Palace should not buy liquor for those under 18, or should not commit any of the offences laid down here, what do we do to set an example? If we are minded to act in that respect and we want to apply the same precepts of criminal law inside this Palace, I suggest that we simply amend our internal rules. We do not have to apply every jot and tittle of every Act of Parliament.
      I am sure that we could condense the proposals of the Bill into one clause in parliamentary terms. The Bill must be complex because there will be licensees and sellers with clever lawyers who will try to get around the law. The purpose of making the Bill complex is to avoid loopholes. We should not need complex laws applying to conduct in the House of Commons.
      Behind the Chair, in the Corridor, is a notice which—wrongly, in my opinion—forbids us from having a cigarette. When one is tense in the Chamber, one can no longer go out for a quick fag to calm one's nerves. I do not smoke cigarettes myself, but I respect the right of others to do so. I have not seen anyone break that law in the Corridor, the Library or anywhere else where the anti-smoking noose is tightening around the poor souls who need a fag now and again. However, we do not need a huge Act of Parliament for that—there is simply a notice, by order of the Serjeant at Arms, forbidding smoking here, there and everywhere else. People obey; if they do not, the House applies its own sanctions.
      Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the regulations governing conduct in this House, which do not go to the heart of parliamentary privilege. Amendment No. 53 concerns parliamentary privilege because the licensing laws as they stand do not apply to royal palaces or to the House of Commons and House of Lords. It is not a question of having a large Bill to remedy that. It is not a complex process; it is simply a matter of implementing an extremely simple amendment to the Bill, so that the whole of the Bill applies to the House of Commons in the same way as it does outside.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in principle. We should maintain parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons, as well as the exemptions for this place as a royal palace—not for any misguided sense of

      1163
      history, but because it sets a better example. We can say that we are applying the same law internally, but that we do not need all the chapters of the law to do so.
      I have always worked under the assumption that Members are not breaking the licensing rules internally. I am happy to be corrected, but I would not imagine that any hon. Member or member of staff was breaking the licensing rules. I suspect that no bar man or woman in the House of Commons would knowingly break the rules either, although if a Member of Parliament asked for a lager and lime for his 12-year-old, I suspect the bar man would feel duty-bound to serve the Member of Parliament. The Member would have the right to demand the drink, and should take the blame.
      1 pm
      If there are rules that should apply to the House of Commons, we should apply them through our own internal procedures while maintaining the right not to apply statute law. The same goes for the health and safety rules. We should move as expeditiously as we can to having all the same health and safety requirements as everyone else—as far as we possibly can in an 1854 building. I suspect that the new building will comply with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
      If we directly applied every aspect of that Act in this old building, we would be able to fit only about 10 people into the offices here. Much of our accommodation is far too cramped to accord with that law, but it is perfectly acceptable to us. I use this merely as an example to illustrate the point about regulations applying to the House of Commons. I do not want to get sidetracked too far from licensing and amendment No. 53 on to health and safety.
      We should attempt to comply with the spirit of the provisions, without having to incorporate the whole body of the law or apply it to us. If we go down the route of removing the privilege of the House of Commons and the other place, it is a small step to removing other privileges, including the right to free speech.
      Mr. Gardiner: I entirely agree that there is no question of hon. Members intentionally trying to procure intoxicating liquor for minors, but let me paint a scenario in which a Member of Parliament has an intern, researcher or secretary who is under 18. That young person could visit any of the Bars and buy alcoholic liquor, and there would be no redress whatever against the person who sells the liquor. If the amendment were made, redress would be available. Without in any way impugning—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is painting a very lengthy scenario.
      Mr. Maclean: We can have the redress if we want it, through our own internal rules and procedures. The hon. Gentleman cannot lift the relevant sections of the 1964 Act and say that the law applies to the House of Commons, because we would then have to accept the whole of that Act. We would have to apply to licensing magistrates and would create a whole new bureaucracy, with an appeal system and everything else that is in the 1964 Act, a copy of which I have here.
      1164
      We have spent a considerable time discussing section 169, which is very important, but if we make it apply to the House of Commons, we may have to take the Act lock, stock and barrel. We would have to have the name of the Serjeant at Arms—or perhaps your name, Mr. Deputy Speaker—painted above the door. We do not want to have to paint "Serjeant at Arms licensed to sell intoxicating liquor" above the door of the Pugin Room, but the Act requires the licensee's name and address to be painted above the door of the premises.
      If we want to set an example or to apply parts of the Act in spirit or in reality, the solution is to make a resolution and tell the Serjeant at Arms that we want to apply section 169 and ensure that people cannot buy alcohol for under-age children—the children of Members of Parliament or of their constituents. We can put up a notice and apply sanctions on a host of matters.
      I hope that an internal rule banning mobile phones from the Pugin Room is brought in soon. Their use in that place is, in my view, a criminal offence worthy of five years in the Tower of London, but the Minister knows that I have strong views on criminal sanctions.
      However, we can apply a host of regulations to both Houses of Parliament that are not elements of the criminal law. For instance, it is not an offence to smoke in most corridors in the country, but to do so in some of the Corridors here is against our internal rules. That is how it should be—the House must be able to regulate itself and set an example, but we must be careful not to erode the important principles of parliamentary privilege by unnecessarily applying sections of criminal law to the House of Commons.
      Mr. Russell Brown: The House no doubt awaits with bated breath the private Members' Bill that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will introduce to ban mobile phones from the Pugin Room. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on getting his Bill this far. I hope that it leaves the House of Commons at the end of the debate and moves on to the other place.
      I shall speak to the amendments in this group tabled in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). However, in case any hon. Member is not aware of the fact, I point out that clause 3(3) states:
      This Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
      That point was emphasised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) argued, in connection with amendment No. 5, for the insertion of the word "knowingly" in proposed new section 169A(1) of the Licensing Act 1964, but amendment No. 15 would delete the same word from proposed new section 169B of that Act. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 has served the people of Scotland well for a quarter of a century. It is important to look at that legislation and to learn what lessons we can from it. The word "knowingly", as proposed in clause 1, is not used in the equivalent section of the 1976 Act.
      It has to be said that is almost impossible to gain a conviction under the licensing laws as they stand, as the research paper referred to by my hon. Friend shows. If licensees, suppliers or providers make a genuine mistake about the age of a person, they should be protected.

      1165
      Amendments Nos. 16 and 77, which are in the next group to be considered, have been tabled, by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, to provide that protection.
      I want to refer to the prosecution of a Mr. James Morrison Noble, a licensee who appeared in court on 23 November 1965. He was charged with knowingly permitting drunkenness on his premises. He pled not guilty to the charge. He was found guilty and liable, and fined £5. At his request, the magistrate stated that it was a case for the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary. I want to go through the following proceedings, because it demonstrates an aspect of "knowingly", which is so important.
      The case went to the High Court before a Full Bench—the ultimate authority in Scotland. That was important in relation to the decision that was reached, bearing in mind that the appellant had been found guilty.
      The case centred around an evening in September 1965 when the police approached the premises in question and discovered that the lights were still on at 11.20 pm. In those days, licensed premises closed at 10 o'clock. There was a certain amount of noise. When the police eventually gained access to the premises, they found a youth, Dennis Flynn, aged 18 years of age, lying on a bench unconscious, in a state of intoxication. Efforts to rouse the youth were unsuccessful. The officers then went downstairs to the lounge bar, where they found five men and three women. One of the men, James Spanivich, was staggering around the room, obviously under the influence of drink.
      The officers searched the building further and found another three men and a woman in the manager's office. The appellant was not present at the time of the offence, but the manager, James Welch, was in sole charge at the time the police officers had entered the premises.
      Apart from the two persons already mentioned, everyone else in the building was sober. I find it somewhat difficult to believe, when people have been locked into a pub for almost an hour and a half after it has closed, that only two people were intoxicated.
      Mr. Woolas: In Scotland!
      Mr. Brown: Yes, in Scotland.
      When the case appeared before the Full Bench of the High Court, it was argued, and decided, that the appellant had not personally permitted the drunkenness and that he had no knowledge of it. The condition attached to his certificate was that he should not knowingly permit drunkenness in the premises licensed. The wording of the condition was plain and unambiguous, and knowledge on the part of the licensee was required before he could be found guilty of a contravention.
      The case demonstrates that aspect of "knowingly". The licensee had appointed a manager who had done his best to ensure that the property was being run in a way that complied with the licence conditions. It is a difficult situation, which is why the amendment to remove "knowingly" from proposed new section 169B(1) is being considered.
      Amendment No. 22 would insert "an employee or agent" instead of "some other person" in proposed new section 169A(3). It concerns licensees ensuring that their
      1166
      employees conduct the business in a proper manner. Assuming that the crime is committed at the hands of another, how can we determine what is "knowingly" going on in those premises?
      1.15 pm
      The successful employment of an agent to act on one's behalf relies on the manner in which people are instructed and trained. Employee management must be considered. There is a need for a defence so that a licensee can share the responsibility for what goes on within licensed premises. However, if the licensee is to be held responsible, he or she must ensure that his or her agent has the authority to conduct the business properly. Merely to specify some other person is wholly inappropriate. It is not the case that any old person can walk in off the street and serve alcohol from behind a bar or in an off-licence. We must be clearer about what person we mean. We are talking about an employee or an agent.
      I do not wish to enter into debate about the other amendments. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I have tried to include in the Bill have been addressed. I am keen to hear the Minister's response. We shall not press our amendments to a vote as they were intended to probe.
      Mr. Heald: The Opposition made it clear from the outset and on Second Reading that we support the Bill, which closes a loophole. It had its genesis in the tragic circumstances of David Knowles, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for his diligence in pursuing the matter. He has had the common sense to limit the ambit of his Bill to the loophole, rather than risking its passage, as many do, by including a wide range of controversial matters. I congratulate him and wish him well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), an active student of Friday proceedings, also congratulated the hon. Gentleman on not taking too many risks with a good Bill that is a tribute to him.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) started our proceedings with a lengthy tour de force. I felt a little sorry for him when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) presented him with the Wiener schnitzel conundrum, but he handled it remarkably well. Indeed, it seemed to embolden him into giving us a startling vision into his reasons for amendment No. 20, which inserts the word "from" at a crucial point. Under the amendment, a person would be guilty not only of selling liquor to under-18s in licensed premises, but from them. The hon. Gentleman conjured up the vision of a child, perhaps in West Kilbride, attending a public house with a bunch of roses and saying, "Please can granny have some Stella Artois from the back door?". Apparently, the whole building would have been covered in roses so that the child could receive two cans of the relevant brew. That was a startling vision.
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has conflated amendments Nos. 20 and 19. The Stella Artois amendment was No. 19, but I take his remarks in the spirit in which they are meant.
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I got it wrong. That was partly because my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said it sounded like "Cider with Rosie".

      1167
      Amendment No. 20 and the amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who suggested that the word "through" should be added, raise an important issue: are a substantial number of people buying from—or through—licensed premises, rather than in them? I shall be interested in the Minister's comments as to whether the amendment is necessary, because the drafting might already encompass it. If it does not, does he approve of the amendment? Is there any evidence that such purchases of alcohol are on the rise? The amendments are not objectionable to the Opposition.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and other hon. Members referred to the "meant" element in such offences—whether the concept of recklessness should be included as well as that of knowledge, or whether, in an offence where a licensee sells alcohol to those under 18, the concept of "knowingly" should be introduced.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) introduced a change in the 1980s because it is a heavy task to prove that a landlord knows that a person is 18. That change was right and it should not be reversed. If it can be shown that an under-18-year-old purchased alcohol from a licensee or a person working at the premises, it is important that the burden should be on them to show both that there was no suspicion that the buyer was under the age of 18 and that they had taken steps to satisfy themselves on that point. It is right that that is where the burden should lie in cases involving direct sales.
      The test is slightly different for other offences. If somebody is employed by a landlord or a company, that relationship means that the employer allows the employee to sell alcohol on those premises. Obviously, the contract would not state that alcohol could be sold to under-18s, but the offence needs to make it clear that the employer is acting knowingly in those circumstances. That is the mischief that the law should attempt to remedy. The current law is probably right, although I should be interested in the Minister's view.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border suggested that rather more pressure should be put on the person purchasing, and that offences that affect the purchaser could be strengthened. Again, I should be interested to hear the Minister's view.
      There was much discussion by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield of e-issues—what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to as the e-thing. I think that they may have been referring to modern technology. I should be interested in the Minister's perspective on these matters. Perhaps he buys his wine from Waitrose Wine Direct, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border does. The Opposition have drawn no conclusions as to whether amendments are definitely needed, but, if they are, we should be supportive.
      A range of other issues were aired. They included whether we should define the seller by reference to an employee or agent. I think that such a proposal would create more problems than it would solve. The Bill has reached the point where it defines a person as the potential defendant, so to return to definitions of "employee" and "agency", which are complicated from a legal point of view, would probably create an unnecessary difficulty. We do not want that to happen.
      1168
      I am doubtful about the concept of reckless indifference, which appeared in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Garston. There must be some doubt about what amendment No. 59, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and the term "similar facility" mean. We all know what a bar is and, if we do not, it is defined in the licence that a licensee holds. However, the concept of a "similar facility" could keep lawyers busy and in gainful employment for many a year.
      Amendment No. 59 would also create difficulties in terms of pub gardens. It is suggested that one could be guilty if one bought alcohol for consumption in a bar or similar facility, which could include a pub garden. In the summer, many families go to pub gardens where there is play equipment. It can be a pleasant afternoon out. If the parents want sensibly to give a taste of wine or another drink to a child, that is not a terrible act on which the law should bear down. In fact, it is responsible to teach moderate alcohol consumption to children. It would be a mistake to constrain such behaviour in the way that the amendment would do. I do not want the law on that to be changed without the fullest consultation with the industry and the other groups that have been consulted in the past. I am not willing to support the amendment today.
      The only other issue that I want to mention briefly is the Scottish experience. The hon. Member for Brent, North was right to refer to that, but I am not sure that the example he gave relates to the provision to which he referred. He gave an example of a different kind. Although the Scottish experience is always useful to consider, it did not take us much further in this case.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that the Bill does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. Does he suppose that that is because existing legislation in Scotland already covers this subject or because of the Scots' innate ability to accept drink more readily than the English?
      Mr. Heald: I would never say anything disparaging about the Scots. Scots law is frightfully interesting and well worth examining. As an English lawyer, I probably, on balance, prefer ours, but I would certainly not criticise theirs. My hon. Friend was just teasing me.
      Mr. Fabricant indicated assent.
      Mr. Heald: Finally, I reiterate the Opposition's support for the Bill. We wish it well and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the amendments.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is appropriate that I reply at this point to the debate, but, first, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on his decision to introduce a Bill on licensing so as to close a clear lacuna in the law. It is an important Bill, and I share his deep concern about the unlawful sale of alcohol to young people. I gladly tell him that the Government will fully support the Bill. On balance, the best way of doing that is to leave the Bill unamended. I shall explain the reasons for that in due course.

      1169
      1.30 pm
      Before doing so, I shall make some general comments on the debate, which has been very good. I welcome strongly the contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) who spoke for the Opposition and said that they supported the Bill. That shows how my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has brought together Members on both sides of the House to gain broad support for a focus Bill, which deals with a particular problem in an exemplary manner.
      During our debate, hon. Members raised many issues, including the use of the internet to purchase alcohol, that give rise to serious considerations that the House needs to discuss at length and in detail, perhaps on another occasion. The complexities of the issues are such that the Government want to think them through. Once we have debated the White Paper on licensing, we may be better placed to examine further many issues raised in today's debate.
      There were good contributions to the debate and, more importantly, some amusing ones. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), setting out the case for his amendments—which I shall reject—was a tour de force. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) also participated in the debate, and in a tour de force of his own, set out the case for his amendments, only to proceed to demolish that case with vigour. As our debate progressed, he wisely acknowledged the weakness of some of his amendments and indicated that he would not press them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey set out his case. I agree that the Bill should be a focus Bill and that wider issues should not be included in it unnecessarily, as they would be better dealt with in a licensing Bill. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) regaled us with tales of Ye Olde King's Head in Los Angeles, which we shall remember, and which may come back to haunt him one day. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) used her legal training to give a learned exposition of her case. In due course, we shall seek to be as erudite in seeking to persuade her not to press her amendments.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has considerable experience as a Home Office Minister and raised some important issues. I agree that we must, in his words, clobber those involved in the sale and delivery of alcohol to under-age people. He believes that we should go further and examine wider issues on which, as I said, he gave us much food for thought. It may be better to consider those issues at length and with greater care during the consideration of the White Paper and, no doubt, during debate on a licensing Bill which will follow.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) raised several important issues, some going beyond the scope of the Bill, to which I wish to give serious consideration. I thank him for his excellent contribution.
      The amendments deal with sales effectively conducted from premises, such as sales made from a shop or supermarket by telephone or computer link, or perhaps by a credit facility. What constitutes a sale is already a complicated matter under existing licensing law and,
      1170
      indeed, to some extent, rather obscure. That is one reason why we need to examine the broader issue of licensing law in the White Paper. A registered private members' club, for example, does not technically in law sell alcohol to its members, even though money may change hands. That is because a member owns part of the stock and cannot purchase what he already owns. The exchange of money is merely in law a means of ensuring that no single member obtains more than his fair share. However, the club does not supply alcohol to its members. Again, "supply" has a technical meaning quite different from sale.
      In the context of the discussion about the House of Commons and amendment No. 53, that issue is important. Certain clubs will be excluded from some of the provisions because they will not be undertaking a sale. The House of Commons is therefore not unique in the way in which the legislation will apply. There are many clubs in most towns to which the provisions may not apply.
      The law permits sales on credit by off-licences. Sales on credit are prohibited only when alcohol is sold for immediate consumption on licensed premises. Consumption is not permitted on off-licence premises. Without the opportunity to take legal advice on some of the technical implications of the wording of some hon. Members' amendments, I am reluctant to offer wholehearted Government support for them. We obviously intend to address modern types of sale in the Bill that we shall eventually introduce, following the White Paper. Indeed, it is an important aspect of modernising our law. However, we need to get it right and to avoid causing problems in practice for the courts.
      Credit cards cannot lawfully be held by anyone under 18 years old, but debit cards can be obtained by minors. Therefore, the debit card is particularly relevant to some of the issues that the amendments address. We need to be certain about the technicalities of when sales are completed and where the sale takes place when such cards are used over the telephone, the internet or through various other mechanisms.
      As we have said in the licensing White Paper, there is no evidence that youngsters are using purchase by mail order, telephone or internet to obtain alcohol—at the moment. We shall have to examine carefully any evidence that may arise. If problems transpire, we must be prepared to deal with them when we introduce legislation on licensing.
      The most common source of alcohol for younger age groups is their parents. Illicit drinking outside the home usually involves the desire for instant gratification. Young people normally obtain alcohol directly in small purchases—one can or two—at off-licences. The amendments therefore would not benefit the current situation.
      In addition, although there is little evidence of young people using the internet to obtain alcohol, there is a risk, if retailers fear prosecution for under-age sales, that accepting the amendments would inhibit the development of e-commerce. That could damage business but have no obvious benefit in tackling under-age consumption.
      Ordering on the internet involves no instant gratification; delivery occurs some time later. We suspect that that is one reason why there is no evidence of such sales at the moment, but we are alive to any evidence that may present itself and prepared to deal with those issues in the longer term. Given such problems and uncertainties,

      1171
      and subject to my reassurance that the matters will be addressed in future reform, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
      Mr. Heald: There is obviously quite a bit of concern in the House on the question of internet sales and the use of credit cards. I of course accept the Minister's explanation that, as yet, there is no evidence of such sales in large numbers, but might the Home Office want to undertake some research into the matter?
      Mr. O'Brien: We looked at many issues in the context of the White Paper and a research budget has been allocated for this financial year. That issue is certainly one that we will want to bear in mind. I suspect that the way in which to approach the matter is, first, to see what evidence arises as a result of consultation on the White Paper. If it transpires that issues do arise, we shall consider instituting specific research. Given the nature of the way in which young people use the internet, it is difficult to identify now how we might set up a research project, but if the police or other authorities say that there appears to be a problem, we shall consider how best to deal with it—that might well involve legislative provisions as part of a wider licensing Bill.
      The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston would change significantly the defence available to a licence holder or member of his staff who was prosecuted for selling alcohol to a person aged under 18. It would have to be proved that the offence had been committed knowingly, and the defences of having no reason to suspect that a person was a minor and of having shown due diligence in seeking to establish the age of a person would disappear. I remind the House of the purpose of the Bill: David Knowles, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, died in tragic circumstances following the consumption of alcohol purchased from an off-licence. The facts are not disputed, but, as we all know, those involved evaded prosecution because there is a loophole in the law. The Bill, as amended in Committee, would close that loophole. The House must ask itself whether, having closed it and so made prosecutions more likely in future, it wants to make it more difficult than it currently is to secure a conviction.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to extend the offence of allowing alcohol to be sold to a minor to that of facilitating a sale—although, in the course of his exposition, he appeared to withdraw from that position to some extent. However, that would alter the whole thrust of that provision, which deals with those who have control or authority over others selling in licensed premises, and ensures that a manager or licensee cannot evade his responsibilities by turning a blind eye to his staff's actions: if they commit offences, he risks being prosecuted as well. The notion of facilitation offers a different perspective: how does a manager "facilitate" a person to sell? I am not sure that the prosecuting authorities or the courts would understand Parliament's intention if that wording were adopted. Without time to consult the Magistrates Association and practising layers, I am reluctant to support such an extension of the offence. I note that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not press the amendment, and I am grateful to him for that. However, I can assure him that it is a matter that could be considered as part of the broader licensing review.
      1172
      Although they deal with the offences and triggers for the available defences in new sections 169A(3) and 169B(1), the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Dumfries return us to the question of the loophole in the law that has been exposed on many occasions during deliberations on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. He set out the circumstances that led to the tragic death of the child in his constituency, which involved those employed by national chains of off-licences. However, there are other problems arising from the outdated wording.
      The term "servant" in existing law does not encompass an agent acting on behalf of a licensee who is not his employee. Therefore, for example, the wife or husband of a licence holder working in an off-licence in an unpaid capacity may be immune from prosecution for selling to under-age children; similarly, a brother or other family member serving in the shop could escape prosecution. In 1996, the conviction of the husband of a licensee for selling to a 14-year-old girl was quashed in the divisional court, because there was no evidence of a master-servant relationship—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst laughs; he appears to be confused about the nature of the state of matrimony.
      The House will know that many high street off-licences are family run, and it would be wrong if a licensee could evade prosecution by laying the responsibility for the sale on his or her spouse. As the wording chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey covers every eventuality and so closes the loophole, I ask the House to support the original wording.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Garston proposed an amendment that changes the offence set out in section 168B(1). The sale would have to be made knowingly, and there would be an alternative offence of being "recklessly indifferent" to sales made to under-18s. I have some concerns about the proposal. I am sure that my hon. Friend is familiar with the legal maxim that the state of a man's mind is as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion. In other words, the state of a man's mind can be established by evidence in a court of law.
      1.45 pm
      The current offence is knowingly to allow a person to sell alcohol to a minor. That implies two things: the offender had the authority to prevent the sale and, knowing the purchaser to be under age, permitted the sale to take place. Those are simple concepts, well known to, and understood by, the courts.
      The term "knowingly" occurs in other statutes. For example, I know from previous departmental responsibilities that it is an offence under immigration law knowingly to remain beyond the time limit attached to one's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. The concept of reckless indifference is less well known and less well understood.
      I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve and the advantages. The proposed wording would prevent the licence-holder from turning a blind eye to the actions of his staff. He may know that the sale is taking place, but choose to ignore it. He therefore neither allows nor prohibits the sale.
      Before giving Government support to any such amendment, I would want to take advice from lawyers who were experienced in this area and from the

      1173
      Magistrates Association about how they would interpret that wording. It is not clear what evidence is required to establish recklessness or indifference. How easy would it be to mount a prosecution and what would be the convincing defences? I do not know the answer to those questions and, without a more detailed examination of the terminology, I must decline to give the Government's support to the amendment and ask my hon. Friend the Member for Garston not to press it.
      I shall deal now with the use of the word "agent" and how it would trigger the defence in new section 169A(3). The terminology "employee or agent" is worrying. Would it mean the defendant's employee or, if the member of staff was the employee of a national chain, would the defence in new section 169A(3) not be available?
      That takes us back to the troubled area that gave rise to the Bill. We must avoid any possible confusion. The wording "any person" is all-embracing and covers every eventuality. The change of definition in new section 169B(2) does not help in regard to our concerns, and I therefore ask that the amendment not be pressed.
      I shall say a little more about the word "knowingly". The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire set out his view that that word was enormously important in new section 169B. I agree with his analysis. The contractual relationship is the key one. I hope that colleagues who are advancing the amendments will take account of the hon. Gentleman's point that "knowingly" is important in that section and is not necessary in new section 169A.
      With regard to under-18s buying, or attempting to buy, alcohol, amendments have been proposed to extend that by adding the words "or otherwise obtain". The offence would still be confined to licensed premises and, under new section 169F(2), would apply to the delivery of alcohol sold in licensed premises. As I said earlier, I understand that under-18s cannot hold credit cards. We must deal with the issue with which we are presented. Suppose the 16-year-old son of a licensee asked his father whether he could have a can of beer from the stock to drink with his meal in the flat upstairs. Does he commit an offence under the expanded wording? That must be carefully considered; we have not yet had the opportunity to do that. I assure hon. Members that I shall examine that matter when considering general reform of the Licensing Act. However, I shall not accept the words "or otherwise obtain".
      We do not have a problem with under-18s using credit cards. It is not an issue that we must tackle immediately. It is better to remain within the narrow and focused remit that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey proposed in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 37, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) tabled, would extend proposed section 169E(1) to the whole of any licensed premises. That means that a minor would commit an offence if he or she drank a pint of beer in a family room or pub garden. The amendment's effect would therefore be enormously significant. The Government believe that the law must be clarified so that the consumption of alcohol anywhere on pub premises is clearly lawful where it is accepted but unlawful otherwise. However, amendment No. 37 would require the exception in new section 169D to be extended to 169E(1).
      1174
      The balance between freer access to licensed premises by minors and tough laws to prevent under-age consumption on the premises needs to be examined in a broader context than the Bill. While I have some sympathy for the sentiments behind amendment No. 37, I should like the opportunity to get the balances right. In doing that, I want to consult the industry, the police and magistrates about the proposal before reaching a conclusion. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East to consider not to press her amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North asked whether a Member of Parliament would commit an offence under proposed section 169F if he supplied a bottle to a raffle that was won by a minor. The question presupposes that the House is considered licensed premises, which it is not. The distinction between being a Member of the House and working here is a moot point, which might lead to some legal argument. We know that my hon. Friend works hard and we therefore give him the benefit of the doubt. However, he would have to have an opportunity to prevent the delivery of the raffle prize to the minor. My hon. Friend might well deliver the bottle to the charity or the fete, but he would subsequently have no authority to prevent the onward delivery of the bottle to the winning minor. It could therefore be argued that my hon. Friend had a probable defence against that difficulty. I hope that that relieves his anxiety.
      Amendment No. 10, which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston tabled, would remove the word "knowingly" from the offence of allowing a person under 18 to consume alcohol in a bar and amendment No. 11 would substitute the defences that are in proposed section 169A(2) and (3) for that in proposed section 169E. There is no doubt that that would make it easier to secure a conviction. However, the offences in proposed sections 169A(1) and 169E(1) are fundamentally different.
      Proposed section 169A(1) covers the sale of alcohol to a person under 18. That is wholly under the control of the retailer. If he does not know the age of the purchaser, he does not have to sell, if he takes a risk, he knows the potential penalty, including the risk to his licence. Proposed section 169E(1) covers allowing consumption by a minor in a bar. A bar is a specific area that is agreed by the licensing justices; it is almost certainly not the whole of the premises. Children aged 14 or over may be present in a bar area, although they may not consume alcohol. The youngsters' presence may be entirely legal.
      In a crowded bar, an adult may purchase two drinks: a lemonade and a vodka and tonic. He or she may take the drinks to a table in the bar and give the vodka and tonic to a 16-year-old and keep the lemonade because he or she is driving. No direct transaction with the minor will have taken place. How does the licensee know what the clear liquid being drunk across the bar is? The landlord's criminal responsibility is often uncertain because of the great variety of circumstances that may surround under-age consumption. The offence is therefore not the same as a direct sale. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a conviction would be hard to secure.
      We do not want to create an offence that forces licensees to deny access to their pubs to anyone under 18, even if they are there to consume soft drinks with their parents. That would be the risk if the licensee felt vulnerable to unreasonable prosecution. It is a matter of getting the balance right. Such amendments would unbalance the legislation and produce unnecessary,

      1175
      perhaps socially undesirable, outcomes. We must think such matters through in the broader context. Again, I refer hon. Members to the White Paper. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Garston to reconsider and not press the amendment.
      My hon. Friend also wants to substitute "knowingly" for "recklessly" in new sections 169E(2) and 169G(1) of the 1964 Act. In the first instance, that would mean that a person working in a bar would commit an offence only if he recklessly allowed a person under 18 to consume alcohol. In the second, an adult who sent a child to buy alcohol would commit an offence only if he had acted recklessly.
      I have already explained that the courts know and understand the word "knowingly", but establishing reckless behaviour certainly seems more obscure. I should prefer not to risk making a conviction less easy to secure by introducing terminology of uncertain effect. The term "reckless" would imply that sending a child to buy alcohol from an off-licence could somehow be reasonable and lawful. The issue is not the degree of reasonableness, but the extent of the person's knowledge. If he knows that he has sent a child to make the purchase, he has little or no defence open to him. If, as the result of a misunderstanding, the adult does not realise that that is what the child has gone to do for him, a defence is available. Recklessness is an altogether different animal. I am confident that the drafting would not cause problems. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment.
      On amendment No. 53, which deals with the House of Commons, I understand that the House is exempt from the provisions of the 1964 Act by convention, because of the 1935 case Regina v. Graham-Campbell, ex parte Herbert, which makes it clear that licensing law does not apply to Parliament. It is not so odd or exceptional as it might appear that we are able to operate our own licensing procedures. Registered clubs, sports and social clubs and others already operate under somewhat different regimes from unlicensed premises. They operate with a registration certificate and their sales rules are different.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield asked when Members of Parliament are subject to criminal law and when they are not. The purpose of amendment No. 53 is to bring the House within the legislation. The position is somewhat complex, but I understand that Members are fully liable for any offence committed outside this place. However, the House has privileges in respect of the exclusive cognisance of its procedure and proceedings, especially on freedom of speech. He would not be liable for what he said during proceedings, but he would be unwise to claim that a crime—other than one that relates to licensing or another specific exclusion—would not be prosecuted if committed in the precincts, because I suspect that the House would take the view that it should. Indeed, Lord Cochrane claimed privilege when he was arrested in the Chamber of the House of Commons in 1815, but his claim was rejected on the grounds that he had committed offences and was being properly arrested.
      Mr. Fabricant: Was it the prerogative of the House to decide whether that person or anyone else could be arrested, or was the law such that he could be arrested whatever view the House took about it?
      2 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: If I remember correctly, the matter is set out at some length in "Erskine May" on page 70.
      Mr. Heald: Page 74.
      Mr. O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Lichfield can study the matter in some depth. The issue is somewhat convoluted, but essentially the position is that a person may be arrested here. In the case to which I referred, Lord Cochrane was arrested in the Chamber, but the House was adjourned so it was not sitting at the time.
      In 1987, the Privileges Committee decided that Members were not privileged solely on the ground that they were in the precincts of the House. In Bradlaugh v. Gosset in the 1880s, Judge Stephen said that he knew of no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be exempt from the course of criminal justice. He made an exemption of anything that was said, because it is clear that the House has decided that whatever is said during our proceedings and procedures is proper.
      I reassure the hon. Member for Lichfield that, according to "Erskine May", apart from the case of Sir John Eliot in 1629, no charge has been brought against a Member of the House for an act committed while in Parliament. That should reassure us that we can run our affairs reasonably well, at least within the precincts of Parliament. That being said, it would be unwise for any MP to try to commit an offence.
      Until now, the view of the House has been that Parliament should not be brought within the licensing laws. If we should decide to change that position, we should do so in the context of a broader debate about licensing law. The best approach is to allow the procedures of the House, the Committees and the usual channels to consider whether the licensing laws should be amended. I am sure that the Catering Committee would want to express a view, as would hon. Members. Until that debate is held, it would be better if my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North did not press amendment No. 53.
      I have gone through each of the issues rather than each of the many amendments, some of which would do much the same thing. I have suggested that significant points should be dealt with in a broader context and in a wider debate. The effect of the amendments that raise narrower issues would not be in keeping with what this focused Bill seeks to achieve.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has done the House a service by bringing this matter to our notice. He has worked hard to get the drafting of the Bill right. Many of the points that hon. Members have raised have been covered by him rather well. On that basis, I ask all hon. Members to support the Bill as drafted by my hon. Friend.
      Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks on the two amendments in my name. The Bill plugs the loophole in the law that exempted people from prosecution in the tragic case of David Knowles, but it also raises wider issues on our licensing laws. I am grateful to the Minister for referring to a future debate and possible legislation on our licensing laws, and we all look forward to that.

      1177
      The report from the taskforce on under-age alcohol misuse was interesting, as those involved had talked to people aged between 10 and 17, who may be under-age drinkers. They were asked adult questions, such as if they drank alcohol, where was a safe place to do so. They said in a bus shelter, behind a building, in a car park, or on a recreation ground. To them, "safe" meant where police, parents and teachers would not see them, and they were exactly the kind of places that most adults would believe to be unsafe for children, especially if they were drinking alcohol.
      The report says a lot about the attitudes of young people to drinking. The thrill or buzz that a lot of young people get from doing something unlawful should be borne in mind, and we need to move towards a more civilised approach to drinking generally. It is clearly proper for parents to introduce their children to alcohol sensibly at home, by means of a glass of wine with a meal, for example. However, we have a culture in this country—particularly with regard to boys and young men—which is often damaging to them. They see drinking as something that they must learn to do; they must learn to increase their capacity. If they can manage to drink a great many pints, they become men. They learn that from peer pressure.
      The report was interesting on the subject of what young people drank, such as alcopops. The young people said that they did not drink alcopops but the industry suggests that those drinks are being sold to young people, mostly in their teens. However, the young people did not like drinking something that was meant for teenagers, and thought themselves more sophisticated than that.
      I give maximum respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) for his hard work on the Bill in the wake of the tragedy to which he referred. As a legislature, we must find ways of preventing such an avoidable tragedy from being repeated.
      Mr. Gardiner: Having listened carefully to the debate, and with deference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, who pointed out that it was critical that the Bill should be closely defined, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Maria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 14.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 1, line 13, leave out—
      'had no reason to suspect that the person was under'
      and insert—
      'believed the person to be over'.
      No. 7, in page 1, leave out lines 15 to 19.
      No. 22, in page 1, line 17, leave out "some other person" and insert "an employee or agent".
      No. 52, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section to show that the person under eighteen produced evidence at the time of sale purportedly showing him to be eighteen or over.'.
      1178
      No. 16, in page 1, line 28, at end insert—
      '(2A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.
      (2B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection.'.
      No. 33, in page 2, line 14, leave out—
      'had no reason to suspect that the person was under'
      and insert—
      'believed the person to be over'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 36, at end insert—
      '(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) of this section, where he is charged by reason of his own act, to prove that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.
      (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) of this section, where he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection.'.
      No. 77, in page 3, line 33, at end insert—
      '169I. Without prejudice to any defence otherwise available under any provision of this Act, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 169A, 169B, 169C, 169E, 169F or 169G of this Act to prove—

      (a) that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen, or

      (b) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.'.

      Maria Eagle: Given that this group of amendments was tied in with the first group, which we have discussed extensively, I shall do no more than move the amendment.
      Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I strongly support the Bill.
      I want to talk about proof of age, which is mentioned in many of the amendments. I want to set the matter in the context of the particular situation in my community. Six or seven years ago, South street in Romford was practically derelict. Shops were boarded up and it was an awful place to walk. Now it has been revitalised by a large number of clubs and pubs. As well as bringing new life to the area, they have brought some problems, mainly involving the large influx of young people at evenings and weekends. One of the problems is under-age drinking in Romford town centre.
      The pubs and clubs are on the whole parts of large, well-known chains. They have respectable management and do what they can to ensure that there is no under-age drinking, but—my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) alluded to this—many young people see drinking as a rite of passage into adulthood. They see it as a challenge to get into pubs and clubs that they are not supposed to be in. For 16-year-olds it is a big badge of achievement to get into an over-18s club.
      There are problems of monitoring who goes into the pubs and clubs and who consumes alcohol. A lot has been done. I have talked to my local licensing officer about how the problem is dealt with. All licensees are instructed by police in the London borough of Havering on the forms of proof of age and identification that are acceptable. Unfortunately, there are many forgeries in circulation.

      1179
      However much I admire the Portman Group and its "Prove It" card, it has become discredited in our area because of all the forgeries. The police consider that in Havering, which includes Romford town centre, the only acceptable forms of identification are passports and the new style of driving licence with a photograph on it.
      I would not like to go out in the evening carrying my passport. My two children are just out of their teenage years. I cannot imagine my daughter, with her evening dress on and a tiny purse, wanting to carry a passport. Many young people are in the town centre without proof of identity.
      Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a classic opportunity for the retailers and the rest of the industry to take up the suggestion from the ministerial group on alcopops and produce a universally acceptable card?
      Mrs. Gordon: Yes, certainly. I intended to mention that later. There is a proliferation of proof-of-age cards. I am sure that they all stem from worthy motives but they are all different and have different levels of security built in. For instance, the citizen card is very good—it is like a credit card and has a photograph sealed in, as opposed to one that is merely stuck on and can easily be peeled off and replaced.
      2.15 pm
      At weekends, the clubs in Romford allow in only people who are over 20. People aged 16 look like those aged 18, but it is easier to distinguish people over 20. The clubs are very worried about the problem of under-age drinking and are as diligent and vigilant as they can be. However, in the first quarter of this year three juveniles were arrested for being drunk and disorderly in Romford town centre. There were also 24 other arrests of juveniles for various offences—such as public order offences—that the police considered to be alcohol-related. Eight cases involved assault, but it is worth noting that 157 adults were arrested in the same period.
      I regret that the Bill does not include a proposal for a national proof-of-age card. I know that that is what the police in Romford want. I believe that a national card that is universally acceptable would give bar staff the reassurance that they need. Until it is available, there will always be a problem with under-age drinkers.
      Mr. Forth: Does not the hon. Lady agree with the Minister and me that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has succeeded so well with his Bill—after all, he has persuaded many of us not to press our amendments—because he has not tried to put too much into it? Had he done otherwise, his purpose would have been jeopardised. Does not hon. Lady agree that the hon. Gentleman has been sensible and skilful in fashioning the Bill so that it does the limited job that he wants it to perform without introducing the extra baggage that might have put it at risk? Might not that be the reason why the Bill lacks the provision that the hon. Lady describes?
      Mrs. Gordon: I agree that the Bill has been designed, and refined, so that it will reach the statute book. However, I suppose that I am really addressing my remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister, in the hope that
      1180
      the Government will look at the issue of national proof-of-age cards. Such a scheme might be administered through schools and colleges, as people are clearly most vulnerable to under-age drinking between 16 and 18. Many schools in my area are trying to get involved with citizen cards and "Prove It" cards, which provide security to young people and reassure their parents too.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) has tabled amendment No. 52, which would provide a protection for staff in clubs and off-licences if they could prove that they had asked for some form of identification. However, I fear that that could be a bureaucratic nightmare. Anyone who has been in the centre of Romford on a Friday or Saturday night—I go there sometimes as a matter of research—would agree that implementing the proposal would be impossible, given the huge numbers of people enjoying themselves in the bars and clubs. I do not think that staff would be able to cope with the requirement to ask for identification.
      What we need is a clear, easily identifiable and universally recognised card. As a matter of routine, staff should always check young people. Such a card would be shown as a matter of course, as one would show a bus pass. Students who do not show their bus passes do not get their concessionary fares—no pass, no bus ride. Proof-of-age cards would work in the same way—no card, no drink.
      Mr. Keith Darvill: Amendment No. 52 would make an important improvement to the Bill and help to make it a better balanced piece of legislation. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and, indeed, by others, about not moving the Bill too far. However, we should try and get the balance right in the Bill, and it is useful for the House to debate such a balance. It has been a balanced debate all round, and, as such, a worthwhile one.
      The Bill replaces the ineffective elements of section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964 and closes the loophole revealed by the Russell case in 1997, which was referred to extensively on Second Reading. Section 169 of the 1964 Act provides that where the person charged with an offence of selling intoxicating liquor to a person under 18 is the licence holder, and he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he has exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under the Act. I believe that the 1964 Act and this Bill could go a little further because of the possible mischief that could be caused by forged or false identification in cases in which licensees and their staff act with due diligence.
      Under the existing law, in one case in which an employee operated a good system devised by his employer for the avoidance of the sale of alcohol to young persons, and was acting in a specific sale under the instructions of a more senior employee, the court held that in the absence of any evidence that the purchaser was clearly under age, or that the identification produced was forged, no reasonable tribunal could find that the vendor had failed to exercise due diligence. It would be helpful to specify the interpretation of the existing law and to know whether that interpretation was embodied in the Bill. That is why I tabled my amendment.
      The amendment would help licensees and encourage more regular checking of identification in licensed premises. In the light of earlier speeches, right hon. and

      1181
      hon. Members may believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall not be pressing it to a vote, but it is useful to debate it.
      My view is reinforced by the evidence in the report of the under-18 panel meetings of the taskforce, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) referred a few moments ago. I think that that evidence is relevant to my amendment and to others in this group.
      The taskforce evidence, gathered after a thorough investigation, is compelling in that it illustrates how determined young people are, particularly those at risk, to target what the report refers to as safe places. One of the most important findings to emerge from the discussion of what is a safe place to drink was that the panellists giving evidence interpreted "safe" as a place where they were less likely to be caught by police or parents, rather than the conventional definition of "safe" as being away from harm and danger. They referred to back streets, the back of buildings, parks, bus stops and public toilets. We all know of areas in our constituencies where young people drink; it results not only in the sort of serious consequences that drove my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey to promote the Bill, but leads to anti-social behaviour, which the Bill addresses.
      Clearly young people under 18 have obtained intoxicating liquor from some establishments. In some cases, over-18s may purchase for younger people, but many younger people buy for themselves. That is the mischief that the Bill attempts to address by ensuring that there is a culture of awareness and checking, and a system of identification, which the amendment would provide.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) have raised important points, particularly on the method of proving age. I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Romford say that forgeries of the Portman card are a problem. Likewise, I was worried to hear that police officers in her area can accept only driving licences or passports as proof of age.
      The issues raised by both my hon. Friends should be part of a wider debate on licensing reform this year and next as legislation is introduced. I shall seek to include their comments in the Government's broader consideration, and the issues that they have raised will be duly weighed and considered.
      1182
      The Bill is tightly focused, and I shall wish it to remain so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) will feel able to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
      Maria Eagle: In view of those assurances and the good will towards the Bill throughout the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      2.27 pm
      Mr. Truswell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank all Members who have participated in the debate today and in Committee and on Second Reading. The quality of debate at each stage has been exemplary. It has demonstrated to many people, as well as my constituents, how well we can discuss issues on which there is not necessarily any party political dimension. I thank all the hon. Members who have assisted me, from both sides. I repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)—on this Bill, we have all been right hon. and hon. Friends, not simply Members of Parliament.
      I thank the Minister for his kind assistance, and Andrew Cunningham, a Home Office official, for his many words of advice. On occasion during the various debates, it has been suggested that this is a Government Bill. The implication has been that it was handed out to me. I can assure hon. Members who may nurture those suspicions that that simply is not so. Members aware of my record over the two and a half years in which I have been pursuing the matter will know that to be true. I can confirm that Government support was forthcoming only after the formal First Reading. Since then, it has been forthcoming from both sides of the House, and I am delighted that we have reached Third Reading. I am not complacent. There is still time for more debate on the Bill and I am aware that hon. Members want to make contributions and comments.
      I am equally delighted that Members, despite the discussions on various issues that impinge—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 9 June.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    RECYCLED CONTENTS OF NEWSPRINT BILL
    Order for consideration read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Friday 19 May

    MEDICAL TREATMENT (PREVENTION OF EUTHANASIA) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 April] on consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
    A new clause—Consent of the Director of Public Prosecution—
    ".—No prosecution under this Act shall be brought without the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."—[Mr. Dismore.]
    Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 9 June.

    PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

    SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21st July.

    CONTROL OF HEDGEROWS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

    ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

    ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EDUCATION (STUDENT SUPPORT)
    That the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 and the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (NO. 2) BILL
  Motion made,
  That, during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  CS Gas
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Mike Wood: I am grateful to have secured this debate to raise the issue of CS gas spray and its use by police forces in England and Wales. This is a complex and interesting matter, and, as always, I am indebted to the House Library for unfailing help and assistance in drawing together the relevant material.
  After its use in Ireland for riot and crowd control, CS gas, as a spray, was introduced to England and Wales in 1996 after street trials. It is now routinely issued to police officers and in some cases to special constables in all but three of our police forces. In the minds of many police officers, the gas has apparently come to replace, rather than supplement, the baton. Indeed, CS spray is a chemical baton.
  The purpose of the gas is to act as a less than lethal defence for officers, to deter and detain violent subjects who cannot otherwise be restrained. The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—ACPO—refers to it as
  providing officers with a tactical advantage in a violent encounter.
  The use of the gas is governed by common law provisions in respect of self defence and by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which refers to
  such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
  Any police officer's decision to use this equipment has to be judged according to the particular circumstances at the time of use. However, the use of excessive force is not sanctioned.
  The spray itself is administered from a hand-held canister in a liquid stream, which is directed by the officer at the face of the subject—ideally from between 8 and 14 ft. The stream is very accurate and many officers consider themselves to be much safer when so equipped. Some report that merely drawing the canister has a deterrent effect. However, it would appear that the spray is used at least 5,000 times a year. It is almost impossible to collate the figures, but the spray could be used many more times a year in this country. Use of the spray is not just threatened; canisters are drawn and used.
  The spray is made up of a chemical, which has the usual unpronounceable name with 29 letters that I shall not attempt to pronounce. It is a crystalline solid within a solvent—methyl isobutyl ketone, known as MIBK—and is supplemented by a propellant, nitrogen. Incidentally, a chemical concentration of 5 per cent. is five times greater than thought necessary by law enforcement agencies in the United States of America; it is a very powerful spray.
  The effect of the spray is to disorientate and incapacitate the person targeted. It does that by causing severe irritation to the skin and to the mucous membranes in the eyes, nose and mouth. The subject's eyes are forced shut and breathing is heavily constricted. A subject should be rendered incapable of continuing any attack within 20 seconds.
  MIBK, which is present as the solvent, is an irritant in its own right. It has a significant drying effect on the skin and can cause peeling, redness, itching and burns. In most cases, those effects are the most adverse and, apparently,
  1186
  the most long lasting. I say "apparently" because one of the implications of what I consider to be the improperly rushed introduction of this equipment in 1996 is that much needed research into the long-term effects of the spray, and especially of MIBK, have not even now been completed.
  MIBK must be safe, we are told, because it has been used by the French police for 20 years and, after all, we find traces of it in foodstuffs. On the other hand, it is also a constituent of paint and paint stripper. There are reports of extensive blistering, burning and damage to the face and eyes, not just of members of the public, but of the police themselves. For instance, one officer in training with CS spray received almost 50 per cent. burns to his eyes and some people have required hospital treatment for as long as three weeks after being sprayed.
  In its recent report, "CS Spray—Increasing Public Safety?", the Police Complaints Authority acknowledges that work needs to continue to find alternatives to both the spray and to the solvent, but states that
  there is an urgent need for more research to he done on the existing spray in relation to those who may be vulnerable through drink or drugs but specifically those who may be mentally ill.
  I turn to the specific problems posed to those who suffer a mental illness, and I am grateful for the assistance of the charity MIND which has reminded me that it first became concerned about CS spray as early as 1996 after the death of Ibrahima Sey. Mr. Sey, as the House will remember, was sprayed with CS while he was handcuffed and on his knees, and he died soon afterwards. For the record, I should say that a jury found that he died of restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, but the coroner stressed the urgent need for more research and particularly questioned the wisdom of using CS spray in cases of excited delirium.
  Since that time, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has set up a working group with the ACPO self-defence, arrest and restraint committee, which has led to improvements in the guidance on CS use. However, a survey by the Maudsley hospital in June 1998 found that 31 trusts reported that patients had been admitted while suffering from the effects of CS spray, and that 12 of those trusts had also had CS spray used on their premises. It appears that some officers use CS spray as a first resort and, inappropriately to control situations involving mentally ill people. Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, no less, said:
  Some officers forget that the best weapons they've got to deal with potential violence are their brains and the ability to talk.
  There are extra dangers in that there is still no scientific assurance that CS spray and its components do not have side-effects when used on people who are taking prescribed psychotropic and neuroleptic drugs. Although some mentally ill people are among the 18 per cent. of subjects on whom CS spray does not have a completely disabling effect, for other sufferers the effects may be heightened. The PCA report speaks of this as
  uncharted territory, where the risk is not fully known.
  It seems, therefore, that this equipment is being used on our subjects regularly and, on occasions, inappropriately. Even in places as quiet and law abiding as my constituency, two incidents involving the use of CS spray have been brought to my attention. In the first, the spray was used on a 13-year-old, and in the second, my constituent, Mr. A, was sprayed with his arms behind his back and while surrounded by five officers.

  1187
  The guidance to the police does not proscribe the use of CS spray on children, but I assume that that is because the people who wrote it could not conceive of such use. Surely the use of the spray on children is unacceptable. Would the officer concerned have hit that seven-stone child with a baton or truncheon if CS spray had been unavailable? Mr. A, a disabled man, was sprayed in a situation of affray in a large crowded room and while under restraint—features that breach the guidance. He has made a formal complaint to the Police Complaints Authority.
  I understand that in both cases the officers in question contend that their use of CS spray was justifiable and warranted. Regarding the incident involving the 13-year-old, the chief constable of West Yorkshire pointed out to me that
  that judgement can, of course, be tested in Court.
  Many may feel, as did my constituents, that the trauma of the legal process would only exacerbate the horror of one's child being dosed with CS spray.
  The police deserve the best protection that we can afford them. Incapacitant spray can be a part of that protection, but we need to consider making the following improvements if public support for its continued use is to be maintained. First, there must be renewed efforts to find a safer solvent than MIBK and less severe, but still effective, incapacitants, as suggested by the Police Complaints Authority.
  Secondly, there must be better and more uniform police training. As we know from the PCA report, the more time and resources that are put into training, the fewer problems there are with the use of CS spray. There is a great disparity between the best and the worst-trained forces in that regard. Thirdly, we need better monitoring of the use of this equipment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that police forces will be required to use the ACPO standard report form so that full information can be held centrally.
  Fourthly, additional information needs to be collated regarding the effect that the introduction of the spray has had on the number of assaults and violence to members of the public, as an anticipated reduction was used to justify its introduction. We do not know whether there has been a reduction. Fifthly, where there have been errors of judgment, mistakes or excesses by police officers in the use of CS spray, as is inevitable, we need more transparency and accountability so that lessons can be learned.
  Police forces have a duty of care to their officers and the public. Sixthly, therefore, we need more research into the long-term effects of CS spray on health, such as lung function. There should be less use of the spray until the remaining health fears are allayed. There must be concern for police officers who, unlike the general public, may suffer long-term exposure to the substance. In one trial, 78 per cent. of officers were cross-contaminated. Seventhly, we have insufficient data on the chemicals' effects on people who are taking medication for mental health problems. That must be remedied.
  In much of that, the Government could usefully be more proactive in their relations with individual police forces to ensure continued, uniform, national improvements in the use of what must be equipment of last resort.
  1188
  In two areas, however, the Government should go even further. They should change the regulatory framework to ensure that, first, the use of CS spray is suspended when police officers are working under the Mental Health Act 1983, where the subject is known from police or medical records to be suffering a serious mental illness, or where it appears at the time of the incident that the person is in mental distress, such as the excited delirium suffered by the late Mr. Sey; and, secondly, the equipment, which is provided primarily to protect officers who are in fear of serious violence, is not used on children, as it was on at least one occasion in my constituency.
  2.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for raising a very important issue that needs to be properly discussed in the House.
  Police officers all too often encounter violence and aggression as part of their everyday work: in pursuing suspects, making arrests, or dealing with incidents of disorder which make up their everyday duties. It is clearly right that, in dealing with problems of crime and disorder on behalf of us all, police officers have available to them the best possible means of protection—both for themselves and members of the public. Together with physical means of protection, police officers must have the necessary training and skills to defend themselves effectively.
  Whenever assaults on police officers occur, there is serious concern. That was so particularly a few years ago, during a period when the use of knives had become prevalent. Clearly that concern has not gone away. Police officers must be vigilant about the possibility of assault in the course of their duties.
  Since the introduction of CS spray in 1996, the number of assaults on police has fallen in most areas of the country, from a total of 15,488 in 1996–97, to 12,569 in 1998–99. That is still too many assaults, but at least the number is on the way down. To some extent it is arguable that the availability of effective self-defence weapons, such as the spray, have contributed to that.
  CS spray is a hand-held incapacitant device which helps police deal with difficult arrests or other violent situations. Like all use of force by the police, the use of CS must be within the law, which allows reasonable force to be used for the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders.
  In considering the use of CS spray, we must also bear in mind the other means of restraint available to the police in dealing with violent situations: physical restraint by officers and the use of batons and firearms. There is always an element of risk to the suspect in the use of any kind of weapon or physical force.
  CS is a sensory irritant and incapacitates by causing irritation to the eyes and nose of the person sprayed. It causes the eyes and nose to run, coughing and sneezing, discomfort, disorientation and a degree of pain. An individual who is sprayed may need to catch their breath, and in some cases a burning sensation may be felt on the skin.
  In CS spray, CS is combined with the solvent MIBK which is in common industrial use. We know that MIBK can cause a dryness or reddening of the skin, or dermatitis,

  1189
  but there is no evidence of any long-term adverse effects on health from either CS or MIBK. Where injuries do occur, they normally clear up in a few days.
  Before CS was introduced on a pilot basis in 1996, careful consideration was given to the range of scientific evidence on CS that was available. At that time, I advised the Police Federation of England and Wales. I urged the then Government to allow the police to use CS spray and supported their decision to allow it, as did the then Labour Opposition. Since that time, there have been two further reports on CS. One was a review by the independent expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—which is sponsored by the Department of Health. The committee reported at the end of last year; it specifically noted that there were no concerns about possible cancer-causing, genetic or reproductive effects of CS. On the basis of that report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concluded that there were no serious health concerns that would prevent the police service from continuing to use CS spray as an incapacitant.
  The report made two important points that the Government fully accept. First, as my hon. Friend says, the committee noted that there is a lack of information on the long-term effects of the combination of CS and MIBK used in the current police spray. In accordance with the committee's recommendation, work is being done with the Department of Health to carry out follow-up studies of persons sprayed with CS. Secondly, it noted that certain groups may be particularly vulnerable to the use of CS spray—for example asthma sufferers, for whom an attack may be triggered by any environmental irritant; and the mentally ill, especially those using certain drugs. The effects of CS on those drugs are not well researched, but we hope that the planned follow-up studies will give us further information about the possible effects on those groups.
  The second report came from the Police Complaints Authority and was published in April this year. It was based on an analysis of the complaints about the use of CS spray that the authority had received during the previous twelve months. It is important to note that the PCA report states that no permanent injuries and no deaths have resulted from the use of CS. Secondly, a relatively small proportion of the complaints were substantiated—about 10 per cent. of 135 complaints received in the year. Thirdly, the report fully supported current Association of Chief Police Officers operational guidelines on the use of CS spray, noting that complaints were more likely to arise when officers used the spray outside proper guidelines.
  Both ACPO and the Government fully accept the need for CS spray to be used within both the legal framework and the operational guidelines. The guidelines already draw attention to dealing with suspects who may be mentally disordered, and call for a sensitive response in such cases; indeed, the Royal College of Psychiatrists was consulted about the current version of the guidelines. However, it is not always easily apparent to an officer on the street whether a suspect's aggression arises from a mental disorder.
  1190
  ACPO guidelines on the use of force emphasise the need for a graded and appropriate response when dealing with situations of conflict and aggression. Both in guidance and in training, officers are encouraged to deal with problems verbally wherever possible, turning to the use of force only when and if it becomes necessary. That is a matter for the independent judgment of officers dealing with particular situations.
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of the use of CS on young people. Current guidelines place no specific restriction on the use of CS in respect of young people, but the "reasonable force" factor is clearly important: a well built and aggressive youth may present a genuine threat to a police officer or member of the public. An officer might judge that the use of CS is the most appropriate means of restraining or detaining such a youth, but that it is less appropriate in respect of a younger person who is more easily restrained.
  ACPO guidelines also address the question of the mentally ill and make it clear that, if a person's violent behaviour is due to mental illness, mental health professionals should, where possible, be consulted about options for any use of force. However, that is not always possible. It is also suggested that friends and family be consulted wherever possible, if the use of CS spray is being considered. Again, in certain circumstances, desirable as such consultation might be, it is not always possible for an officer to do that.
  There will be occasions where it is not clear that a person's aggressive or violent behaviour arises from mental illness, or where the use of CS is nevertheless necessary, even though it is known that the person is mentally ill. The decision to use the spray must rest with the officer concerned, taking account of all the circumstances. Both Ministers and ACPO have stressed the need for CS to be used only within the operational guidelines.
  Much has been said about the cases in which people have died following incidents in which CS spray was used, but as the PCA report makes clear, there is no evidence to link the use of CS with the cause of death in any of those cases. Indeed in France, where CS has been in use for some 14 years, no death has ever been attributed to CS spray.
  It is clearly right that when the use of force is necessary, police officers should have a number of options available to defend themselves and members of the public. CS spray provides one option to incapacitate and possibly disarm an assailant without causing lasting damage. It must be compared with the damage that can be caused by physical restraint and the use of batons. It is right that the police service should have this protection available to them, and the Government continue to support its use.
  We want our police officers to have the protection and the ability to defend themselves and members of the public. We want to provide them with the back-up that they need. We want to ensure that if they feel that it is necessary to protect themselves through the use of CS spray within the guidelines, they will have the support of Ministers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Improvement Agencies
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 228W, on housing improvement agencies, what previous experience Collective Enterprises Ltd. has had in administering Government grants; and on what basis he determined that CEL possessed (a) broad-based expertise in housing and care issues, (b) the capacity to support individual agencies and their managing agents across England and (c) the ability to deliver services from a position of independence and impartiality. [121844]

  Mr. Mullin
  Officials of my Department and the Department of Health evaluated the tenders received from Care and Repair England Ltd. and Collective Enterprises Ltd. (CEL) against a range of criteria, including those mentioned by the hon. Member, and recommended that CEL's tender as a whole offered a more effective approach to the delivery of the requirements of the national coordinating role. My Department's contract with CEL does not require them to administer the system of grants to individual home improvement agencies.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the average fine imposed on businesses prosecuted by the Environment Agency was in each of the last three years; [121843]

  (2) how many businesses were successfully prosecuted by the Environment Agency in each of the last three years. [121842]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency publishes prosecution statistics in its annual reports. Although these figures do not distinguish between companies and individuals, and it would cause disproportionate cost to do so here, most prosecutions are against businesses. The 1999–2000 annual report will be laid before Parliament in July. Figures for the previous two years are as follows.

  Function/year

  Number of prosecutions

  Average fine (£)

  Water Quality

  1997–98

  222

  4,258

  1998–99

  258

  16,157

  Waste

  1997–98

  313

  1,999

  1998–99

  301

  1,060

  482W

  Function/year

  Number of prosecutions

  Average fine (£)

  Integrated Pollution Control

  1997–98

  12

  18,375

  1998–99

  16

  11,000

  Radioactive Substances

  1997–98

  3

  11,000

  1998–99

  3

  37,666

  Water Resources

  1997–98

  17

  4,576

  1998–99

  21

  2,159

  Flood Defence

  1997–98

  1

  2,850

  1998–99

  4

  1,387

  Navigation

  1997–98

  31

  118

  1998–99

  43

  162

  1 The average fines for Water Quality offences in 1998–99 has been adjusted to reflect the reduction in the amount the Milford Haven Harbour Authority was fined for its part in the Sea Empress disaster. On appeal the fine was reduced from £4 million to £750,000.

  Urban Design
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish good practice guidance on urban design in the planning system. [122345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The good practice guidance we have prepared in partnership with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment will be published on Monday 15 May. Copies of "By Design Urban design in the Planning System; towards better practice" will be placed in the Library of the House.

  "By Design" will form a key part of the Government's strategy for promoting better urban design in the planning and development system. It provides sound, practical advice on how to implement the Government's commitment to good design as set out in Planning Policy Guidance, in particular PPG1 "General Policy and Principles" and PPG3 "Housing". It also reinforces the call in the Urban Task Force's report "Towards an Urban Renaissance" for earlier, greater and better-informed attention to urban design.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total budget is for each of the regional development agencies for 2000–01; and if he will break it down in each case by programme. [122460]

  Ms Armstrong
  The budgets of the regional development agencies for 2000–01 are as follows.
  483W

  NE

  NW

  YH

  EM

  WM

  E

  SE

  SW

  Total

  Administration

  9,713

  12,334

  8,284

  7,158

  7,732

  4,805

  5,737

  7,586

  63,349

  Land and Property

  15,930

  8,180

  13,370

  8,250

  6,990

  2,000

  3,200

  19,400

  77,320

  Partnership Investment Programme

  21,960

  72,680

  20,000

  18,200

  13,410

  6,500

  12,500

  11,800

  177,050

  Single Regeneration Budget

  93,500

  140,900

  127,700

  37,700

  86,400

  18,400

  47,200

  23,700

  575,500

  Rural Development

  2,859

  1,283

  3,375

  3,381

  1,883

  3,100

  1,799

  7,023

  24,703

  Skills Development Fund

  2,305

  6,027

  4,400

  3,623

  4,969

  4,242

  5,929

  3,679

  35,174

  Skills Administration

  186

  294

  241

  215

  257

  233

  290

  233

  1,949

  Inward Investment

  1,715

  1,443

  1,465

  1,064

  1,389

  965

  965

  1,554

  10,560

  Competitiveness Development Fund

  440

  440

  440

  440

  440

  440

  444

  444

  3,528

  Clusters

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  12,000

  Gross Total

  150,108

  245,081

  180,775

  81,531

  124,970

  42,185

  79,564

  76,919

  981,133

  Land and Property

  -15,770

  -14,670

  -8,800

  -9,100

  -4,000

  -650

  -3,500

  -14,950

  -71,440

  PIP receipts

  -5,830

  -21,190

  -2,000

  -2,700

  -6,000

  -150

  -4,000

  -1,950

  -43,820

  Rural Development

  -236

  -270

  -453

  -590

  -183

  -145

  -142

  -575

  -2,594

  Other Current

  -13,920

  -11,468

  -5,335

  -2,048

  -1,395

  -418

  0

  -3,416

  -38,000

  Total Receipts

  -35,756

  -47,598

  -16,588

  -14,438

  -11,578

  -1,363

  -7,642

  -20,891

  -155,854

  Net Total

  114,352

  197,483

  164,187

  67,093

  113,392

  40,822

  71,922

  56,028

  825,279

  Rail Schemes
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on checking the reliability of privately-produced studies of proposed rail schemes, with particular reference to Virgin Trains' commercial study of electrification of the North Wales main line. [121839]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director would normally verify the accuracy of any privately produced railway study, using external consultants where necessary. Virgin Trains' study was presented to the former Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (now the shadow Strategic Rail Authority), and the Franchising Director judged its conclusions to be valid, having considered it in line with the organisation's process of due diligence.

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 444W, which of the reviews, public inquiries and commissions of inquiry listed have been carried out by paid appointees; who are the paid appointees; and what is their level of remuneration. [121845]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) train, (b) signal and (c) track failures in each financial year since 1994–95 for each line of the London Underground and the cumulative figures for all lines. [119670]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his earlier question on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 523-24W. London Underground has provided the figures for the extra years which have been requested and these are included in the table, along with the figures for the full year 1999–2000.
  484W

  Service disruption due to failures in:

  Trains

  Signal/points

  Other track

  1994–95

  16,126

  2,349

  659

  1995–96

  15,102

  2,494

  959

  1996–97

  14,873

  2,323

  1,007

  1997–98

  18,088

  2,827

  907

  1998–99

  20,159

  2,756

  869

  1999–2000

  16,216

  2,626

  909

  These figures show a significant reduction in train failures in 1999–2000 compared with the previous year. This is attributable to the new or refurbished stock now available on the Northern, Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. The reduction of signal or points failure in 1999–2000 compared with the two previous years reflects investment and maintenance work enabled by the additional funding provided by the Government.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU member states have privatised their air traffic control facilities in the last five years. [121295]

  Mr. Mullin
  No state in Europe has privatised its main air traffic control service provider. However, a number of states are, like the UK, looking at ways to commercialise their service providers and at how to introduce new management expertise and financing into the provision of air traffic control.

  Noise Mitigation Schemes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Highways Agency to add to the list of possible noise mitigation schemes, published in the Official Report on 11 November 1999, columns 681-83W, (a) the A46 at Harvington and (b) the M5 at Whittington. [121313]

  Mr. Hill
  No. Neither location meets the criteria established in the announcement of 22 March 1999 to determine whether the need for noise remedial measures should be studied in further detail. The A46 at Harvington carries far less traffic than would generate a roadside
  485W
  noise level of 80dB (A). The M5 at Whittington was improved more recently than 1988 and noise mitigation measures were provided in accordance with current standards.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the criteria for potential road noise mitigation schemes published on 22 March 1999 to include roads built or widened after 1988. [121314]

  Mr. Hill
  The purpose of the policy is to focus attention on cases where people may not have had the benefit of noise mitigation measures provided in accordance with current standards. These standards were introduced in 1988 and it is not appropriate to review schemes where noise mitigation was designed within those standards.

  Camping
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to recover the cost to the community of site clearance and waste disposal caused by unauthorised camping. [121297]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under section 59(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency or local authority is entitled to recover its costs incurred from any person who made, or knowingly caused or permitted, the illegal deposit of any waste.

  Housing (Multiple Occupation)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will introduce licensing legislation in respect of houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales. [121776]

  Mr. Mullin
  We will introduce the necessary primary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time can be found. Key conclusions and a summary of responses to our 1999 consultation paper for England will be published in due course.

  European Research Area
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications he has received on the proposed establishment of a European research area; and how much money the Community has spent in the United Kingdom for research projects chosen by the European Community. [121633]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commission issued a Communication "Towards a European Research Area" [COM (00)6] on 18 January 2000. An explanatory memorandum on this Communication was deposited in the House of Commons and House of Lords on the 17 March 2000. It is expected that at its meeting on 15 June the Research Council will adopt a Council Resolution as a formal response to this Communication.

  The European Community's main instrument for funding scientific research and development is the Framework Programme. This is administered by
  486W
  the European Commission. As a matter of policy the Commission do not publish data showing the amount of funding awarded on a country-by-country basis.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Electronic Data Systems
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if the National Audit Office has(a) a contract and (b) a framework agreement with Electronic Data Systems. [121790]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The National Audit Office has neither a contract nor a framework agreement with Electronic Data Systems.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Opinion Research
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when guidance on public opinion research will be published. [122308]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Guidance on Government Research into Public Attitudes and Opinions is being published today. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Red Boxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 88W, what is the guidance concerning the carrying of Ministerial Red Boxes on trains; and of what breaches of that guidance she has been notified in the last six months. [121135]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Ministerial Red Boxes generally contain official papers or other material which may be sensitive or valuable. Due care therefore needs to be given to their protection when carried on any form of public transport, as set out in the general rules governing the control of such material. There is no requirement to notify me of breaches of the guidance.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Athletics Facilities
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is available from his Department for facilities for the provision of athletics in the area of Bridgnorth District Council. [121355]

  Kate Hoey
  Funding for athletics is available from a variety of sources. The National Lottery provides funding for facilities across a wide range of different sports, including athletics. The Lottery Sports Fund provides around £200 million to distribute each year. Funding may also be available from other sources including local authorities, Sports match (the Government's business incentive scheme for sport) and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what data he has collated on differential rates of spending on the National Lottery by different social classes(a) in absolute terms and (b) as percentages of income; if he will publish this data; and if he will make a statement. [120626]

  Kate Hoey
  The National Lottery Commission supports a social research programme on participation in the National Lottery. Report No. 1 of this programme, published in May 1999, contains data on participation by social class and income category. Copies of this report are being placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Public Library Services
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance he proposes to issue to library authorities about the public library services they should be providing. [122346]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am publishing draft public library standards on Monday 15 May, a day which already marks the celebration of 150 years of public libraries, and I shall be placing copies of those draft standards in the Libraries of the House that morning. Following a wide consultation with library authorities, users, key organisations and other interested people, I hope to publish final standards later in the year and intend that they should then take effect from 1 April 2001.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethically Produced Food
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about her policy on ethically produced food in developing countries, with particular reference to(a) animal welfare standards, (b) employment practices and (c) consequences for the environment. [121840]

  Clare Short
  The Government support ethical approaches to business and trade, which have an important part to play in promoting sustainable development and in bringing benefits to poor people in developing countries. We take account of animal welfare standards, employment practices and consequences for the environment.

  My Department has developed detailed guidelines on the use of animals for any purpose, agricultural or otherwise. These guidelines govern animal welfare standards in all our programmes and projects. They reflect the broad guiding principles that use must be humane and that harms of a certain degree or kind ought under no circumstances to be inflicted on an animal. A copy of these guidelines is being placed in the Library of the House.

  We encourage British retailers to examine their global supply chains to ensure they comply with the Core Labour Standards, as set internationally by the ILO within the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights to Work, or can be bettered by voluntary codes of conduct such as SA 8000 or the base code of the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is supported by my Department.
  488W
  We also Promote better environmental management as a contribution to eliminating poverty. Environmental considerations are integrated throughout our programmes. All projects are screened at the design stage and monitored during implementation for their impact on the environment. My Department supports work to develop and implement a wide array of technologies and approaches that mitigate the impact of food production on the environment in developing countries. We also support efforts to encourage the private sector in developing countries to integrate environmental concerns into decision making by assistance to industry organisations, promotion of industry codes of conduct and environmental auditing standards.

  India
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department has given to the victims of the disaster in the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan in India. [121318]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided £500,000 to Oxfam for drought relief activities in Gujarat and Rajasthan. We are in close contact with other agencies working in this area and also in the drought affected regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We stand ready to respond further to assessed needs.

  BP Amoco
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with BP Amoco concerning their investment in Petrol China in relation to its plans to operate in Tibet. [121586]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Neither I, nor the Secretary of State, have had discussions with BP Amoco concerning their investment in Petro China.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the United Kingdom's assistance for security sector reform in Sierra Leone is paid for by(a) her Department and (b) other Government Departments. [121583]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Assistance provided for security sector reform to date amounts to £1.15 million all of which is to be met by our Department.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for security sector reform in Sierra Leone. [121584]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Security is a top priority for the poor. Without basic security it is impossible for poor people to build a better life and to work their way out of poverty. During the eight years of civil war in Sierra Leone unaccountable armed forces became part of the security problem. Our Department has been working closely with the Government of Sierra Leone, as well as the World Bank and others to support the disarmament and demobilisation programme as well as supporting wider reform in the security sector including reforms to the military and the police force.
  489W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects her Department supports in Sierra Leone, indicating the financial support provided to each. [121585]

  £ million

  Support to the Government of Sierra Leone's National Programme for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration

  12.4

  Emergency support to Lungi Demobilisation Camp

  1.6

  Security Sector Project (SILSEP)

  1.7

  Support to the Commonwealth Police Development Taskforce (includes Police Humanitarian Fund and Public Order support)

  2.45

  Provision of an Inspector General of Police

  0.25

  Military Reintegration Plan (MRP)

  3.4

  Commonwealth Community Safety and Security Project

  12.9

  Support to Campaign for Good Governance (Civil Society)

  0.2

  Support for the return of Paramount Chiefs

  2.0

  Law Development Project (incl. Legal Draftsman)

  2.2

  Media Development Project

  1.1

  Governance assistance programme: British Council project management

  1.1

  Support to the President's office

  0.2

  Humanitarian Relief and reconstruction

  5.0

  Budgetary Support for essential services/repayment of debts

  20.5

  Ferry

  1.5

  Pakistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on bonded labour in Pakistan; and if she will make a statement. [121587]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We receive occasional representations from human rights groups and from individuals.

  The Secretary of State's statement to the House of Commons on 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 553W, affirmed the British Government's commitment to the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, both in the UK and overseas. That continues to be our position.

  The practice of forced (or 'bonded') labour remains a problem in Pakistan, notwithstanding the existence of legislation there to outlaw it. Therefore, we take every suitable opportunity to remind the authorities of their obligations to uphold the basic rights of all the Pakistani people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged. It is these groups, inevitably, that are most vulnerable to the perils of 'debt bondage' and 'bonded' employment.

  Our Department maintains contact with organisations which are active in campaigning, or in acting against such violations of human rights. We stand ready to support their work in Pakistan if worthwhile opportunities emerge. Meanwhile, we are supporting an innovative programme to phase out child labour from the football manufacturing industry in and around Sialkot.

HEALTH

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the Food Standards Agency to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Mead Webber Abattoir at Eardisley, with particular reference to the conduct of the Meat Hygiene Service. [121219]
  490W
  Mr. Foulkes
  DFID has allocated resources in support of the following projects in Sierra Leone:

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: This is a matter for which the Food Standards Agency is responsible. I understand that a formal complaint has been received from Mead Webber Ltd. about the circumstances surrounding the closure of the abattoir, and that it has been agreed by the Food Standards Agency that an independent investigation will be carried out. The most appropriate way of doing this, acceptable to both parties, is being urgently considered, with a view to it starting as soon as possible.

  Medical Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have used the E112 procedure to have medical treatment abroad in each of the last five years. [121788]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of E112s issued

  1995

  1409

  1996

  815

  1997

  859

  1998

  812

  1999

  860

  1 Records incomplete

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision has been taken with respect to Hilary Rowland's chairmanship of the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust; who took the decision; which Ministers were consulted on this decision; and if he will make a statement. [121787]

  Ms Stuart
  Hilary Rowland, Chief Executive, is on extended leave from her post at the Royal Liverpool Children's National Health Service Trust after what has been an exceptionally demanding period, both for her and for Alder Hey Children's Hospital. During this time, Ms Rowland remains in contact with regional officials at the NHS Executive North West and has their continuing support.

  Human Papilloma Virus Testing
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there has been a delay in the selection of pilot sites for human papilloma virus testing. [121784]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is currently establishing an advisory group, which will oversee the commissioning and running of the pilot sites for human papilloma virus testing and provide expert advice and support on all aspects of the scope of the project. A limited competition exercise will be held in the summer to select the pilot sites, and it is anticipated they will be chosen by the autumn. Testing will begin when preparatory work at each site is complete.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the savings which will result from closing the(a) Axminster and (b) Exmouth magistrates courts. [121785]

  Jane Kennedy
  None. Under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 the Axminster and Exmouth magistrate's courts are managed locally by the Devon and Cornwall Magistrates Courts Committee. Decisions concerning closure are for that Committee to determine, although a contributing local authority may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Act. In the absence of an appeal the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rifle Thefts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) rifles minus their bolts and (b) complete rifles were stolen from their civilian owners in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and of these how many were (i) 22 calibre and (ii) full bore. [121259]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the information is not retained in a manner which readily permits obtaining the detail necessary to answer this question without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally held firearms have been destroyed in the last 12 months for which figures are available, as a consequence of the authority to hold such a firearm being(a) withdrawn and (b) given up by the holder; and of those firearms how many were (i) handguns, (ii) rifles of 22 calibre, (iii) rifles over 22 calibre, (iv) shotguns and (v) other firearms. [121258]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the following firearms, legally held on certificate, were destroyed during the period 1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000.
  492W

  Firearms

  Number

  Shotguns

  1,199

  Handguns

  414

  Rifles

  268

  Air Rifles

  299

  It has not been possible to give a more detailed breakdown.

  Performance Targets (Social Security)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year. [122440]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following targets have been set with the objective of continuing to provide high levels of service to customers. I am satisfied that the targets represent a demanding challenge for the Agency. The targets will be included in the Agency's 2000–03 Strategic and Business Plan, which is due for publication this month. A copy of the Plan will be placed in the Library. The targets are as follows:

  1. Customer Satisfaction

  90 per cent. of customers to regard the Agency's services as satisfactory or better.

  2. New Deal initiatives

  To increase the numbers of Lone Parents participating in the scheme by 25 per cent. year on year.
  To have 5 per cent. of those Partners of the Unemployed targeted agree to participate in the scheme.

  3. Resource Management

  To achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £1.4 million.

  4. Benefit Accuracy

  Disability Living Allowance—To pay the correct amount in at least 88 per cent. of cases.
  Incapacity Benefit—To pay the correct amount in at least 95 per cent. of cases.
  Income Support—To pay the correct amount in at least 89 per cent. of cases.
  Jobseeker's Allowance—To pay the correct amount in at least 91 per cent. of cases.

  5. Fraud

  To achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance.

  6. Financial Recovery

  Recovery of overpayments—£3.7 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Post Office
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will publish the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on the social value of rural post offices; and if he will make a statement. [121126]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the Performance and Innovation Unit report on the Post Office. [120480]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit report on the Post Office network will be published shortly.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the departments which have spent money directly or indirectly on asylum seekers in the years(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000 to date. [119451]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 9 May 2000, Official Report, columns 332-33W.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define social exclusion. [120672]

  The Prime Minister
  Social exclusion is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he is evaluating proposals for acquiring aircraft for his official use. [118108]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: No. As my answer to the hon. Member of 3 April 2000, Official Report, column 279W, made clear, decisions on which aircraft to use will be determined on cost, the numbers of people travelling with me, security and business considerations and the availability of aircraft. There is no dedicated aircraft which is solely for my use.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on arms sales to Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [122442]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government's policy on export licence applications for Zimbabwe was set out in my statement to the House of Commons on 3 May 2000,Official Report, columns 149-62.

  As I informed the House, the Government decided last week, in the light of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, to refuse from 3 May all applications for new licences for Zimbabwe for goods and technology listed in part III, schedule 1, of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended (commonly known as the Military List).

  This included all new licence applications for spare parts in connection with previous contracts. We also began a review of all extant export licences for Zimbabwe.

  In line with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement of 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 184-85W, the Government will not grant export licences for dual-use equipment where there is a clear risk that the equipment would be used in the Democratic
  494W
  Republic of the Congo. Other applications for Standard Individual Export Licences to export dual-use equipment to Zimbabwe will be considered on a case-by-case basis against the national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct.

  We have now completed the review of extant licences foreshadowed in my statement of 3 May. The Government place considerable importance on UK companies being able to honour their contractual obligations. They do not, therefore, revoke existing licences except in exceptional circumstances. Zimbabwe has now regrettably placed itself in that category. We have, therefore, decided to revoke all extant Standard Individual Export Licences for goods and technology on the Military List (with the possible exception of one extant licence for de-mining equipment already in Zimbabwe) and to remove Zimbabwe as a permitted destination from all Open Individual Export Licences for goods and technology on the Military List.

  In addition, Zimbabwe is a permitted destination on four Open General Export Licences (OGELs) and two Open General Transhipment Licences (OGTLs) which allow the export of goods and technology on the Military List. Zimbabwe will now be removed from the coverage of these licences. Amended copies of these licences will be placed in the Library of the House.

  We will remove Zimbabwe as a permitted destination from the coverage of extant Open Individual Export Licences for dual-use equipment. Exporters affected by this measure may, however, submit applications for Standard Individual Export Licences for this equipment. Such applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis against the criteria as described above.

  We will also be prohibiting transhipment of goods on the Military List to Zimbabwe via the United Kingdom without a licence, by means of an amendment to schedule 3 of the EG(C)O.

  The effect of this is that we now have a national arms embargo on Zimbabwe. We will be requesting the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories to take the necessary measures to implement the same embargo.

  The Government will continue to monitor events in Zimbabwe closely.

  China
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards China and human rights discussions in the United Nations. [121501]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom has a wide-ranging relationship with China. As Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council we regularly discuss an extensive range of international interests and responsibilities including global and regional security, as well as political, financial, economic and environmental issues.

  The UN Commission on Human Rights considered a resolution tabled by the United States on the human rights situation in China on 18 April. We voted against a Chinese sponsored "No-Action" motion to guillotine discussion on a US sponsored resolution. The EU Presidency condemned the continuing restrictions upon

  495W
  the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, religion, assembly and association. on behalf of the EU, the Presidency also made it clear that it was vital that the human rights dialogue with China should continue and be kept under regular review.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the High Commissioner of Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement on the Sri Lankan Government's imposition of emergency regulations on 3 May. [121581]

  Mr. Hain
  I last met the Sri Lankan High Commissioner on 20 January when he paid a courtesy call on me.

  We are concerned by the possible restrictions on civil liberties and press freedoms following the introduction of the regulations by the Sri Lankan Government and hope that they will be lifted as soon as possible. It is not clear how the regulations will be implemented. We shall continue to monitor the situation.

  Women Senior Managers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women there are in his Department in the top three senior management grades; and what these figures were 10 years ago. [121775]

  Mr. Hain
  As at 1 April 2000 there were eight women at JESP 13 and above, which equates to Grades 1-3, the top three senior management grades.

  In 1990, the Department did not record the gender of those in the most senior grades. Figures for 1990 could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Women Graduates
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women graduates recruited into his Department in 1980 are still serving in his Department. [121715]

  Mr. Hain
  No women were recruited to the FCO in 1980 through the fast stream competition where candidates are required to have a degree. Women graduates may have been recruited into other grades, but in these cases information on whether or not they had a degree was not systematically recorded as possession of a degree was not a requirement for recruitment in most cases.

  Iran
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 257-58W, if he raised the issue of legal proceedings concerning members of the Jewish community when he spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi on 28 April regarding the postponement of his visit to Iran; and what factors underlay his decision to postpone the visit. [121674]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: Further to my answer of 8 May 2000, Official Report, columns 257-58W, the Foreign Secretary has raised this issue on a number of occasions with Foreign Minister Kharrazi (including when
  496W
  he visited London in January), and with the Iranian ambassador. He did not discuss it or other foreign policy concerns during his telephone call to Foreign Minister Kharrazi on 29 April which focused exclusively on the postponement of his visit to Iran in the light of the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Wine Expenditure
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent on(a) champagne and (b) other wine in each year since 1 May 1997. [121781]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not maintain a comprehensive central record of these categories of expenditure. A comprehensive breakdown of expenditure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has provided to the British soldier Richard Hudson currently detained in Skopje jail in Macedonia; and if he will make a statement. [121956]

  Mr. Hain
  At the time of his arrest Mr. Hudson was working as a civilian sub-contractor for KFOR. He is not a member of HM armed forces.

  Our consular staff in Macedonia have visited Mr. Hudson regularly since his arrest and will continue to do so during his detention. They have pursued every complaint or rumour of maltreatment, and taken up his case at the highest levels in the Macedonian Government.

  Mr. Hudson has made an application for a transfer to a UK prison under the Council of Europe Transfer of Prisoners Agreement. We have passed his application to the UK prison service and to the Minister of Justice in Macedonia. We will continue to press the Macedonian Government for a quick decision.

  British Overseas Territories Bill
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 2000,Official Report, column 240W, when he expects to conclude his consideration of the principles to be addressed in the Overseas Territories Bill. [121841]

  Mr. Battle
  We hope to conclude consideration of the principles to be addressed in the Overseas Territories Bill by the end of May this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests programmes in Australia and the South Pacific have been awarded war pensions after they developed(a) leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic and (b) multiple myeloma; when was

  497W
  the first time that former service personnel were awarded war pensions after developing these illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [121615]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Mr. Gordon Hextall. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mrs. Ann Winterton, dated 12 May 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many former service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests programmes in Australia and South Pacific have been awarded war pensions after they developed (a) leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic and (b) multiple myeloma; when was the first time that former service personnel were awarded war pensions after developing these illnesses; and if he will make a statement.
  The War Pensions Agency processes claims for war disablement and war widows' pensions and for associated supplementary allowances. Under the war pensions scheme, awards may be made in respect of any condition which is due to any service in the armed forces.
  We do collect statistics of all claims for war pensions from British nuclear test veterans who believe that they might have been exposed during service to excessive radiation. However, these also include claims from personnel who served, for example, on nuclear submarines.
  The statistics at 10th May 2000 are as follows:

  Leukaemia: 9 cases (5 disablement, 4 widows)

  Multiple myeloma: 13 cases (10 disablement, 3 widows)

  You will wish to know that the background to these awards is that as a result of concern amongst some test participants about the effects that the participation may have on their health, the Ministry of Defence commissioned an independent study by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in 1988 to investigate the subsequent health of participants. The study compared the mortality and cancer incidence in over 20,000 test participants with that of a similar-sized control group of ex-servicemen who had not participated in the test programme.

  The 1988 NRPB Report and the Department's position
  The NRPB Report published in 1988 confirmed that participation in the UK tests has not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing cancer in general. It did, however, raise a reasonable doubt that leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma might be due to participation. Whilst the NBPB Report did not causally relate leukaemia and multiple myeloma specifically to participation in the nuclear weapons tests, its' evidence was nevertheless accepted as raising a reasonable doubt that leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma may have resulted from such participation. Thus, any claim for war pension in respect of disablement or death due to leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma was likely to succeed. This policy was effective from 28th January 1988.

  The 1993 NRPB Report
  The study was extended and the second NRPB Report was issued in 1993. This confirmed the overall conclusion of the 1988 Report, that participation in the tests had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing most cancers. It concluded that the small hazard of multiple myeloma suggested by the 1988 Report was not supported by the additional data, although the possibility of some small risk of developing leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) in the first 25 years after participation could not be ruled out.
  As a result of this later Report, it is now the Secretary of State's normal policy to accept any new claim in respect of leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) if the participant developed the condition within 25 years of his participation in the tests. This change was effective from 11th December 1993. War Pensions
  498W
  already in payment to test participants or their widows in respect of disablement or death due to leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) or multiple myeloma were not affected by that decision.

  Evidence of service-related ionising radiation exposure
  Should there be reliable evidence of service-related ionising radiation and where there is a recognised link between the claimed condition and such exposure, an award of war pension will be considered.
  The Secretary of State does not accept evidence of participation in the nuclear tests as itself equating to proof of service-related ionising radiation exposure.
  If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for war pensions by British nuclear test veterans have been(a) made and (b) awarded to date. [121303]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Mr. Gordon Hextall. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 12 May 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claims for war pension by British nuclear test veterans have been (a) made and (b) awarded to date.
  The War Pensions Agency processes claims for war disablement and war widows' pensions, and for associated supplementary allowances. Under the war pensions scheme awards may be made in respect of any condition which is due to any service in the armed forces. Unfortunately, our statistics do not specifically record the number of claims from, and awards to, ex-service personnel whose service included participation in the British nuclear test programme. To obtain that precise information would require a clerical exercise which could only be carried out at disproportionate costs.
  However, we do have statistics of claims for war pension from British nuclear test veterans who believe that they might have been exposed during service to excessive ionising radiation, but these include claims from personnel who served, for example, in nuclear submarines.
  At 31st March 2000. these statistics record 1,228 claims which resulted in 467 awards, but these are for a miscellany of conditions, some of which have no connection to participation in the test programme.
  If I can be of any further assistance, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached at the Council of Ministers meeting of 28 March on maritime safety; what measures are under discussion involving co-operation with(a) defence ministers and (b) European defence agencies for future presentation to a European Council meeting concerning a global strategy by the European Union in the Field of Maritime Security; and what is his policy thereon. [119815]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  In answer to the first part of his question on maritime safety I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 30 March 2000, Official Report, columns 230-31W. In answer to the second part, my right hon. Friend the

  499W
  Secretary of State for Defence has not had any discussions concerning a global strategy by the European Union in the field of maritime security.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date his Department received export licence application number 8664; on what date he expects it to be determined; and if he will make a statement about its progress. [122037]

  Dr. Howells
  Licence Application 8664 was received by the Export Control Organisation (ECO) on 15 December 1999. The application is currently under consideration in conjunction with other Government Departments. A decision on the licence application will be reached as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to ensure that applications for export licences are published in advance, allowing for proper public and parliamentary debate before decisions are made. [121717]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls proposed that new primary legislation should provide for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary export control legislation, but the White Paper stated that the Government did not consider there should be advance parliamentary scrutiny of individual export licence applications as this would slow down significantly the process of decision making and raise difficult issues of commercial confidentiality. The Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry Committees endorsed this conclusion while the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls has stated that it will seek to come to conclusions on this issue in its next Report.

  All the White Paper proposals are under review in the light of comments received. In coming to conclusions on this issue, the Government will take account also of the conclusions of the Committees, including any conclusions reached by the Quadripartite Committee on this matter. We will be announcing proposals for new export control legislation following conclusion of the review.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the way that assistance is given to small firms in the regions. [121662]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI is responsible for many forms of assistance to small firms. All those services are subject to regular evaluation.

  At a regional level, business support can be provided in a variety of ways. Some services are provided by the Government Offices in the regions; others are provided by the Regional Development Agencies. But the most important mechanism for providing support for small businesses at the local level in England is the network of Business Link partnerships. These provide their own services, but also access to other forms of support from both the public and private sector. Funding mechanisms also vary and, in relevant areas, EU funding can be a significant source of business support.
  500W
  It is critically important that the services provided and funded by Government are effective both in terms of content and delivery. The Department therefore asked each Regional Development Agency (and the London Development Partnership) last year to report on the delivery of business support in their region. A number of RDAs supported their reviews with external research. Those reports are now being received and the newly-established Small Business Service will be taking forward the reports with each of the RDAs. In parallel, the Small Business Service is itself restructuring the Business Link network, with the aim of new Business Link partnerships coming into operation from April 2001. The new partnerships will be expected to develop their services within the context both of the RDA regional economic strategies and national priorities established by the SBS.

  Enterprise Fund
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the small firms who will directly benefit from the Government's Enterprise Fund(a) nationally and (b) in the Crosby constituency. [121660]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main elements of the Enterprise Fund are the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme, the UK High Technology Fund and the Regional Venture Capital Funds.

  With regard to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme, the Government act as guarantor to the lenders in the scheme. The loan is arranged between the lender and the small firm and is subject to commercial confidentiality procedures.

  Both venture capital elements of the Enterprise Fund, namely the UK High Technology Fund and Regional Venture Capital Funds are currently being developed. They will be managed by professional fund managers. All their investment decisions will be made on a commercial basis. As an investor in the funds, the Government will not be able to forecast which small businesses will directly benefit.

  It is therefore not possible to list, either nationally or for the Crosby constituency, which small firms will directly benefit from the Government's Enterprise Fund.

  Partnership Fund
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Partnership Fund will achieve its aims of fostering new attitudes and approaches to partnership at work; and how much money is to be made available for the Fund. [121663]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Fund supports projects to develop partnership approaches in the workplace and to disseminate best practice. Up to £5 million is being made available in a series of calls over four years.

  Thirty-five projects, having a total value of £2,880,000, are being supported under the first call for proposals of the Partnership Fund. The second call for proposals was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9 May 2000 and the deadline for applications is 21 July 2000.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that Shipbuilding Intervention Fund money will remain available to UK shipbuilders for the remainder of this year. [121470]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I announced on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 199W that I had decided to extend the availability of the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund to 31 December 2000. I am pleased to confirm that that remains the position.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on(a) perceptions of the effectiveness of the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme and (b) the plans the Government have to alter the scheme. [121469]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I believe that the scheme has played an important role in helping UK yards win new orders since its inception in the 1960s, and continues to do so. The scheme has supported some 1,200 vessels to the value of more than £4.5 billion. It currently supports UK built ships to the tune of £200 million.

  The Department runs the scheme on a comparable basis to similar schemes in our main competitor countries and we believe that its current terms facilities are competitive. To this end, and in response to recommendations from our partnership with the industry in the Shipbuilding Forum in 1999, we delivered significant improvements to the scheme by making loans available in euros and US dollars, and by making guarantees only facilities available too. This makes the scheme one of the few to offer guarantees only, and to offer finance of up to 12 years.

  Following the introduction of these improvements, there is now a high level of inquiry for finance under the scheme involving potential orders for eligible ships at virtually all the UK yards.

  In line with our general approach we remain ready to consider constructive suggestions for ways that the scheme might be strengthened in the future.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's support for shipbuilding(a) on the River Clyde and (b) in the United Kingdom as a whole. [121315]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department's strategy is to support and promote all parts of the UK shipbuilding industry equally, irrespective of their location. In particular, the policy is to assist the industry to improve its competitiveness. In July 1998 my Department established the Shipbuilding Forum whose membership comprises representatives of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, trades unions, equipment suppliers and customers, both private and public sector. Also involved are the National Training Organisation for the marine sector and relevant Government Departments. The Forum's terms of reference are to consider the current situation of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry and how to improve its competitiveness so as to increase its share of the European market, leading to increased output, profitability and employment.

  Energy Supplies
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to penalise gas and electricity companies that take over control of peoples' energy supplies without their consent. [121445]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government take seriously the distress and inconvenience caused by involuntary transfers and has encouraged Ofgem to take firm action with the companies concerned.

  It is for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Supply to determine what action should be taken to combat involuntary transfers of energy supply. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets [Ofgem] is taking steps that will significantly reduce these transfers. Among other things, Ofgem recently renewed the licence condition for gas and electricity suppliers governing sales and marketing practices, and is presently consulting on further enhancements. Ofgem also works closely with individual suppliers to resolve problems that lead to customer complaints.

  Radio Frequencies (Mobile Phones)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations Her Majesty's Government have had with the authorities responsible for airport radar systems in respect of the distribution of new frequencies for mobile phones. [121360]

  Ms Hewitt
  None of the radio frequencies for the licences assigned by the recent third generation mobile communications auction is used by airport radar systems.

  A proposal to share frequency bands, including those used by civil airport radar in the UK, for possible future expansion of third generation mobile systems, is to be discussed at the World Radio Conference currently taking place in Istanbul (WRC-2000). The authorities concerned with civil airport radar were fully involved in the UK's preparations for WRC-2000, and ensured that the requirements of safety were taken into account. The agreed European position is that further study is required before any decisions can be taken.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when new licences for mobile phones will be issued; and what effect the distribution of frequencies will have on the optimal use of the spectrum. [121362]

  Ms Hewitt
  Subject to the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy (Third Generation Licences) Notice 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will grant a Wireless Telegraphy Act Licence for Third Generation Mobile Communications within 20 business days of the successful bidder for the licence confirming either that it is not subject to any preconditions or that it is no longer subject to any preconditions. Licences were issued to TIW UMTS UK Ltd. and One 2 One Personal Communications Ltd. on 9 May 2000.

  A well designed auction with well informed bidders should ensure that spectrum licences go to those who place the highest value on them and are most likely to make optimal use of the spectrum. In addition, the issue of five licences, including one reserved for a new entrant, should help to ensure that the available spectrum is used effectively by increasing sustainable competition and encouraging the faster roll-out of innovative services.

  Rover
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will send copies of the interim report from the Rover Task Force to hon. Members with West Midlands constituencies; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [121134]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: May I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 5 May 2000, Official Report, column 231W.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the money from the sale of the radio spectrum; and if he will make a statement. [121198]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to receive all of the receipts from the auction of Wireless Telegraph Act licences for Third Generation mobile communications in the current financial year.

  Motor Industry
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses there are which conduct retail, after sales and repair of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom; and how many of them employ fewer than 50 people. [121590]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: In 1999, there were 60,455 businesses in these sectors. 8,435 employed fewer than 50.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the motor retail franchised dealers(a) he and (b) his officials have visited in the United Kingdom since July 1999. [121595]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: My officials are in regular contact with the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF) which also includes the National Franchise Dealers Association.

  I met with John Edwards of the Phoenix Consortium, a Rover dealer and a member of the RMIF during the recent contacts over Rover.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations he has received on the controls on licensed production and brokerage of arms for export; and if he will make a statement; [121732]

  (2) what initiatives he is pursuing for greater control of licensed production and brokerage of arms for export; and if he will make a statement. [121731]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989) contained proposals to extend controls on trafficking and brokering in several areas, including in respect of the supply of arms and other controlled goods to any country subject to embargo and the supply of equipment the export from the UK of which 504W
  has been banned because of evidence that goods of the same type have been used in torture. All the White Paper proposals are currently under review in the light of comments received.

  As part of this review the Government are also considering the issue of licensed production overseas following the raising of this issue in a number of the responses to the White Paper. However, a licence is already required for the export of any controlled equipment or technology in tangible form needed for an overseas manufacturing facility.

  In recent months the Department for Trade and Industry has received representations on the issues of arms brokering and licensed production from Oxfam and Amnesty International's UK Directors, from many individual members of these two organisations and from other members of the public.

  The Government will announce proposals for new export control legislation following conclusion of the current review of the White Paper proposals.

  Penalty Clause
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122015]

  Dr. Howells
  Where appropriate, DTI contracts include liquidated damages clauses. Penalty clauses are not legally enforceable. The DTI has a great number of contracts in operation at any one time, the details of which are not held centrally. It would entail disproportionate cost to find out which of these contracts included liquidated damages clauses and which of those clauses had been invoked.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the areas within his Department and its agencies where functions have been contracted out, listing(a) the cost involved, (b) date of contract with expiry term, (c) the name of the company and (d) the area within the DTI from which the functions have been taken since May 1997. [121619]

  Dr. Howells
  I will arrange to write to the hon. Member with this information shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Influenza
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee which anti-viral drugs are available to hon. Members and staff at the Palace of Westminster to treat influenza. [121972]

  Mrs. Roe
  Stocks of a number of common drugs for emergency use are kept in the occupational health consulting room off the Lower Waiting Hall. These include drugs for treating angina, asthma and bacterial infections. These can be issued by the occupational health
  505W
  doctors, and by certain medically qualified hon. Members. The occupational health service also provides influenza vaccinations for hon. Members and staff in the at-risk groups.

  The service does not, however, hold other drugs (including anti-viral influenza drugs) as the House's medical services are not intended to replace normal GP services.

  Surveillance Devices
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many surveillance devices are in use(a) inside and (b) outside buildings on the Parliamentary Estate; what is the (i) nature, (ii) location, (iii) purpose and (iv) cost of installing and running each such device; and if he will make a statement. [120773]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The outturn for expenditure on security services in 1998–99 for the House of Commons was £13,953,000 as shown in the commission's Twenty-First Annual Report for 1998–99 (HC721); in 1999–2000 the cost was £13,454,174.

  It is not the practice to give detailed information of the type asked for by my hon. Friend.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy Ltd.
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the findings of the first stage of the quinquennial review of Remploy Ltd. [122343]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has now completed the prior options stage of the quinquennial review of Remploy. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library and will be sent to those who contributed to the consultation exercise. The report is also available on the DfEE website (www.dfee.gov.uk).

  The review considered a number of options but decided that Remploy's position and NDPB status should remain as it is for now. The next stage of this review will start shortly and will be completed within three months. During this stage the review team will look at the relationship between the Government and the Company to ensure that it operates to the highest standards in line with the commitment set out in the Modernising Government White Paper.

  There will be a further review in two years time to assess the impact of Remploy's new Corporate Plan—Remploy 21.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letter dated 30 March from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire in relation to the Chairman of the Governors of the Fitzherbert School in Fenny Bentley, Derbyshire. [121450]

  Mr. Wills
  A reply to the hon. Member was issued on Wednesday 10 May 2000.
  506W
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the hon. Member for West Derbyshire will receive a reply to his letter of 30 March about the William Gilbert School in Duffield, Derbyshire. [121441]

  Mr. Wills
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was issued on 8 May 2000.

  New Deal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minority communities living in the Greater London area have benefited from the New Deal. [121122]

  Ms Jowell
  New Deal actively promotes equality of opportunity and outcome for people of all ethnic and racial groups. Targets have been set for all Units of Delivery to achieve parity of outcome on jobs between white and ethnic minority young people, by the end of this Parliament. Latest figures show that to the end of February 2000, in Greater London, 19,157 men and 10,035 women from ethnic minority groups have benefited from starting the New Deal for young people and that 12,198 men and 2,565 women from ethnic minority groups have benefited from starting the national New Deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25 or over. Many others will have benefited from the New Deal for Lone Parents and other New Deals.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children living in the Greater London area were receiving free school meals on 1 April. [121973]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The data are not available in the form requested. Figures on the number of day pupils attending maintained schools1 in the Greater London Government Office Region who took a free meal in January this year is currently being collected. Latest estimates show that there were 226,000 such pupils, which represents 21 per cent. of the pupil population.

  Final national figures will be published in the Statistical Volume "Statistics of Education: Schools in England 2000" in September, a copy of which will be available in the Library.
  1 Includes pupils of all ages attending maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, pupil referral units and all special schools in the Greater London Government Office Region.

  Primary and Secondary Schools (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) England and Wales, in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in each of the last ten years for which figures are available. [122005]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out spending per pupil in Gloucestershire and England, from 1990–91 to 1998–99, the latest year for which expenditure figures are available. The figures are based on Net Institutional Expenditure.
  507W

  Table 1.

  £ per pupil

  Net institutional expenditure

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  Gloucestershire

  1990–91

  1,203

  1,912

  1991–92

  1,379

  1,811

  1992–93

  1,627

  2,122

  1993–94

  1,523

  2,084

  1994–95

  1,555

  2,113

  1995–96

  1,494

  2,082

  1996–97

  1,569

  2,133

  1997–98

  1,664

  2,243

  1998–991

  1,813

  2,321

  England

  1990–91

  1,339

  2,019

  1991–92

  1,469

  2,145

  1992–93

  1,583

  2,256

  1993–94

  1,630

  2,245

  1994–95

  1,661

  2,270

  1995–96

  1,687

  2,286

  1996–97

  1,731

  2,340

  1997–98

  1,739

  2,359

  1998–991

  1,882

  2,450

  1 Provisional

  The following tables set out the resources being made available in Gloucestershire and England for primary and secondary education as part of the drive to raise standards. These figures are not comparable with the net institutional figures set out in table 1. The special and specific grant totals include the money for schools announced in the Budget on 21 March.

  Table 2.

  £ per pupil

  Standard Spending Assessment

  Primary

  Secondary

  Gloucestershire

  1998–99

  2,081

  2,703

  1999–2000

  2,199

  2,816

  2000–01

  2,282

  2,935

  England

  1998–99

  2,248

  2,918

  1999–2000

  2,372

  3,031

  2000–01

  2,474

  3,175

  Table 3.

  £per pupil

  special and specific grants

  primary

  secondary

  Gloucestershire

  1998–99

  59

  49

  1999–2000

  127

  88

  2000–01

  238

  176

  England

  1998–99

  73

  64

  1999–2000

  140

  103

  2000–01

  250

  190

  Higher Education (Standardised Testing)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage higher education institutions to introduce standardised testing for scholastic attainment. [119143]
  508W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: Admissions procedures are a matter in the first instance for individual higher education institutions.

  The Government wish to see a widening of access to higher education, and we share the aspiration of those who promote the use of Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs) that higher education should be available to all who can benefit from it. The substantial reform of post-16 qualifications to be introduced from September will help broaden access to university by giving recognition to a wider range of qualifications. In addition, we are investing heavily in raising standards in deprived areas through "Excellence in Cities". This year we shall be launching new summer schools to help young people to understand better the opportunities higher education can offer. New "Opportunity Bursaries" of up to £1,000 per year will also be introduced from next year to give able young people from areas without a history of participation in higher education the extra financial incentives and confidence they need to embark on a higher education course.

  The Sutton Trust is running a small pilot of SAT-type tests in schools in England this year.

  Although its research is entirely separate from DfEE activities in this area we are happy to work closely with the Trust because its work is focused on widening the socio-economic profile of students in higher education. We have learned from its experience in running summer schools and have adopted much of its best practice in the summer schools we will launch this summer.

  Education Funding (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the average per pupil education standard spending assessment for 2000–01 in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) England and (ii) Somerset; what is the reason for the difference between (i) and (ii); and if he will make a statement; [121235]

  (2) if he will estimate the additional cash which would be available for education in Somerset if the average per pupil standard spending assessment for primary and secondary schools in Somerset was the same as the average for England; and if he will make a statement. [121221]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: The following table shows for 2000–01 education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for Somerset and England.

  £

  SSA

  Somerset

  England

  Difference

  Primary per pupil

  2,310

  2,474

  164

  Secondary per pupil

  2,984

  3,175

  191

  The differences between the figures for England and those for Somerset are a result of the authority receiving a below average share of the national total for education standard spending to reflect social deprivation and area costs. If Somerset's SSA per pupil for primary and secondary schools were the same as the national average it is estimated that its education SSA would be £11 million higher. Since 1997–98 Somerset's education SSA per pupil has increased by £338, and its special and specific grants per pupil have increased by £193.
  509W
  Somerset will benefit this year from Standards Fund grant of £8.8 million. Its share of the £50 million and £290 million special grants will be £3 million.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the new locations and structures of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations; and if he will make a statement. [121939]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the locations of the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations (previously called Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations) are as follows:

  Council of Reserve Forces' and Cadets; Associations
  Duke of York's Headquarters, Chelsea, London SW3 4SG.

  Highland Association
  Seathwood, 365 Perth Road, Dundee, DD2 1LX
  Councils forming the Association: Highland, Moray, Aberdeenshire, City of Aberdeen, Perthshire and Kinross, Angus, City of Dundee, Argull and Bute, Stirling, Fife, Falkirk, West Dunbartonshire, East Dunbartonshire, parts of north Lanarkshire and the Islands area of Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles.

  Lowland Association
  Lowland House, 60 Avenuepark Street, Glasgow G20 8LW
  Councils forming the Association: The Scottish borders, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lothian, City of Edinburgh, Midlothian, West Lothian, South Lanarkshire. North Lanarkshire (that formerly comprised of Monklands and Motherwell districts) East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, City of Glasgow and that part of Argull and Bute Council comprising the Island of Bute.

  North of England Association
  53 Old Elvet, Durham DH I 3JJ
  Counties forming the Association: Northumberland, Durham, Tyne and Wear and the Boroughs of Hartlepool; Stockton: Middlesborough; Redcar and Cleveland.

  Yorkshire and the Humber Association
  20 St. George's Place, York Y024 IDS
  Counties forming the Association: North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire.

  North West of England and Isle of Man Association
  Alexandra Court, 28 Alexandra Court, Liverpool L17 8YE
  Counties forming the Association: Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside and the Isle of Man.

  Wales Association
  Centre Block, Maindy Barracks, Cardiff CF4 3YE.
  Counties forming the Association: The Counties of Wales.

  West Midland Association
  Tennal Grange, Tennal Road, Harborne, Birmingham B32 2HX
  Counties forming the Association: Hereford and Worcester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Midland Metropolitan.

  East Midlands Association
  6 Clifton Terrace, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 1LZ
  Counties forming the Association: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland.
  510W
  Wessex Association
  2 Beaufort Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 2JS
  Counties/Unitary Authorities forming the Association: Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

  Eastern Wessex Association
  30 Carlton Place, Southampton S015 2DX
  Counties forming the Association: Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Oxfordshire and Channel Islands.

  East Anglia Association
  "Springfield Tyrells", 250 Springfield Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 6BU
  Counties forming the Association: Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire. Norfolk, Suffolk and those parts of the counties of Essex and Hertfordshire which do not form part of the Greater London Boundaries.

  Greater London Association
  Duke of York's Headquarters, Chelsea, London SW3 4RY
  Area forming the Association: The Association boundaries conform with the Metropolitan Police boundaries and include the City of London, the boundaries of London and Middlesex and parts of Kent, Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire.

  South East Association
  Sandling Place, Sandling Lane, Maidstone ME14 2NJ
  Counties forming the Association: Kent and Surrey excluding those parts of these Counties within the Metropolitan Police District, East Sussex and West Sussex.

  Northern Ireland Association
  25 Windsor Park, Belfast BT9 6FR
  Counties forming the Association: The six Counties of Ulster.

  On 1 September, the Eastern Wessex and South East Associations will amalgamate and reform as the South East Association. The new Association will be based in Aldershot. At the same time, responsibility for reserve forces and cadets in Dorset will pass to the Wessex Association.

  Membership of each RFCA is prescribed by means of a Scheme of Association, which is renewable every five years. Details of the Associations' responsibilities are contained in the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations' Regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 March and a copy of the Regulations is available in the Library of the House.

  Merlin Operators
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Merlin operators have been accepted into service; [121606]

  (2) how many further deliveries of Merlin operators are anticipated during the next (a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months and (d) 24 months. [121607]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: There are two Merlin programmes, namely the Merlin Mk1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopter and the Merlin Mk3 Support Helicopter.

  To date 12 Merlin Mk1s have been accepted into service, but no Mk3s.
  511W
  The following further Merlin deliveries into service are anticipated in the periods in the question (figures are shown cumulatively):

  (a) Five Mk1 and seven Mk3 within six months;

  (b) 12 Mk1 and 11 Mk3 within 12 months;

  (c) 18 Mk1 and 16 Mk3 within 18 months;

  (d) 29 Mk1 and 22 Mk3 within 24 months.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Lynx helicopters that have been grounded due to serious technical faults will be back in service within(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months and (d) 24 months. [121602]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: A number of steps are already being taken to increase the number of main rotor heads available for our Lynx helicopters, including bringing forward heads unaffected by fatigue problems from other airframes in routine maintenance, and improving repair and overhaul times. These will generate a steady improvement in Lynx availability with full fleet recovery being achieved after the delivery of new rotor heads in 18 months to two years. There are sufficient Lynx helicopters already available to meet all primary operational tasks.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the remaining Lynx helicopters have been converted to Mark 8 standard. [121600]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: 31 Mark 3 Lynx helicopters have been converted to Mark 8 standard, six are currently undergoing conversion at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. We are currently examining whether to convert the final 12 Mark 3s as originally planned in light of the remaining fatigue life of the aircraft.

  Fisher Patrol Squadron
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to order a new class of ships for the Fisher Patrol Squadron. [121609]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Department's agreement with the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the provision of Fishery Protection services is kept under periodic review. As part of the normal planning process, the ordering of replacements for those vessels currently used in the Fishery Protection role will be considered as the vessels reach the end of their lives.

  Frigates and Minehunters
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost per annum is of operating(a) Type 23 frigates, (b) Type 22 frigates, (c) SSNs, (d) Hunt Class minehunters and (e) Sandown Class minehunters. [121608]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The actual cost per annum of operation (a) Type 23 frigates, (b) Type 22 frigates, (c) SSNs, (d) Hunt Class minehunters and (e) Sandown Class minehunters will vary considerably dependent on the tasking/maintenance undertaken. Indicative annual costs, including manpower, fuel and stores only, would be in the region of £16 million for a
  512W
  Type 23 and a Type 22 frigate, £11 million£n for an SSN, £3 million for a Hunt Class minehunter and £2 million for a Sandown Class minehunter.

  Aircraft Information Systems
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the target dates for the completion of the information systems for Sea Kings are; and if they will be met; [121604]

  (2) what the target dates for the completion of the information systems for Sea Harriers are; and if they will be met. [121605]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Mission System Upgrade for the Sea King Airborne Early Warning helicopters includes the installation of the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS). This programme is on target to meet the predicted in service date of late 2001.

  It is expected that all Sea Harriers FA2 aircraft will be equipped with JTIDs by 2005 as planned.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the targets against which cluster bombs were deployed by the Royal Air Force during Operation Allied Force were selected by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) by NATO multilateral targeting arrangements. [121668]

  Mr. Spellar
  During Operation Allied Force, Royal Air Force Harrier GR7s released cluster weapons (RBL755s) against fixed targets and Yugoslav/Serbian fielded forces. The selection and allocation of fixed targets, and the nomination of aircraft to specific tasks, was the responsibility of NATO's Combined Air Operations Centre at Vicenza in Italy. This selection and tasking process was conducted in close coordination with the UK's air commander in theatre who scrutinised all targets and tasks against national Rules of Engagement and targeting constraints, where appropriate consulting the UK national chain of command.

  On the other hand, attacks against fielded forces were normally conducted in response to targets which had been located, identified and allocated by an Airborne Forward Air Control aircraft. In these highly responsive circumstances, the Harrier GR7 pilot was responsible for locating, positively identifying and assessing the validity of the target against clearly defined Rules of Engagement; the pilot was also responsible for selecting the most appropriate number and type of weapon to be released. UK armed forces will always use the weapons judged most appropriate against a given target, taking into account weapon effectiveness and the need to minimise collateral damage.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many BL755 cluster bombs were used in the Falklands Islands by Her Majesty's Armed Forces; how many sub munitions from these weapons have been cleared; and what estimates have been made of the number of sub munitions remaining. [121667]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the use of RAF Fylingdales for the National Missile Defense system. [121998]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have not received a request from the US regarding the use of RAF Fylingdales as part of the NMD system, and nor would we expect any until after a US decision on whether or not to proceed towards deployment of such a system.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many American(a) civilian and (b) military personnel are based at RAF Fylingdales. [121999]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are nine US civilian contractor employees and one US military officer at RAF Fylingdales.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the operational purpose of RAF Feltwell; and how many(a) UK and (b) US personnel are stationed there. [121997]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Feltwell is a passive deep space tracking station and part of a worldwide network of sensors tracking man-made objects in deep space. As at 10 May 2000, there were 124 US personnel stationed there in support of this role, and no UK personnel. Feltwell also provides a support function for RAF Lakenheath.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) US military, (b) US civilian, (c) UK military and (d) UK civilian personnel work at Menwith Hill Station. [121780]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 26 April 2000, at RAF Menwith Hill there were 415 US military, 989 US civilian, five UK military and 392 UK civilian personnel (excluding GCHQ staff). I am withholding the numbers of GCHQ staff under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned numbers of US military personnel at Menwith Hill Station will be in(a) 2000, (b) 2003 and (c) 2005. [121783]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 26 April 2000, there were 415 US military personnel at RAF Menwith Hill. This number is not expected to change significantly in the foreseeable future.

  Joint Operations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint operations or exercises have taken place outside the United Kingdom since 1 March 1999 between British forces and members of the armed forces of states that are not parties to the Ottawa Convention. [122033]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 March 1999, UK forces have participated in 10 joint operations and 13 joint exercises outside of the UK with armed forces from states that are not parties to the Ottawa Convention. These states are: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Egypt, Estonia, Finland,514W
  Georgia, India, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, Latvia, Libya, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Turkey, UAE and USA.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 333-34W, (1) what proportion of the sum attributed to the introduction of a single charge for authorisation for the disposal of used sheep dip will accrue to (a) sheep farmers, (b) other farmers and (c) non-farmers; [120638]

  (2) which years the four-year period for the introduction of a single charge for the disposal of sheep dip applies to. [120637]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The single charge shall apply to the first four years of an initial groundwater authorisation falling in the Environment Agency's "Reduced Application Charge" band, whenever such an authorisation might commence. The Environment Agency's existing records show that some 73 per cent. of the sum attributed to the introduction of this single charge will accrue to sheep farmers, 26 per cent. to other farmers, and 1 per cent. to non-farmers.

TREASURY

  Mobile Phone Licences
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the receipts from the auction of Third Generation mobile phone licences is in the form of an initial payment in the current financial year. [121028]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to receive all of the receipts from the auction of Wireless Telegraphy Act licences for Third Generation mobile communications in the current financial year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Landmines Act
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility his Department has in respect of the Landmines Act 1998. [122344]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following discussions between the Departments concerned, the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. Boateng), on 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 443W, requires expansion. The Home Secretary has general ministerial responsibility for enforcement action under the Landmines Act 1998 taken by the police in England and Wales, with parallel responsibilities being

  515W
  exercised in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and in Scotland by the Scottish Ministers. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise also have enforcement responsibilities under the Act. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has responsibility for policy on the Ottawa Convention and for co-ordinating any amendments to the Landmines Act which may arise from amendments to the Ottawa Convention. Action may be taken under other provisions of the Act by the Secretaries of State for the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Trade and Industry, the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons married to United Kingdom citizens have been(a) served with deportation orders and (b) deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [121742]

  Mrs. Roche
  The central deportation records do not separately identify spouses of United Kingdom citizens and the information requested could, therefore, be obtained only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case files.

  Youth Custody Orders
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youth custody orders have been used since their introduction; and how many are in use. [121786]

  Mr. Boateng
  The detention and training order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was implemented on 1 April 2000. It is the new main custodial sentence for juveniles aged 12 to 17 and replaced the secure training order and detention in a young offender institution for that age group. Because the minimum term of a detention and training order is four months, all the orders which have been made since 1 April remain in force. Information from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales indicates that on 10 May, 483 detention and training orders were being served.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the backlog clearance exercise; and if he will make a statement. [122027]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since the start of the backlog clearance exercise in late December 1998 up to the end of March 2000, 15,125 initial decisions were made to grant exceptional leave to remain under the backlog criteria set out in the White Paper. We are aiming to clear the backlog of pre-1996 asylum applications by the end of July this year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers; what has been the impact on administrative costs of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [121992]
  516W
  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service commenced the distribution of vouchers on 3 April 2000. From this date, destitute asylum seekers and their dependants have been able to exchange vouchers for cash at designated Post Offices and for goods in over 18,000 affiliated national and independent retail outlets.

  As the new voucher scheme has only been in operation since 3 April it is too early to make any meaningful assessment of its impact on central and local government administration costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring the new support arrangements for asylum seekers into force for all new asylum applicants. [121995]

  Mrs. Roche
  The new support arrangements were introduced on 3 April for those seeking asylum at port and extended on 17 April to bring onto the scheme new in-country applicants who make an asylum claim in Kent and those asylum seekers resident in Kent who receive a first decision on their application and then go on to appeal. It is hoped to bring all new asylum applicants onto the new support arrangements within six months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers were recognised as refugees in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [121994]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the period October 1999 to March 2000, of the initial decisions made under normal procedures on applications for asylum to the United Kingdom 7 per cent. were granted refugee status. In addition, 3 per cent. of applications received in the period July 1993 to December 1995 which were decided in the latest six months under the backlog criteria set out in the White Paper were granted refugee status.

  Information on asylum can be accessed via the Internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions govern the legality of selling and buying vouchers issued to asylum seekers under the new support arrangements; what is the maximum penalty; how many persons have been convicted of an offence and what sentences they received; if the vouchers are marked 'non-transferable'; and if he will make a statement. [122000]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no specific provisions in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 directly covering the sale or purchase of vouchers issued to asylum seekers under the new support arrangements. However, it is made clear on the face of a voucher that it is only for the use of the person named on it. Accordingly, any attempt to obtain cash or goods by a person other than the one named on the voucher could constitute an offence under the Theft Acts or conspiracy to defraud at common law, for which there is a range of maximum sentences. In certain circumstances, the offences of making false or dishonest representations (the maximum penalty for which is seven years imprisonment on conviction on indictment), under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, may be made out. These latter offences correspond to anti-fraud provisions in social security legislation.
  517W
  No persons have been convicted of an offence relating to the sale or purchase or other misuse of vouchers provided under the new arrangements.

  Any asylum seeker who disposes of their vouchers for cash might be liable to be charged with conspiracy to commit or aiding and abetting the commission of the offences under the Theft Acts or the 1999 Act.

  Any asylum seeker receiving support under the national asylum support scheme who obtains cash from whatever source or by whatever means and fails to notify the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) would be liable to have their support suspended or discontinued under regulation 20(1)(a) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, as he would be in breach of a condition subject to which the asylum support had been provided (notification of change of circumstances). If they fail to notify the Service dishonestly and with a view to obtaining an advantage for themselves or another, they commit an offence under the 1999 Act which is punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment.

  The NASS is presently in the process of establishing its intelligence and investigation functions. It is intended that NASS be able to receive complaints of fraud or misuse of its voucher scheme, to investigate these as appropriate, and to take such action as may seem correct in the individual case.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local child curfew orders have been issued; and if he will make a statement. [121985]

  Mr. Boateng
  No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Following consultation with local authorities and the police, the Government are considering what improvements might be made to the provisions to ensure that they are able to contribute effectively to local partnership efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable has been set for the review of the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress announced on 22 February; if the review is under way; and if he will make a statement. [121991]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review is underway and Mr. Gurbux Singh hopes to report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, within a month.

  Afghan Airliner Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the persons who arrived in the United Kingdom on the hijacked Afghan airliner(a) have claimed asylum, (b) have been granted refugee status including as dependants, (c) have been granted exceptional leave to remain, (d) have had their claims refused, (e) have appealed against a refusal of their claim, (f) have remained in the United Kingdom, (g) have
  518W
  been removed to Afghanistan and (h) have been removed to a third country; and if he will make a statement. [121990]

  Mr. Straw
  Of those persons who arrived on the hijacked Afghan airliner 79 have claimed asylum; eight passengers and six dependants have been granted asylum but no-one has been granted exceptional leave to remain; 37 have been refused asylum, of which five are dependants; all those who were refused have appealed; none have remained in this country without permission; and no-one has yet been removed to Afghanistan or to another third country. However, 81 of those on the aeroplane have now left this country voluntarily. Twelve individuals are the subject of criminal charges in relation to the hijacking.

  Consideration of further action will be given as soon as the outcome of the outstanding appeals is known.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued against(a) persons (i) over and (ii) under the age of 18 and (b) persons under the age of 16; and if he will make a statement. [122028]

  Mr. Straw
  As hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Clarke), stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 824W, records of the numbers of anti-social behaviour orders issued are not currently held centrally. We understand that about 40 to 45 orders have been made in England and Wales since the relevant provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force in April last year. We understand that at least 21 were in respect of persons under the age of 18, of which at least 14 were in respect of persons aged under 16.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the revised allocation of recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund; what discussions and meetings he has had with police authorities and chief constables about the revised allocation; what representations he has received on this issue; when he first informed police authorities and chief constables that the allocation would be revised to allow the recruitment of 5,000 extra recruits over two years rather than three; and if he will make a statement. [121988]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 6 April 2000,Official Report, columns 595-96W.

  My officials have consulted police service and police authority representatives on how the recruitment scheme can be accelerated. I have received some representations from hon. Members, chief constables and police authorities about their allocations under the Crime Fighting Fund recruitment scheme. I announced details of the accelerated scheme in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000, Official Report, columns 1–3W, and I hope to make the promised further announcement shortly.

  Recorded Crime
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the change in the level of recorded crime in(a) England and Wales and (b) each police force area in the year ending 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [121983]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Statistical Bulletin giving the Recorded Crime Statistics for the year ending 31 March 2000, including the requested details, is due to be published in July.

  Institutional Racism
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which(a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies are institutionally racist; what criteria he uses to define institutional racism; and if he will make a statement. [121996]

  Mr. Straw
  I accepted the definition of institutional racism set out in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report as a useful guide in tackling discrimination and inequality within public services.

  In the Home Office, we had already identified, through a staff survey, that a significant number of our minority ethnic staff felt that they had experienced prejudice or been denied opportunity. A programme of action was started including targets for recruitment, retention and progression, and the establishment of a minority ethnic network for staff.

  The Government are determined that the public sector should lead on race equality. The legislation currently going through Parliament extends direct discrimination provisions to public authorities and includes, for the first time, indirect discrimination and a duty on all public authorities to promote race equality, and will prove a key lever in tackling institutional racism.

  The Home Office is working with other Government Departments in developing strategies to inculcate race equality as a core issue. Responsibility for action by individual Departments or organisations rests with them.

  Passport Fees
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase passport fees to cover the increased cost due to handling charges payable on credit card transactions as payment for passports. [121984]

  Mrs. Roche
  Savings resulting from the introduction of credit card payment for postal passport applications are likely to offset the costs of handling charges. Therefore, this development is unlikely to result in an increase in passport fees. The savings will result from more efficient processing of passport fee receipts. The facility to pay by credit card will also be more convenient for many passport customers than existing payment methods.

  Passport Agency
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the 520W
  external communications and media handling capabilities of the United Kingdom Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement. [122034]

  Mrs. Roche
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency has undertaken a thorough audit of its external communications and media handling and has already introduced a number of improvements.

  The Agency is undertaking more focused market research, to test new services and determine customer needs.

  A 24 hour a day, seven days a week national telephone inquiry line has been established for general inquiries and for customers to check on progress of passport applications, as well as a same-day e-mail inquiry service, faxback service and a regularly updated website.

  Passport offices have longer opening hours. The London office now opens at 7.30am Monday to Friday, all offices are open to 6pm, and Saturday opening will start this summer at all offices.

  There are stronger links with the travel trade, to get important messages over to their customers.

  The Agency is establishing a small team, dedicated to improving communications between the United Kingdom Passport Agency, its customers and the public, and to ensure that the Agency can respond more effectively to the media. The Agency is creating its own press office.

  Referendum Campaigns
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on Government activity during referendum campaigns. [121993]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have maintained, and will maintain, the usual rules on the activities of civil servants during referendum and election periods. In addition, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill would prohibit the Government from publishing, displaying or distributing material in relation to a referendum in the 28 days immediately prior to the date of the poll. This proposal responds to the report of the Neill Committee and has been welcomed by the Committee.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 312W, what period was served by the prisoner convicted of wounding (inflicting grievous bodily harm) and released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme before the end of the requisite period due to an error in sentence calculation (a) before release on the Home Detention Curfew scheme and (b) subsequently; and if he will make a statement. [122030]

  Mr. Boateng
  The prisoner convicted of wounding (inflicting grievous bodily harm) and released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme before the end of the requisite period served 215 days before his release on Home Detention Curfew and subsequently served 227 days on his return to lawful custody.

  Disorder (Central London)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken by the Metropolitan police regarding the dispersal of the demonstrators from Trafalgar Square and Whitehall on 1 May; to which areas of London they were dispersed; what policing arrangements were made to ensure a peaceful and orderly dispersal; and if he will make a statement. [121989]

  Mr. Straw
  The Metropolitan police inform me contingency plans were drawn up to deal with possible disorder. The tactic for this event was to contain any disorder followed by a controlled dispersal. This is what took place from Parliament Square, Trafalgar Square and Whitehall. I understand that protesters from Whitehall and Trafalgar Square were released in small numbers throughout the afternoon and evening to make their way home. Some demonstrators from Parliament Square were escorted to Kennington Park, and a small group of demonstrators congregated in the Strand were escorted to Kennington Park. During the controlled dispersals, police monitored their movements throughout.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 314W, on the disorder in central London on 1 May, what meetings were held prior to 1 May between the Metropolitan police and the Royal Parks Agency regarding the protection of the statues in Parliament Square; who was the most senior Metropolitan police officer present at each such meeting; what advice the Royal Parks Agency received from the Metropolitan police concerning boarding up the statues; who was the most senior Metropolitan police officer who authorised the giving of such advice; and if he will make a statement. [122031]

  Mr. Straw
  The Metropolitan police inform me that one formal meeting was held with the Royal Parks Agency and several phone calls were made. A member of the central planning team attended the meeting under the directions of the event commander, who on this occasion was Commander Messinger. The available information and intelligence was shared with the Agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 314W, on the disorder in central London on 1 May, what meetings were held prior to 1 May between the Metropolitan police and English Heritage regarding the protection of the Cenotaph; who was the most senior Metropolitan police officer present at each such meeting; what advice English Heritage received from the Metropolitan police about boarding up the Cenotaph; who was the most senior Metropolitan police officer who authorised the giving of such advice; and if he will make a statement. [122032]

  Mr. Straw
  The Metropolitan police inform me that one formal meeting was held with English Heritage and several phone calls made. A member of the police central planning team attended the meeting under the directions of the event commander, who on this occasion was Commander Messinger. The available information and intelligence was shared with English Heritage.

  Prisons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's prisons policy. [122001]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the Government's policy that the Prison Service should contribute to the wider aims of the criminal justice system by: protecting the public by holding those committed by the courts in a safe, decent and healthy environment; and reducing crime by providing constructive regimes which address offending behaviour, improve educational and work skills and promote law abiding behaviour in custody and after release.

  The Prison Service's priorities for 2000–01 are therefore to maintain security and prevent escapes, to deliver improved regimes, including joint approaches with the Probation Service and to manage the prison population safely. The Service is working to improve healthcare, to build a partnership with the Youth Justice Board, to increase prison capacity and to modernise the Service, which includes improving race relations and information technology.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission a full independent evaluation of the methodology of, and conclusions arrived at, in the Comparative Costs of and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated Prisons 1998–99; what plans he has to issue a qualification of the conclusions arrived at; and if he will make a statement. [121467]

  Mr. Boateng
  The current methodology was developed by Coopers and Lybrand in 1994–95 and has been updated in subsequent years by Home Office staff. The 1998–99 results show that privately managed prisons cost on average 0 per cent. to 13 per cent. less than comparable publicly managed prisons. The present methodology does not cover prisons which have also been designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector (DCMF prisons), three of which have now been fully operational for a year. The Prison Service is therefore commissioning independent consultants to develop a revised methodology which will include DCMF prisons, and an invitation to tender will be issued shortly.

  Local Elections
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the turnout in(a) the May 2000 local elections and (b) each of the previous five local elections for each local authority area which conducted pilot projects of alternative voting procedures under the Representation of the People Act 2000; what alternative procedures were used in each case; what plans he has to extend such alternative procedures to all local elections in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [121987]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information about turnout in local authority elections for the previous five local elections for each local authority is not held centrally and we would need to obtain this from local authorities and this would be at disproportionate cost.

  A list of the local authorities running pilot schemes at the recent local elections was provided in a reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 21 March 2000, Official Report, columns 486-87W.
  523W
  Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, requires local authorities which ran pilot schemes to produce an evaluation report within three months of the election. No decisions on roll-out can be made until this process has been completed.

  Young Offenders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made to date in halving the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders; when he expects it to be achieved; and if he will make a statement. [122036]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1996, the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. The Government are committed to halving this by March 2002. We are making continuing good progress—the national average had fallen to 108 days in 1999.

  A copy of the latest figures has been placed in the Library.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether 1 October will be the commencement date for appeal rights for visitor visa refusals. [121713]
  524W
  Mrs. Roche
  We plan that family visitors who have been refused entry clearance will be able to appeal against the refusal from 2 October 2000.

  Prohibited Weapons
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prohibited weapons are held by private individuals in England by permission of the Secretary of State. [119870]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 April 2000, c. 595W]: The final paragraph of that reply should have read as follows:

  There are only eight private individuals in England authorised by the Secretary of State to possess a total of 1,337 prohibited weapons. The vast majority of these are held by one person in one of the most comprehensive private collections of historic firearms in the world. The remaining firearms are held by two people who provide highly specialised firearms training to units of the United Kingdom armed forces; a forensic firearms expert; a lecturer and technical consultant; the owner of a private museum; a professional trapper of dangerous animals who is called in by the police to deal with such animals as escaped big cats; and a researcher into ballistics.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—by the Lord Bishop of London.

Defence
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)rose to move, That this House takes note of the Defence White Paper, published in December 1999 (Cm 4446).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although we are to discuss the Defence White Paper and look ahead to the likely developments in our Armed Forces, first, with your Lordships' leave, I must say something about the current situation in Sierra Leone.
As a measure of how international crises can occur and how quickly we must be able to react, Sierra Leone is a textbook example. Only a week ago we were considering the possibility of having to deploy British forces to the region but by Monday over 1,000 British troops, four Chinook helicopters and eight C-130 aircraft were already on the ground in Sierra Leone. In addition, seven Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, including HMS "Ocean", with 450 marines and eight helicopters on board, are en route and will be available in the area over the next few days.
The primary purpose behind our decision to intervene in this crisis is to protect and evacuate British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility from a dangerous, uncertain and unpredictable situation. The Government's advice remains that all British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility should leave Sierra Leone as soon as possible. However, we also believe that an effective UNAMSIL, organised and equipped to meet its mandate, coupled with renewed commitment by all parties to the Lomé accord, offers the best hope for a lasting peace in Sierra Leone. British forces' control of Lungi airport for evacuation purposes will enable promised reinforcements for UNAMSIL to arrive safely.
As announced last night, we therefore intend that British forces will continue to secure Lungi airport while strong reinforcements are expected to arrive from countries including India, Bangladesh, and Jordan over the coming days and weeks to bolster the existing UNAMSIL force. We are confident that once those additional forces have arrived and UNAMSIL is fully up to strength it will be able to fulfil its mandate.
The arrival of HMS "Ocean", with her embarked marines, will increase the options available to us for this task and provide useful flexibility and back-up in what remains a fluid and potentially dangerous situation. We shall also continue to offer technical military advice to UNAMSIL and to the Government of Sierra Leone.
1830
General Sir Charles Guthrie, accompanied by a senior official from the Foreign Office, will visit west Africa this weekend. As well as meeting our forces and UNAMSIL staff in Sierra Leone, they will visit Senegal and Nigeria. The visit was planned some time ago, but it will be especially valuable because they will be able to discuss our support for UNAMSIL as part of the search for stability in Sierra Leone following the Prime Minister's statement last night.
I am sure that all Members of the House will want to join me in expressing our admiration of, and thanks for, the truly exemplary conduct of the British forces in theatre. The deployment has been a faultless demonstration of their technical capability and truly world-class quality.
However, it cannot, and will not, be an open-ended commitment. British troops will continue to evacuate entitled persons and to secure Lungi airport while the UN forces build. We do not intend that British troops will become involved in combat other than if they are attacked. Nevertheless, this is a limited but significant military contribution and should permit UNAMSIL to reach its full strength and effectively discharge its mandate. That is the best hope for Sierra Leone and for its long-suffering people.
When this Government came into office, we were acutely aware of the need to modernise our Armed Forces—
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the Minister continues, perhaps I can raise a question directly related to what she has said. Can she give the House a guarantee that British troops in the area at no time, whether now or in the future, will come under United Nations' control or command?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in the situation that I have described to your Lordships, it is not wise for me, from this Dispatch Box, to give guarantees in relation to any of the operational issues that may need to be reviewed in the coming days. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the situation suggested by the noble Lord will occur. But to give a guarantee, at a time when we know that there is a potentially dangerous and fluid situation, is a step further than any Minister in my position ought sensibly to take. We shall carefully watch the situation. Fortuitously, the Chief of Defence Staff has a visit planned that will enable him to look at the situation on the ground. As matters progress, I am sure that we shall be able to be more helpful about our intentions. I hope that the House will bear with me for the moment.
I shall return to what I was saying. When the Government came into office, we were acutely aware of the need to modernise our Armed Forces in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of the defence and security environment. As noble Lords will be aware, a great deal has changed over the past decade and a half. The world has become increasingly multipolar, with new and shifting centres of power and alliances. Old certainties have collapsed while new conflicts have emerged and, sadly, conflicts that previously had been repressed have been re-ignited.

1831
We felt that not enough had been done to ensure that our defence structures had changed sufficiently to meet that changing environment.
The analysis conducted during the Strategic Defence Review has fully confirmed this belief and events experienced since 1997 in Kosovo and now in Sierra Leone have reinforced those lessons. Perhaps some of this strife will prove to be transitional; the death throes of an old order. Perhaps the longer term will result in the emergence of stable, liberal democracies. I am sure we all hope that that will be the case.
But we cannot stand by in the hope of a better world appearing: there remain too many fundamental causes of conflict. Political or economic exclusion has been the root cause of many recent internal conflicts. Ineffective or corrupt governments increase the risk of instability. Taken together with various combinations of ethnic tensions and demographic pressure, all too evident in many regions of the world today, it is reasonable to expect a degree of increasing instability. Almost by definition, this is likely to be in the regions that are least able to help themselves.
Here we come to what I believe is the heart of the matter. Such crises may not place our immediate national interests at risk. There may be no immediate imperatives to intervene to protect the United Kingdom and its citizens. However, international relationships are more complex and often a great deal more subtle than that. We recognised this in the Strategic Defence Review. We recognised that in the wider interests of the United Kingdom and in order that those wider interests be protected our military capability would often be deployed in conflict prevention and peacekeeping as well as for direct national security. That is part of the changing picture of international relations—call it globalisation, call it the "world economy" or call it the international community. It is the reality of the position.
Moreover, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth. We are a relatively wealthy nation that depends on free trade which is permitted by peace and stability. We have these relationships and responsibilities. We need to exercise them with care in the wider interests of the United Kingdom. These interests will be better served in a peaceful and stable world.
We believe that we have a great deal to be proud of in Britain: a stable democracy; respect for the rule of law; civilian control of the military; and an inherent respect for basic human rights. We have a responsibility to those struggling to enjoy precisely those rights that we take for granted; a responsibility to help to secure peace, stability and the furtherance of human rights wherever we can.
But, of course, the discharge of such responsibilities is not a straightforward matter. Ideally, it is achieved through the channels of diplomacy, discussion and debate, as well as economic and developmental aid.
1832
But sometimes, as we know all too sadly, these methods fail and then we must be prepared to adopt the methods of last resort—military force.
To be able to employ military force in the modern world, either directly or in a role that seeks to defuse tension or deter conflict, requires forces that are flexible, genuinely deployable, capable and sustainable—in some circumstances over extended periods of time. The SDR recognised that this kind of function lies at the heart of the role of the British Armed Forces of the future.
The White Paper set out how far we have already come in implementing the review's recommendations. I wish to stress to noble Lords that I believe that it is by results delivered that our policies will be judged, and rightly so. Since the White Paper was published, we have made further progress in making real improvements. Indeed, a large proportion of the review's key decisions have now been implemented. Since April last year, we have established a pool of Joint Rapid Reaction Forces to provide more capable, deployable and better supported joint forces. We have established the Joint Helicopter Command, bringing together all battlefield helicopters. We have formed 16 Air Assault Brigade, the most powerful formation of its size in Europe and equipped with the Apache attack helicopter. The first of these helicopters for the Army was recently rolled out at the Westland factory in Yeovil.
We have the Joint Force Harrier, which brings together RAF and Royal Navy Harrier aircraft into a more flexible command as part of a new Maritime Air Group. As presaged in the review, we have taken the first steps to procure two new aircraft carriers and we are in the process of fitting all our attack submarines with the Tomahawk land attack missile, which was employed so successfully during the Kosovo crisis last year.
I am happy to say that Smart procurement is proceeding well. Attention is often drawn to successes in the big equipment projects and it is quite right that we should do so. But Smart procurement is about much more than that. It represents a truly radical shake-up in our whole procurement philosophy and culture. It touches on the way we pull in the expertise and strengths of the private sector, the way we maintain and support equipment through its entire lifespan and also the way we train and educate our Armed Forces. It is often the people working on the smaller projects and the less glamorous systems who are the most creative in this. When I visited the Defence Logistics Organisation in Andover last Friday, I was impressed by the innovative ideas such as lean support techniques that could deliver savings of as much as £3 billion over the next 10 years and by the introduction of a Defence Electronic Commerce Service to cut down on red tape. I have also been much encouraged by the genuine interest shown by our defence partners from abroad in what we are doing. It is rarely the case, when I go abroad, that an item on the agenda put forward by my counterparts in governments overseas is not one of Smart procurement in which they are all extremely interested.

1833
So when I read some of the comments the press regularly churn out about our defence equipment, I wish that reporters would at least occasionally check their facts and provide a balanced view. Modernising the Armed Forces means equipping them to perform the most demanding tasks. That represents a huge programme of investment in our forces. It is some £10 billion per year on equipment. Yet we are still accused of trying to get our defence on the cheap. That is nonsense. Yes, we want to be efficient; we want to make every pound count for defence. It would be unreasonable to expect us to take any other course. But if you asked a man or woman in the street about spending priorities, they would most likely put defence pretty low on the list. It is not that they consider defence to be of little importance, but rather that they expect any government to provide the resources necessary as a matter of course. Nonetheless, additional defence spending is not going to be a top priority with the public and we need to accept the realities of that.
The priorities of this Government lie with getting the maximum value from available resources that will always remain less than we might wish for. But we do not and will not compromise on the quality of equipment that we provide to our forces.
In past debates, many noble Lords expressed concern about our budget. It is a fact that in the period front when this Government came into office up to 2001–02, defence spending is due to fall by just 3 per cent in real terms. The defence budget does not decline by 3 per cent per year, as some noble Lords have suggested. Instead, the settlement agreed after the Strategic Defence Review included an assumption that 3 per cent efficiency savings would be found each year and that the bulk of those savings would be used to fund our SDR enhancements. That is an enormously important point. In addition, in 1998 we set an agreed level for the defence budget out to 2002. This financial stability replaces the old uncertainty of the old system of annual spending rounds and allows us to plan defence more sensibly.
I have already mentioned the TLAM programme. We will be further enhancing our stand-off precision-strike capability with Storm Shadow, an air-launched cruise missile. The roll-out of the first Apache attack helicopter for the Army was only a few weeks ago. In the longer term we have an ambitious range of new programmes including Eurofighter, the future carrier borne aircraft, the Astute Class submarine, the Type 45 destroyer, the future strategic transport aircraft and two new aircraft carriers. Those will significantly enhance our capabilities. The plans for their procurement are under way and the project teams are working on them.
But looking ahead must not distract us from the capability of our forces today. We are enhancing the capabilities of equipment already in service. Both the air defence and ground attack versions of the Tornado are being improved. The Army recently deployed Challenger 2 to Kosovo; that represents a significant leap in performance and reliability. The personal clothing of our deployed soldiers is better than it has
1834
ever been before. And despite what your Lordships might see reported in the media, 92 per cent of that clothing was made in the UK during the last six months for which we have records. That represents nearly £45 million of business placed with UK industry during this period.
Of course, there are problems. We acknowledge that. And where we can we are taking decisive early action to solve them. For example, the difficulties of the SA80 rifle have been well documented. We are taking action to address those difficulties. It is necessary to make two points here. First, these problems have not arisen on or since 1st May 1997. Secondly, they need to be kept in perspective. For example, stories appeared in the media recently about the Lynx rotor-head. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, it affected the availability of the aircraft. But it has not stopped our meeting key operational tasks in the Gulf, the south Atlantic, the Caribbean, Ulster and the Balkans. This Government would never settle for anything less.
Of course, equipment is one thing, but all of those programmes would be worthless if we did not have the right numbers of the right sort of personnel. I am sure that this House does not need reminding of the value of the work they do, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—often in trying or dangerous circumstances. In the Balkans, the Gulf, in Ulster, people are risking their lives on our behalf. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing admiration for the tireless professional conduct of our Armed Forces and other personnel. The past year has seen numerous examples of their dedication and professional quality. I am sometimes appalled at the glibness with which armchair commentators deliver their verdicts on these issues while ignoring the very real dangers confronting our servicemen and women. The arrogance of those who downplayed the dangers facing pilots over Kosovo last year was quite breathtaking. We must never forget the risks faced every day by our Armed Forces during the Kosovo operations and those who are on operational service today.
I am pleased to say that recruitment is up for all three services over the past year. The Army has had its best intake since the beginning of the 1990s. But the real problem, as noble Lords know only too well, is retention. This is where our Policy for People is so important. We have to recognise that service personnel have families—wives, husbands, partners and children—all of whom deserve consideration too. As a result, we introduced a package of measures to improve the operational welfare of our deployed personnel. We increased their telephone allowance from three to 20 minutes per week so that service personnel can better keep in touch with those at home. We have trialled an "electronic bluey", an electronic version of the traditional forces aerogramme, with forces deployed to the Balkans and the Falkland Islands. We provide Internet facilities at units and family centres around the country and on naval vessels so that as many people as possible can have access to it.

1835
And we have introduced guaranteed periods of post-operational tour leave so that personnel can be assured that they will be able to spend time with their families when they return from operations.
It is, though, often the families of deployed personnel who are affected most by service life. We recognised this as a specific problem in the SDR and the resulting service families task force has been a particular success. It is continuing to address—and hopefully overcome—the problems faced by service families that fall outside the scope of the MoD alone. This is truly an example of joined-up government in action across Whitehall to resolve difficulties that have been significant disincentives to service life. In the 18 months of the task force's existence, it has achieved impressive results—from ensuring that the Code of Practice on Schools Admissions now specifically recognises, for the first time, service children to working with the DfEE and DSS to produce guidance that deals with the problems of service spouses, who are often moved around the country at short notice, seeking to claim jobseeker's allowance.
These measures, from new weapons systems to guidance on jobseeker's allowance, are all intended to produce one thing—world class armed forces capable of facing the tasks of today and tomorrow. A year ago, of course, our thoughts were dominated by events in the Balkans. The Kosovo campaign and the subsequent efforts to create a long-term peace in the region have validated the conclusions of the SDR on the need for rapidly deployable, highly flexible forces that we can sustain at a distance and for an extended period of time. That was borne out again in East Timor a few months later. And now, in Sierra Leone, we are seeing exactly the same requirement.
The Kosovo campaign was a remarkable success. It underlined the role that we, as a leading democracy, should be playing in the world along with our partners in NATO and elsewhere. Indeed, I am sure that the strength of collective international will was instrumental in the outcome of the crisis.
Of course there is a great deal to be done in the Balkans. There are no grounds for complacency, as we all know. But we should not understate what has been achieved thus far. We have returned hundreds of thousands of refugees to their homes and are involved in rebuilding an entire society. We never pretended that dealing with such deep-seated tensions was going to be easy, but those who predicted failure for our efforts from the start would do well to reflect on the continuing success of the international community in Bosnia.
Though the lessons of the Kosovo campaign still have to be learned, they do vindicate the SDR. The campaign has also served, I hope, in one important lesson: as a wake-up call to many nations by throwing into stark relief the failings of collective European military capability. Although European nations now contribute over 70 per cent of the forces in KFOR, proportionately their contribution to the air campaign this time last year was a great deal less impressive.
1836
The place that Europe occupies on the world stage should reflect the continent's political and economic weight. However, such an elevated position brings with it obligations and responsibilities. In terms of its military ability to meet those obligations in some crucial areas, Europe simply does not measure up.
Kosovo thus gave an added impetus to the debate on European defence initiated by the Prime Minister. European defence is about improving our collective military capability. It is not about institutions and it is definitely not about creating a "European Army". This has been made clear by the adoption of a challenging, practical target for collective capability—the "Headline Goal", which requires EU member states to be able by the year 2003 to deploy rapidly and to sustain up to 60,000 personnel capable of undertaking the most demanding tasks. Our discussions on this are already well under way. We hope to make further progress at the up-coming EU meetings in June at Brussels and at Feira in Portugal. But I must emphasis to the House again that NATO is, and will remain, the cornerstone and fundamental building block of our defence policy. Our current discussions take place within that framework.
Proper attention to enhancing our defence capabilities should not blind us to the role played by our British defence assets in peacetime to dispel hostility, to build and maintain trust and to assist in the development of democratically accountable armed forces. As part of the SDR, we made "defence diplomacy" a high priority in its own right. That is a wise investment. By supporting arms control, training, education and advice, we hope to spread an appreciation of our standards of democratic control. Like conventional diplomacy, its success is often only measurable in terms of the bad things that do not happen. But we are confident of a real difference being made.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not want to be too retrospective and that I wanted to look forward. I hope that I have been able to achieve that aim. But it would be foolish to pretend that anyone can predict the future. I strongly believe that the Strategic Defence Review provided us with sound guidance for the future shape of defence. It was based on the first principles of a rigorous foreign policy analysis and was very much a policy-led undertaking. From Kosovo and the current debate on European defence to the success of Smart procurement and the crisis in Sierra Leone, experience is vindicating the validity of the SDR's conclusions.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Defence White Paper, published in December 1999 (Cm 4446).—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
11.33 a.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the whole House will be deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. They will be particularly grateful for the sketch that she gave us at the beginning of her speech with regard to Sierra Leone. This is—to use a horrible phrase—an ongoing situation, and one which is

1837
developing all the time. If during the course of today's debate my noble friend Lord Attlee disappears from these Benches, it will be to go to find out before he speaks whether anything new has occurred which he ought to bring to the attention of your Lordships.
The whole of what the noble Baroness said—indeed, she wasted no time—lasted 27 minutes. It took her all that time to deliver it, and I emphasis that she "wasted no time". But the fact that she had to take 27 minutes to do so is an indication of the importance of the subject that we are discussing today and of the small opportunities that are being given to your Lordships to debate the matter. I have been pressing for a debate on defence for some considerable time. Thanks to the usual channels, we now have it—albeit, like other noble Lords who are unable to be here today, I have been complaining about it being held on a Friday. However, it turns out to be very appropriate to have the debate on this Friday because it has enabled the noble Baroness to keep your Lordships up to date.
I believe that we are all very worried about the situation in Sierra Leone. I should like to highlight one aspect of it because this is the theme that will run through everything that I shall say; namely, who will pay for it and where will the money come from? The Government have sent to Sierra Leone, along with ancillary forces, naval forces, HMS "Ocean" and those two closely bonded units, 3 Para and the Royal Marines. With an impressive task force, their duty has been to rescue British citizens in that sad country, and we are told that this is all that they will do—that it is evacuation and not conflict.
It must be very good news that the Chief of the Defence Staff should be there at this time because command will come from the top. But I hope that there will be no more than just evacuation. The noble Baroness said that there would be no combat unless British troops are attacked. But what are the paras to do if they find, for example, a Zambian unit being attacked by the rebels? Are they to stand back and let it go on? The danger of escalation must be enormous. No one can foresee where we shall end up. I remember the cover of the first issue of the Telegraph colour magazine in 1964 in which the caption read, "Vietnam—forgotten war". From Korea to Sierra Leone little conflicts that have involved British troops initially in a small way have ended in major confrontations and a massive expenditure of material and manpower.
However, throughout any discussion on the White Paper must come the question of money and the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. There seems little reason for the proposed partial privatisation of DERA, except that it puts an amount of money—a minimal amount— in MoD's pocket. Why did the Secretary of State some months ago balk at the proposals that helicopters and other assistance should be sent to Mozambique? The answer was money. It is noticeable that the Government are pouring money into health and education and at the same time requiring yet more cuts from defence. The noble Baroness defended the situation and said that the ordinary British citizen will regard health and
1838
education, along with similar matters, as being of more importance. But that should not be at the expense of the defence of the realm.
The noble Baroness made a very spirited defence of all that the Government are doing. She denied that there are to be cuts of 3 per cent. Let us hope that there can be the savings to which she referred and that these will come back into the defence budget in some other manner. But if we are attempting to recruit another 5,000 servicemen, they will have to be paid and the unavoidable costs will inevitably rise and increase the defence budget to a very considerable extent.
It is these facts and this money problem which have led to the current short-termism in defence in spite of all that is being done, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I refer, for instance, to the decision to build two ro-ro ferries abroad. If the order does not go to a British yard, thousands of skilled shipbuilding workers will be laid off and there will be nothing for them to do until the orders for Type 45 destroyers come through. It is matters of this kind that have led the Government to be accused of "dumb procurement". This may be unfair but it certainly seems that they are mortgaging the long-term future for immediate savings.
The noble Baroness listed the successful projects but there is another large list of projects which face considerable problems. I mention only Clansman, heavy lift and the sale of perfectly good naval frigates. The noble Baroness also mentioned the problem with the Lynx helicopter. I have taken advice from someone who has intimate knowledge of the problem with the helicopter rotors. However, he lost me after about a minute and a half. I understand that this is, in part, a normal problem to which all kinds of equipment are subject and that we can get over it.
In spite of what has been said I feel that Smart procurement as set out in the SDR has, to a large extent, disappeared. Surely Smart procurement means taking a careful look at the threats that the country faces and what is needed to counter those threats. Costs and requirements must be balanced. It is difficult to see that this is being done when money is being spent in the most extraordinary way. It. is probably the civil servants who are to blame, but is this the moment to spend £1.6 billion over 10 years on a new Ministry of Defence building? I am sure it is desirable but a cannon for the Typhoon should have a higher priority than a new open plan office. Part of the Treasury's objection to Ministry of Defence projects lies in a feeling that MoD and its civil servants waste money. This kind of announcement does nothing to kill that feeling.
On the question of the Typhoon, the reason given for putting a block of lead where the cannon should be is that the Typhoon was designed for cold war conflict and cannon are no longer necessary. In fact, the situation is the opposite. The Americans have cannon in their Stealth F22s, although they have to have a method of covering up the hole to make the Stealth characteristics effective. All British pilots, I think without exception, want cannon. Cannon will give

1839
greater flexibility, will enable aircraft to put shots across the bows of possible intruders, to assist in strafing, and to fire at helicopters which are going too slowly for their air-to-air missiles. Yet it appears that they are being abandoned for a handful of gold.
Noble Lords have debated the proposed public private partnership of DERA and I shall not go over it again. Such a sale will endanger the smooth running of development and research in co-operation with the United States. But it will put £250 million into the ministry's coffers. This peanut is considered necessary to balance the books. I must emphasise that I am not putting the blame on the Ministry of Defence, but on the Treasury. Those, if any, who control the Treasury have to make up their minds what they want from the Armed Forces. There can be no doubt that, while the plans for the future set out in the SDR were acceptable in the terms of July 1998, they totally ignored the possibilities for what was then the future. No account was taken of the possible expansion of crisis in the Balkans, now in Sierra Leone, and possibly in Zimbabwe.
We are told by the National Audit Office that logistically we only just scraped through in Kosovo. We did scrape through but I hope that the right lessons have been learnt with regard to the amount of back-up and supplies which are required even for a minor conflict.
Apart from procurement, overstretch is a constant problem. Particularly in the light of stories coming out over the past 48 hours, it would be unwise to rely on a reduction of the involvement of troops in Northern Ireland. From these Benches we warn of the dangers of overstretch. Therefore it may be illogical to ask the Minister to comment on what we read in the Belfast Catholic paper, the Irish News. This states that the British Army base in that haven of peace, Cookstown, is to be demolished and the Fort George base in Londonderry is to be abandoned, as are observation posts in Broadway and Belfast, possibly even in Crossmaglen. What is the reason for this? Is it a belief that the crisis is over, or is it purely to save money?
If we have to save money, one way we can do that is to drop all thought of a European army. Noble Lords have been told categorically that this is not a goer. Nevertheless it seems to be creeping in by a side door. The Government have moved the European Security and Defence Identity down a path which must lead to the creation of such an army. That will do nothing to enhance military capacity and will serve only to fan the flames of anti-Americanism in France, which were lit at the St Malo summit.
The project has been denied but the Government have supported moves for the European Union to create an independent rapid deployment force of 60,000, deployable for a year. To service this would require a force of 180,000 as troops need to be relieved. Where will they come from and who will pay for them?
1840
Slightly apart from these arguments, but related thereto, is the question of the Territorial Army. For reasons I do not understand at all relationships between—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have read the St Malo declaration with great care. I am unable to identify any element within any of that Franco-British exercise that might conceivably be thought to fan the flames of anti-Americanism. Will the noble Lord explain what he means a little more clearly?
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. By implicitly weakening NATO and implicitly denigrating, wrongly, the need for American involvement, St Malo has—I think this is fairly generally agreed—engendered a feeling that Europe has no need of the Americans and the quicker it can get rid of them, the better. I certainly do not accept that.
I was just about to mention the Territorial Army. Relationships between the TA and the Regular Army seem to be at rock bottom. However, the generals have to understand that the TA—and that means a 58,000-strong TA with all its infantry regiments intact—is absolutely essential to effective management of the manpower situation. Until the problems of overstretch and retention can be solved the Territorials are absolutely essential—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Attlee will comment on this—to fill the holes in the Regular units. I know that the percentage of Regulars on active service has been drastically reduced since the partial end of the Balkans conflict, but there, in Iraq, in Africa and many other places including Ireland we cannot rely on it not going wrong again. One answer would be for the British services to take a sabbatical and let someone else do the work, but I doubt whether this Government, or to be fair, any other would accept that solution. Talk about the white man's burden, this is the Briton's burden.
I am afraid that with Smart procurement we have not yet got the necessary up-to-date communications networks. It is clear that while logistic chains are being redesigned they are not working as well as they should and, more dangerous still, there is a refusal on the part of the Treasury to understand the investment that is required to provide these chains with the necessary amount of material to deliver.
What is clear is that with Smart procurement the evaluation role of DERA will have a key place in the assessment of equipment taken into service. Yet the Government appear to be hell bent on fragmenting DERA at the same time as they are bringing in Smart procurement. As this will involve major changes in the relationship between industry as supplier and the Armed Forces as user, this seems foolish. The simple effect of the constraints imposed on the defence budget lie in an adaptation to defence policy by the Government of the General Confession:
"We have done those things which we ought not to have done and we have left undone those things which we ought to have done and there is no health in us".

1841
I ask the Minister whether she and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State can alter the Chancellor's personal hostility to defence spending.
To sum up the views from these Benches, if the current structure and pattern of the defence and related budgets, and the relationship of those budgets to public expenditure as a whole, does not provide resources sufficient to meet the international commitments which the Government accept, the requirement for continuing year-on-year cuts in the defence budget must be stopped. If necessary, that budget must be increased in cash terms and as an element of public expenditure as a whole. If the noble Baroness and her colleagues stand up for this policy, they will have our wholehearted support.
Having said that, I again thank her most warmly for her informative and interesting speech.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for the update on the difficult and very dangerous position in which our Armed Forces find themselves in Sierra Leone. I hope that what is being done will prove to be sufficient to stabilise the dangerous situation.
Turning to the White Paper, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer some of the concerns which remain about the way in which Smart procurement is working. She rightly said that the Government must be judged by results.
In the Strategic Defence Review, much was made of the need to improve the way in which the MoD procures equipment and services. Many would echo those sentiments. Indeed, for those of us who have spent a lifetime in the services, there has never been a time when there has not been criticism of the MoD over procurement. It has been a rich seam for the Defence Select Committees in another place and for the Auditor General to mine, year after year after year. Delays, cost overruns, inadequate performance in service and costly modifications are but a few of the many problems which have been exposed and which have had to be faced. Each method of procurement—whether competitive, cost plus, overseas purchase, collaboration, hands on, hands off, and now Smart procurement—have all been tried and found wanting.
I think that there have probably been only two major equipment programmes in the past half-century which have reasonably successfully been run to time and budget. Those have been Polaris and Trident—although even these have not been without problems in the vastly expensive support facilities which are essential and unique to them.
The MoD has recently been deluged with yet another string of equipment problems and procurement delays. Why should this be? Those involved with procurement over the years are not idle, nor inefficient; they do their very best, as do the Ministers involved. But the history of mistakes and failures is too long, too repetitive and too serious to be
1842
dismissed, to be excused with protestations that they will not be allowed to happen again, and then happily forgotten about.
I am sure that the Minister will have given thought to this problem. I fear that, in far too many cases, analysis will show that the problem lies not in MoD at all, but in the way in which Whitehall—particularly the Treasury—comes to decisions, or fails to make decisions in a timely and positive manner. There seems to be no mechanism to cope with such procrastination, and key programmes run later than originally forecast Look at what has been happening to the vitally important strategic airlift requirement and to the Royal Air Force's BVRAAM and future transport aircraft competition.
What so often seems to be overlooked or belittled in these delays is that they are not cost free. Equipment which should have been scrapped or paid off has to be kept going at considerable extra expense; ship refits cannot be put off any longer; major airframe overhauls have to be undertaken; training programmes and resources are not readily available or lie idle, and so on. The cost of not making a decision will frequently add a significant additional amount to the eventual outcome. I cannot attach any sense of success to the new look Smart procurement in the long and serious delays which have arisen over strategic airlift, BVRAAM and FTA.
However, when we are involved in a conflict, there is a sudden urgency in procurement. The difficult is achieved in a day; the impossible takes only a week. The expertise to resolve complex technical and demanding urgent operational requirements can be rapidly brought to bear, and the money is found. The beneficiaries, the men and women in the front line, see this happening and are greatly encouraged and delighted with the support which is evident at every level.
But what happens once the shooting stops is a different story. In the Kosovo conflict, for example, three serious problems were identified for the Royal Air Force: it could not bomb with precision through cloud; it needed a better anti-armour weapon; and, above all, it needed more secure communications. These and no doubt other shortcomings for all arms were identified in the lessons to be learnt following the conflict.
These problems must be tackled with similar urgency as if the front line was still at war. No one can any longer be confident that there will not be once more live operations in a week or two's time. Imagine the frustration of front-line crews when their identified and agreed critical needs are not being delivered with all dispatch. Is there any wonder that there is disillusion and, indeed, disgust at these poor response times?
I can think of no better retention initiative for our front-line crews than to get these identified shortfalls rapidly into front-line service. Then, and only then, will those whom we expect to fight for us arid to risk their lives feel that their efforts are being recognised and supported. Without such support from higher

1843
formations, from MoD and from the Government, it is not surprising that those at the sharp end are becoming more and more disheartened.
They also realise that without better communications the time will soon come—it may have done so already—when the United States Armed Forces will no longer be willing to integrate with and operate alongside our own forces because we lack the secure communications to do so without risk of giving away vital intelligence information to an enemy.
Today's operations are no longer a one-off, never to be repeated, event. The prospect of expeditionary activity is with us for the long term. We must do better than follow the traditional and not always successful peacetime procurement procedures. Smart procurement made it sound as though the MoD was going to be better poised to obtain essential needs much more quickly, as well as more cost-effectively. We are not seeing such a universal result. Today, more than ever before, it really matters that we are not.
I was pleased to hear of the new steps—some of them, admittedly, only repetitions of previous announcements—to improve retention. But, when it comes to retention, one other area of concern is the serious financial position in which the MoD now finds itself over married quarters rentals and upgrades. I am not returning to the recent NAO criticisms about excessive holdings of quarters, which I felt were wide of the mark; rather I am referring to the repetitive delays and deferrals in upgrades.
No doubt the rising rentals which the contractor is now able to charge the MoD is a problem, but presumably this is a reflection of the housing market generally. As such it should have been anticipated and budgeted for. What is not going to help retention is never-ending deferral and delay in upgrading married accommodation to acceptable levels. It may not be the only factor which affects the serviceman and his family, but I fear that it will become the easiest to identify and blame for a decision to leave the service.
Strong and sympathetic leadership will always help individuals to cope with some of the inevitable stresses and strains of service life. But it is altogether wrong to leave everything to leadership and do too little or even nothing to resolve the problems, both operational and administrative, which budget squeezes and restrictions are now making more and more evident. So long as this Government, or any government, wish to punch their weight in the international arena, they cannot be confident of being able to continue to do so unless the services' critical needs are delivered on time and work to specification.
Without that, not only will there be equipment shortfalls, there will be manning difficulties as well. We have been extremely fortunate in recent conflicts not to have suffered serious loss of life or casualties. We must not presume that this is the norm. Every time our forces are committed, the chances of there being casualties does not grow any less. The effect of a serious loss of life in a future expeditionary action would put great strain on personnel and their families.
1844
We surely must not find out too late that some if not all of those casualties were attributable to inadequate equipment or supplies. The Government need to think these things through, or else they, or their successors, are going to find that the number of personnel who remain willing to volunteer for the forces, are confident that their families' needs are properly provided for, and who have the full-hearted support of their families to remain in the services, has dropped to levels which make it impossible to undertake demanding and increasing commitments of the kind on which governments, of both parties, have embarked in the past decade or two.
I feel sure that the noble Baroness the Minister, who shows such strong sympathy for service personnel and is highly regarded by them, will be aware of the dangers to which I have alluded. I hope that she will do all that she can to ensure that these dangers are recognised, and every effort is made to deal with them, by the Government as a whole.
In that well worn phrase, "Action this day, please!"
12.2 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I regret that I have to start by making an apology to your Lordships' House. I am unable to stay to the end of the debate because, at the very last moment, I am required to take part in a conference in Madrid. I assure noble Lords that it is only force majeure which prevents my staying to the end of the debate and I hope that I shall be acquitted of discourtesy in that respect.
I congratulate my noble friend and her right honourable colleague on their decisions with respect to DERA. I have always supported the change in the structure of DERA, although it is no secret in the Ministry of Defence that I felt considerable concern about the original proposals, which envisaged only about 1,000 of the DERA staff being retained in public service. My concern had nothing to do with the relationship between public and private service in this country. It was overwhelmingly to do with the attitude of our American friends to any new arrangements to be introduced for DERA. I cannot exaggerate to your Lordships the importance to this country of the intimate and long-standing relations at the cutting edge of defence research that exists between this country and our friends in the United States. We have similar arrangements with other countries but nothing like on the scale and intensity of those we enjoy with our American friends. If anything were to put those matters at risk, it would be deplorable and would have serious long-term consequences for our own defence capability.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that I spoke only yesterday to some of my friends in Washington. I wanted to check for myself whether the Secretary of State and my noble friend were getting the right advice. I am glad to be able to say to the House that, on present plans, the Americans are broadly satisfied with what is contemplated, although there are one or two points which they tell me have still to be negotiated. They are confident of success in making arrangements that will

1845
be congenial both to them and to the Ministry of Defence. I counsel my noble friend that it is very important in this context not to be satisfied merely that our contacts in Washington are content with these arrangements but also that the people who work in the laboratories at the lower level in the United States are also content. The danger is not that there would be any rapid rupture but that there would be an insidious refusal on the part of people at the coalface to continue with these arrangements and we would not know that it was happening. We must ensure that there is enthusiastic support among people at the coalface in American laboratories for our present contemplated arrangements. At the moment I am very relaxed about that possibility.
Secondly, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State, in contradistinction to what the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said. I fully support the decision not to have a cannon in Eurofighter. It is preposterous for us to go on thinking that we are going to be using £40 million aeroplanes in a "Biggles" role of close land attack or air-to-air dogfighting. Those days have gone, just as the horse-borne cavalry have gone. We will be equipping Eurofighter with extremely sophisticated air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface missiles. These are the weapons of the future. They are stand-off weapons with a range of scores of miles. I hope very much that the Ministry of Defence will go for the European solution for the BVRAAM—the beyond visual range air-to-air missile. When it comes to fruition, it will be by far the most advanced air-to-air missile in the world. It would be marvellous if, for once, this country had what is beyond question the best weapons system in one context. It would be immensely valuable to our forces.
I hope very much—I am sure that my noble friend has her own views on these matters—that we will be contemplating an extension of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, a subject on which I became rather a bore when I was at the Ministry of Defence. I shall go on boring your Lordships with the subject whenever I am on my feet. When I went to the Ministry of Defence people started saying, "Yes Minister—shades of Duncan Sandys, talking about unmanned aerial vehicles 30 years ago". We have seen what happened in Kosovo. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles was brilliant. There was quite rightly a huge hoo-ha when one American manned aircraft was shot down. There was enormous expense in recovering the pilot—quite rightly—and it was a brilliant operation. But during that operation in Kosovo any number of unmanned aerial vehicles were shot down and no one took a blind bit of notice because they were cheap and they were disposable. I hope very much that my noble friend will be pursuing an interest in those matters.
I shall detain your Lordships with only one or two other points. They relate to air power. With respect to the joint strike fighter, I can let the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, know that there is debate within the United States about whether or not that plane should have a cannon. I hope that those who take a modern view of these matters will win that argument.
1846
I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to one other aspect of the procurement of the joint strike fighter. I refer to its capability or otherwise in conditions of very high temperatures and high humidity. As I understand it, in the operating specifications for the joint strike fighter there is no provision for it to be able to operate in conditions simultaneously of very high temperatures and very high humidity. When I discussed this with my American friends, they said, "Oh yes, don't worry. She's going to be built and operate out of Edwards airforce base in California, and it gets very hot there". That is true, but it does not get very humid at the same time. I hope that my noble friend will give an assurance that she will look closely at this matter. We have a great interest in the future of the joint strike fighter in this country. The last thing we want is a joint strike fighter that suffers from the same disabilities experienced by many of our aircraft in the Gulf when operating in conditions of high humidity and high temperature.
The only other point on which I want to detain your Lordships is the question of our air transport capability. Fundamental to the Strategic Defence Review was the acquisition by this country of a new strategic airlift capability. I am quite clear that that capability can only be supplied by the C-17. There is no other aircraft with the range, the load-carrying capability and the speed of the C-17. It is possible to acquire—to keep some of our Euro-enthusiasts happy—the future large aircraft (FLA) that we have been discussing with our European friends. I am personally rather sceptical of the need for it. I am certainly sceptical as to whether the Royal Air Force will want a mix of C-17s, FLAs and C-130Js. In the C-130J, at last, we may be getting a really good aeroplane. But absolutely critical to the future strategic airlift capability is the C-17.
I know that the Ministry of Defence was saying four C-17s. I think that it may be saying three C-17s for the short-term requirement, or their equivalent. The only equivalent to four C-17s is four other C-17s. It is the only aircraft that can carry a modern main battle tank. It is the only aircraft that can carry AS-90. It is the only aircraft that can carry Chinook.
If your Lordships think that those are unnecessary luxuries, or that we shall never have enough C-17s to carry many of those assets, let me draw attention to the events of the past few months. We sent some helicopters to Mozambique. They had, to be disassembled, flown to Mozambique and reassembled there. It took six days. With C-17s, we could have had them there overnight. As all noble Lords will agree, that was a period when the need to deploy helicopter assets was one of extreme urgency.
We have only to look at what is happening in Sierra Leone. We have sent some Chinooks there. They had to go to Gibraltar. From Gibraltar, they flew to the Canary Islands; from the Canary Islands, they flew to Mauritania; and from Mauritania, they flew to Senegal. By the time they arrived in the zone of action their crews must have been absolutely exhausted. It

1847
took many, many hours. We could have put a couple of them in each C-17 and had a bunch of them there overnight.
In regard to the main battle tank, I happen to think that the sight of a main battle tank rumbling down the street towards you is a very great deterrent to stupid young men doing something foolish. You would not need to engage the main battle tank—it is just the sight of the thing. We could have had a handful of Challenger 2s on the streets of the capital of Sierra Leone in a matter of hours if we had had C-17s ready to deploy them. I cannot emphasise too strongly to my noble friend, and I hope that she accepts my arguments, that the C-17 is an essential ingredient in our peacekeeping and peacemaking ability, as well as our war fighting ability.
The last point I would make to my noble friend and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—is that in this country we do not spend enough on defence. I speak with a little authority on the subject. I believe that I was the only Member of another place in 30 years who voted against the Defence Estimates on the grounds that they were too low—unlike a few other members of my party with whom I found myself in the same Lobby who were voting against them because they were too high. I still believe that they are too low. I hope that my noble friend and the Secretary of State will fight vigorously for more resources for defence. In so doing she and he will have my full support.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I consider it a great pity that he will not be present for the end of the debate. The Minister cannot be expected to reply to his remarks and I would have greatly looked forward to hearing her response.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a remarkable and splendid speech—it is what we have come to expect from her—and make two points. First, this Government did indeed inherit many deplorable things in the area of defence. Front Line First's destruction of the medical services and the sale of the married quarters estates are examples—and, not least, the defence cuts. The Treasury called the tune then, as it does now.
Secondly, much good has been done in the field of humanitarian operations in the Balkans, and in this new world there may be other such worthy causes. What concerns me is that the Government continue to pour quart after quart into a pint pot. If they would pay for what they exact from the over-stretched Armed Forces, I should be much happier. But the bill comes also in terms of skilled men. We cannot go on stretching them for ever without threatening to destroy the skills that are needed for their paramount target: the defence of the realm.
In 1995, the Bett report stated that,
"Some tension between resources and commitment is a healthy state of affairs, encouraging taut management and a cost-effective use of public funds. There are limits, though, to what is sensible
1848
and we have been concerned that current levels of over-stretch seem to be putting unacceptable and unsustainable pressures on many Servicemen, particularly those with families".
This year, six years later, the 29th report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body states that one complaint above all has been voiced in its discussions with service personnel—that they are being asked to do too much with insufficient resources. It added that the Strategic Defence Review had openly acknowledged 18 months previously that increased operational commitments were causing overstretch in many parts of the Armed Forces, resulting in unprecedented short gaps between tours. Since then, over-stretch has peaked with increased commitments in the Balkans.
In view of the damage clearly being caused by overstretch, the review body had expected to receive from the MoD and the services an up-to-date and detailed analysis of its effects, together with recommendations to counter the immediate and growing retention problem. Much to its regret, the MoD had declined to present formal evidence, although it did respond to specific comments and proposals.
The review body expresses a number of concerns relating to pay, notably the 12 months' delay now expected in the introduction of the new pay system, and continuing problems in the service housing sector, where the review body was,
"appalled by the standards of some of the accommodation we have seen".
Despite some improvement to the housing stock since the DHE agency was set up (evidence of which the All-Party Defence Group has indeed seen), the review body pointed out that some 60 per cent of service accommodation is still below Grade I, and was consequently,
"dismayed to learn that the date by which the DHE is committed to bringing all SFQs up to Grade I standard for condition has slipped by 2 years to 2005".
The review rightly expects the MoD to improve the quality of housing stock for all service personnel as a matter of urgency. As the Minister knows, the Armed Forces Families Federation shares the dismay of the review body. The review looks forward to seeing the results of the joint MoD/Treasury review of the way in which defence housing is provided and managed. It had understood that the review would soon be reported to Ministers. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether and when the results will be reported to Parliament and be available to Members of this House?.
The defence mission set out in the MoD statement of government expenditure plans (1999–2002) states:
"We must manage our people with care, ensuring that the demands on individuals and their families are reasonable [and] must make every pound count for defence"—
as the Minister herself said—
"to ensure that the defence budget is used to best effect".
Of course that is right. It says under "Spending Plans" that the plans set out in the SDR involve substantial investment to improve inherited areas of weakness measured against future operational needs and to fund a continuing major equipment programme. It says that

1849
the additional investment is affordable within the overall settlement for defence for the next three years because of resources savings from rationalisation in support areas and an increased programme of efficiency improvements and smarter procurement. It says that,
"Savings will also come from some programmes identified in the SDR as being of lower priority in the current strategic environment".
Presumably, service housing comes into that category.
We come back to the infamous Treasury-driven decision to require a 3 per cent annual efficiency saving in operating costs over the four years from 1998 to 2002, and the proud boast that the defence share of GDP will fall from 2.7 per cent in 1998 to 2.4 per cent in 2002. I read the White Paper carefully. Although much good work has clearly been done on reorganisation and such admirable concepts as the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces, I hope that the Minister, who has given us an encouraging review of a procurement programme which necessarily cannot be delivered today, or even tomorrow, can nevertheless tell us whether the general sad message is still that it is jam tomorrow rather than jam today.
What additional funding is mentioned concerns chiefly the restoration of deficiencies in weapons systems and the spares of critical equipment. I say nothing about recent press reports but confine myself to the Government's own statements. Many of the major procurement programmes still seem to be in the future. The competition to fulfil the need for a short-term strategic airlift, which was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, started in 1998 but none offered,
"an acceptable solution at an affordable cost and the competition was terminated".
It seems that we are still pursuing options to improve our airlift capacity in the short term. Similarly, bids for a future strategic tanker aircraft through a public/private partnership venture were sought in 1999, and we expect to place the contract in 2002. When will the RAF get the tanker?.
Understandably, the White Paper is more concerned to define tasks and set out what should be accomplished to make good capability shortfalls than to recognise the continuing and dire problems of overstretch and retention, although naturally reference is made to them. It says that the highest priority must be to ensure that we have robust forces available to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and stability, that the forces we deploy are trained and equipped to the highest standard and that we cannot,
"ignore crises, conflicts and human suffering, nor cut corners on how we meet our responsibilities".
The whole of the White Paper is much more about ever-increasing commitments rather than the resources needed to meet them. We all know that those resources are not there and that the services are being asked to do the impossible time after time. There are constant references to new threats and challenges, but only one paragraph about overstretch, and that is
1850
chiefly related to various palliatives: the Family Task Force, the telephone allowance, more education and the new pay system. Those are rightly designed to help families but do nothing to reduce commitments. They are more in the nature of sticking plaster than anything else.
The foreign policy/peace support operation tail increasingly wags the military dog. What can we feel but alarm when we read:
"We are also working on a doctrine which takes account of circumstances where the consent of any of the parties to a conflict is uncertain and where we may need to be prepared to use military force to coerce compliance in order to create a secure and stable environment. We foresee that there will continue to be situations where it will be essential to deploy forces capable of combat operations in order to contain conflict or because there is not yet consent for an intervention".
That passage occurs in the section concerned with peace support operations in which the Secretary-General of the UN is quoted as proposing an approach based on "inducing consent" and "coercive inducement". It adds that the UK is developing this approach. Is it prepared to pay for it? Is it meant to cover a forthcoming adventure in Montenegro or, far more likely, an operation in Sierra Leone? The size, level and nature of the tri-service presence off the coast and within the country is, it seems to me, remarkably generous for the simple evacuation of a not very large expatriate population—260 so far, with possibly 700 more—and the holding of an airport.
The make-up of the task force reminds me strongly of the annexe to the memorandum of understanding with the UN, signed by the UK last year, in which we undertook to provide a brigade for so long as it was wanted and wherever it was wanted. Listed in that annexe are the destroyers, frigates, helicopters and other logistical and technical support which would come with it. There is a further annexe which lists equipment that will be available after October 2001. It includes strategic air transport and outsize heavy lift aircraft. One wonders whether this is to be a rented Antonov or we are still pursuing our options.
It is interesting that in the White Paper there is no reference whatever to that commitment to the UN. I know we have been told that we would not necessarily be able to do this. It seems to me very rash to sign a treaty to say that we will do it if we cannot. It is one thing for the Government to recognise and value the major contribution of highly trained and disciplined troops to what is now called peace support operations, but quite another for these commitments to be heaped upon the forces without the resources to match them, and with no proper recognition that the MoD's primary task must be to train high-intensive forces capable of defending the realm.
I have spoken on earlier occasions about the common foreign and security policy agreed at Helsinki and the probable conflict between its needs and those of NATO when they will both be relying on the same rather limited assets. The White Paper recognises that the EU will have to develop capability goals such as command and control and strategic transport. It says nothing, however, about the cost of all this in men, equipment and armament, and presumably accepts the

1851
no doubt well-informed view of the Minister for Europe in the FCO that there is no need for any increase in defence spending. According to him, it merely needs to be refocused or, as the White Paper says, better targeted.
We are living, surely, in an amazing world of spin if the Armed Forces are to be treated as a useful but expendable card in the hands of Ministers while little indication is given of any readiness to pay the costs, or any understanding of the political implications of the interesting new game of military monopoly that we seem to be playing. If we offer 13 destroyers and frigates to the UN, as we do under annex 1 to the memorandum, why are we selling a number of them? Is the Navy to acquire new ships through refocusing? If the other EU countries go on cutting their defence budgets, having been advised by us that all they need do is imitate the Strategic Defence Review and retarget and refocus in order to reach new and demanding capability goals, will our own forces be playing a new kind of musical chairs in which the enthusiastic defence diplomats add more chairs instead of taking them away?.
For how long will the demands of the Treasury and the new commitments entered into decide our defence policy and the use of our resources while no provision is made for them? I have not for once even mentioned Russia, but her activities in the defence field can only enhance the very serious asymmetric threat. We cannot respond to that without forward planning. Is it there?
12.28 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, although I have always admired and enjoyed the passionate way in which the Minister makes the very best of her brief, and the courteous manner in which she invariably handles the very real concerns of noble Lords, for two reasons I find these defence debates rather depressing. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out, the fact that defence has been relegated to a Friday indicates yet again the low priority in political terms which governments accord it. Once upon a time it was considered the prime responsibility of any government. That trend does not augur very well for the MoD's chances in any battles in Cabinet for resources. Secondly, the apparent imperviousness of the Ministry of Defence to any criticism, however constructive—we have heard such criticism from my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—means that these debates do not appear to get us anywhere.
Most noble Lords with experience and interest in these matters know well the many things that have been right about the handling of our defence affairs and our magnificent Armed Forces since the Government came to power. We now have the White Paper which, although some of us find it a little irritating for reasons that I need not repeat, sensibly sets out the Government's priorities, their justifiable pride in the Strategic Defence Review, and their determination to implement it.
1852
In past debates—including a recent one—many noble Lords have consistently gone out of their way to praise the strategic policy, the operational requirements and most, if not all, of the organisational innovations set out in that admirable review. They have also praised the high quality of the men and women who serve, of whom this country can continue to feel extremely proud, always providing that some of the political, legal and financial currents that are now besetting and eddying around them, which could so easily affect their ethos, motivation, loyalty, command and discipline, do not progressively make their job too difficult.
Generally, there has been much support and encouragement for the way that the Government have started to tackle and face up to our defence problems. The Minister knows that I fully subscribe to that view. Equally, many noble Lords and noble and gallant friends know only too well what is wrong with the way that the Government's handling of defence has developed over the past year or so. It can be summed up in one word, "underfunding", which is made all the more poignant and unnecessary by that iniquitous and entirely arbitrary penalty of 3 per cent compound interest over four years, which, however it is dressed up, hits every vote-holder, and strikes at the very heart and viability of the whole Strategic Defence Review, and the Government's performance that emanates from it. It is sad that, although I have often raised this point, the Ministry of Defence does not even seem to recognise that there is a problem, choosing to portray it as an exciting, voluntarily incurred challenge in service modernisation when everyone knows that it was forced on it by the Treasury—one might almost say the revengeful Treasury—which did not obtain as large a dividend as it had hoped from the rightly, this time, policy led Strategic Defence Review.
This underfunding—already highlighted ably and thoroughly by the Select Committee on Defence—not only makes the job of every vote-holder infinitely more difficult and often impossible if those under them are to carry out their everyday missions properly. All current shortcomings, weaknesses, slippages and potential cancellations can now be attributed to it.
Perhaps I can remind noble Lords of the historical context in which the current underfunding exists. From the end of 1978—the last year of the Labour government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—until 1986, defence spending grew at a consistent rate of 3 per cent per annum in real terms, which constituted well over 5 per cent of the gross national product. It then reasonably levelled off until 1988, when it started a steady decline, or dive, from which it has not yet pulled out, averaging 2 per cent to 3 per cent per annum; each annual cut being made from a lower base line, bringing the ratio of the gross national product to only just over 2 per cent. This all happened at a time when lengthy, expensive and manpower intensive military commitments outside NATO, which the Government claimed to be unavoidable, were becoming more numerous than ever, and with the reduced Armed Forces proportionately more occupied and overstretched than virtually ever before.

1853
Now, of course, with turmoil in parts of Africa, still further commitments, as we have heard, of so far uncertain length and unquantifiable costs are rolling in to stretch our forces still further. All of those, in financial and manpower terms, more than balance any thaw in the Cold War, with the Government manifestly determined to play their full part and even take the lead on the international stage.
In all my experience of Whitehall I have never known a government, to use a "wild west" term, so quick on the draw as this one. Given the circumstances and the changes in the international scene already mentioned, we have clearly cut far too far, and this will inevitably have a serious effect both on current activities and those proposed for the future. For instance, when glaring and fully recognised weaknesses exist, such as overstretch, lack of formation training, the state of the Armed Forces medical services, the maintenance of quarters, and so on—some admittedly inherited—underfunding on the present scale makes it virtually impossible to do enough to correct them in the short term, so they drag on and become even worse.
Underfunding has presumably also provided the background against which the Territorial Army—our only reliable reserve—has been weakened, just when it has rightly been asked to do more, particularly in those areas which have been cut most, such as the infantry, engineers and Military Police. There can be, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out no other good reason for such cuts. The longer-term effect could be serious. It will also have accounted for some of the admirable organisational innovations such as the air assault or air mobile brigade, not being implemented and deployed, in terms of equipment and manpower, as early as planned; and for any slippage in the equipment programme, which although good in many respects, particularly in tanks and artillery, has some glaring deficiencies especially in the important communications field and in the vital strategic airlift.
Moreover, if funding is not improved, the future for the Government's stated, even boasted about, policy and aspirations looks pretty bleak. For instance, if there is to be any real attempt to get Europe to get its defence act together, so that it could, if necessary, undertake limited operations in its area of interest without some United States involvement—which it could not do at the moment, and about which I may be more in favour than some noble Lords—it will not only require more money, but more money from us. Without that, we would be in danger of achieving the worst of all worlds: enough talk to annoy the Americans and to drive them into a never far below the surface isolation, which would be disastrous for the stability of Europe, and of the whole world, and virtually no comprehensive and compensatory capability to speak of on this side of the Atlantic. Extra resources will equally be necessary if the present—let alone any future—extension of NATO, on which the Government seem so politically bent, is to mean anything at all. It would be intolerable if this had to be at the expense of other vital parts of the existing and greatly overstretched budget.
1854
Underfunding will clearly have serious repercussions on the future equipment programme generally, of which the noble Baroness has particular knowledge and expertise. Even now, the programme seems to be in a bit of a muddle, with an unreliable rifle, Lynx engines which need to be modified, the replacement for Clansman well behind schedule and now, at an incredibly late hour, the removal of the cannon from the massively expensive European fighter aircraft, which must reduce its flexibility in the spectrum of lower intensity operations.
Moreover, the Government have committed themselves to providing two very expensive fleet carriers, both as a means of projecting power and in order to provide close air support when no land bases are available. But since the European fighter neither can nor ever will be able to land on a carrier, yet another new ground attack aircraft with, presumably, a capability to defend itself, and somewhat in advance of a Harrier II, will now have to be developed. I wonder increasingly how this belt-and-braces strategy can possibly be sustained with the ever-declining defence resources that we are experiencing.
Unless the Ministry of Defence can find the skill, determination and political guts to secure the essential support of the Prime Minister and take on the Treasury—it keeps on saying that it is fighting like hell, but as in everything else, it must be judged by result s — some of the good intentions that emerged from the Strategic Defence Review and have since been trumpeted with fine words in the White Paper will become virtually meaningless. There will be disenchantment; and the drain from the services, of which we have already had glimpses through, among other things, the departure of so many of that key age group 28 to 32 and in the manning of the medical services, will become a flood. Then we shall be left with much smaller, less well trained forces than the Government had planned with a more limned operational capability than the Strategic Defence Review considered necessary. I am sure that is not what the Government originally had in mind.
I therefore urge the Government to take note of the strong, detailed criticisms and recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Defence in another place, and action on the funding front, before it is too late. Otherwise they must be forced to forget cutting a dash in the international arena—I refer to their grand design, however laudable, to use the Armed Forces as international policemen and a force for good in a troubled world—and instead cut a more modest, less effective, far less influential defence coat according to the totally inadequate cloth the Treasury now allows them. That would be so contrary to what the Government have promised, and even boasted about, that it would represent a most unfortunate climb down. I only hope that for the sake of the country that can be avoided.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am a member of the Political Committee of the Western

1855
European Union and I shall concentrate my comments today on chapter 2 of the White Paper, entitled "NATO and European Defence".
Yesterday I reread the speech of Michael Colvin in another place. As your Lordships will know, it was his last speech. It was also a wide-ranging speech in which he covered everything from the Eurofighter to budgets and developments in European defence. He set out the inequalities in defence expenditure and capabilities, which are well known. He also set out the various options for the institutional changes involving the WEU, the EU and NATO. Michael Colvin made his speech on 22nd February and I would argue that already perceptions are changing about those changes. A strengthening of the likely institutional arrangements for European defence is about to be agreed.
"Separable but not separate" is the way the relationship between a common European defence and security capability is described in relation to NATO. Concern has been raised, mainly by the Americans, that this could weaken the alliance. There has been the rhetoric of the three Ds, decoupling, duplication and discrimination: decoupling of Europe's security from NATO's; the wasteful duplication of capabilities; and discrimination against allies who are not European Union members.
I believe that that rhetoric has been damaging because it stresses the risks and the negatives rather than the huge benefits to all if Europe were to develop some limited capability to undertake Petersberg missions in its area of interest. Since the Helsinki accord of December last year, the debate has moved on rapidly to the setting up of the intergovernmental machinery within the EU to deal with defence issues. It is worth noting that the traditional neutrality of certain EU members has not proved so far an impediment to this remarkably swift process.
In previous debates, when my noble friend was a Minister at the Foreign Office, she always argued, and rightly, that it was capabilities that mattered and not the institutional arrangements. She repeated that argument today. I argue that matters have moved forward. Of course, the capabilities remain a serious European problem but the institutional arrangements are under way and of huge importance, not least to those outside the EU who want to retain influence within NATO and those who aspire to joining both NATO and the EU. The arrangements are extremely important to those countries.
There are a number of initiatives outside the CFSP initiative. Our own MoD has its Outreach programme which I believe to be successful in establishing bilateral relations with former Warsaw Pact countries. NATO's Partnership for Peace is bringing in countries of central and eastern Europe, including the Russians, and proved its worth in enabling partners to play their role in peace support operations in Kosovo. Another important, longstanding initiative is the WEU assembly where parliamentarians from 28 countries meet to debate and scrutinise defence policy in a well established way.
1856
All those types of initiatives are worthwhile and they are not in competition with each other. But the fear of many countries outside the EU is that they will lose influence if they have no forum in which to play their part in scrutinising Europe's CFSP.
I mentioned America's three Ds. There is a fourth D: democracy. It is worth remembering that all countries outside the EU are vigorously in favour of retaining the WEU assembly in some form. It is only the 11 EU members who are also in NATO who are as yet undecided on the future of the WEU assembly.
At the risk of labouring my point, the issue is not one of accountability. No one questions that accountability will remain with national parliaments because national parliaments set the defence budgets. The issue is one of scrutiny; and the WEU assembly alone has developed a record of scrutiny, recognising the different statuses of its 28 members and their different aspirations. I believe that that record should be built on in encouraging greater co-operation between countries of central and eastern Europe.
Yesterday I was reading an article by Dmitri Trenin from the Carnegie Center entitled "Russia-NATO relations: Time to pick up the pieces". He makes the familiar point that the only thing Russian politicians can agree upon is that they are against NATO enlargement. Most Russian politicians are fairly agnostic about EU enlargement and the EU taking on the military capability for Petersberg tasks. Dmitri Trenin makes the point that following the Chechnya debacle it may ironically be easier for Moscow to resume expanded contacts with NATO rather than to receive a clean bill of health from the usual Russian favourite institutions like the OSCE and the Council of Europe which have been far more critical of Russia's behaviour in Chechnya. Ironically, NATO might find that it is leading the way in rebuilding institutional arrangements.
My general point is that we need to build at all levels to promote greater co-operation. I have mentioned the MoD's Outreach programme, Partnership for Peace, the WEU assembly, and how NATO could find itself in a leadership role over the other human rights based organisations. I hope that the CFSP institutional arrangements can also be seen in this perspective as a method of outreach, if I may so put it, to build and promote greater co-operation with central and eastern Europe.
Michael Colvin gave his speech on 22nd February. Since then we have a new Russian president. Russia has been expelled from the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. The five options for change which he outlined in his speech have been whittled down to one or perhaps two realistic options for the institutional arrangements. The countries outside the EU are becoming far more focused and vocal in saying that they want to retain some measure of influence. On top of that, British troops have recently been deployed to Sierra Leone.

1857
It is a very fast-moving world. The White Paper states in its conclusion:
quality … is timeless and unchanging; the means by which we guarantee that quality have to be constantly evolving. The pace of evolution is faster than ever".
I could not have put it better myself. I congratulate my noble friend on the Government's White Paper.
12.50 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in congratulating our Armed Forces on their everyday skills and sheer professionalism here arid around the world today. I, too, thank the Minister for her sincere update on Sierra Leone to which I shall refer later. This country is both justly proud and grateful for the security and safety that our Armed Forces give us.
Today we are debating the 1999 Defence White Paper which has an interesting mixture of positive remedial measures as well as a number of omissions. I shall draw your Lordships' attention to some of them. The Select Committee on Defence in another place stated:
"The problems of overstretch and undermanning suggest that if the wheels have not yet come off the SDR, they are certainly beginning to wobble alarmingly".
Whether that was a bland statement to be taken seriously or was a knee-jerk to the Government remains to be seen.
The opening sentence of paragraph 70 of the White Paper states:
"Our first priority was to reduce overstretch".
That problem seems to be getting worse, not better. It is high time that the Government took action to solve it by providing more manpower and finance, otherwise it will never go away. On top of all that comes tight budget restraints with equipment shortages, delays in provision and the cancellation of training exercises; all of which have been well publicised.
The basic problem which affects all three services is the overall lack of manpower, particularly so in the Army. Paragraph 79 of the White Paper indicates that recruitment is going well. It states:
"the Army achieved its highest level of new recruits for nine years".
The Minister referred to that in opening. What it does not state is that wastage rates, particularly among skilled tradesmen, remain high. That is most worrying in key trades where establishment levels are already very tight.
I had hoped to see in the White Paper some indication of whether the Government are considering expanding the junior tradesman training units which have been so effective and have provided the backbone of the warrant officer structure. However, it is particularly welcome that the reserve forces continue to play an important, indeed vital, role in supporting their regular counterparts. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to that. It is particularly so in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that two of the three escapees in Sierra Leone were reservists.
1858
I wonder whether it is time to recognise the voluntary service. Perhaps a reservist who has done more than one tour of duty abroad should receive an award, not necessarily money. I believe that for long enough the reserve forces have played an important role in the defence of this country and it is time they were rewarded. When can we expect to see the results of the Reserve Mobilisation Study and what are the current manpower shortfalls? Many figures have been bandied around, but no one seems to know what the shortfall is.
The White Paper makes reference to several new initiatives to interoperability and to jointery, which on the whole are to be welcomed if they can be properly equipped and fully effective, and not some hotchpotch set-up which one or two might well become. I draw your Lordships' attention to the new staff college in particular. It has been set up at Shrivenham and is due to open on 1st September. That is a great step forward.
There is just one new organisation which I believe may have to be looked at again; that is, the Joint Nuclear and Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment—and I emphasise the word "regiment". The needs and doctrinal approach of the Army and RAF are rather different, and I wonder whether it will work fully effectively, especially bearing in mind the very high cost of equipment. The role was previously given to a reserve regiment with which I had connections and it was never fully equipped. As an aside, it is unfortunate that the Army regiment assigned to this task is the Royal Tank Regiment.
Reference has been made by a number of noble Lords to the continuing shortfall in medical services. The remedial action outlined in the White Paper is to be welcomed, but there is still a vital need for medical units, surgical and medical air evacuation teams at the front line, not withstanding full field hospitals able to cope with the higher casualty rates that we have experienced. As was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, we cannot assume that casualty rates will not be high in future.
The White Paper refers to further withdrawals from Germany and the formation of two new brigades; the 16 Air Assault Brigade at Colchester and the 12 Mechanised Brigade based at Aldershot. Both are to complete the Formation Readiness Cycle. It is difficult to understand the logic behind moving 16 Brigade from Aldershot further away from the Movement Control Regiment and mounting airfields in the centre of England, but there must be a good explanation for that. The problem raised in my mind is where and how these formations will train realistically, particularly the Mechanised Brigade which has only small training areas nearby. I have to tell your Lordships that I was once involved in a study of Army training areas in the UK and we were amazed how little the training areas had changed since World War I, when the Army was largely horsed and weapon ranges very short. It seems to me that we have now reached the end of the road and that a radical review of how and where the Army is going to train is necessary.

1859
The problems facing our Armed Forces today are as complex as they have ever been. Service life is no longer from the cradle to the grave, as the Reverend John Dyer said in 1726. Unlike any business or industry, there is no productivity level by which we can measure effectiveness. Our Armed Forces are rapidly evolving and coping with modern technology, but the principal resource, manpower, needs to be nurtured and not overburdened by financial control.
12.58 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I rise to make a modest and brief contribution to the debate because I am broadly supportive of the White Paper. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, in her well deserved praise of the Minister's excellent and honest presentation.
A number of important and interesting points have and will be made, but perhaps as a civilian I may be forgiven for believing that the solution might be for 3rd Para to be used to storm that stronghold of the true enemy; namely, the Treasury. But that must be too over-simplistic!
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, gave us a 20-year history of the see-sawing of defence expenditure and its proportion of GNP. But it would be wrong to believe that in those 20 years, under either administration, that happened solely at the whim of a Chancellor or the desire of a particular Prime Minister—strong though Prime Ministers have been during that time. Government have decided their priorities in terms of their commitment to defence versus their commitment to other areas of expenditure. We ignore that at our peril.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, made three points which I should like to reflect upon because they are of interest to me. He started with the issue of Smart procurement. I believe that I should declare an interest. Prior to my retirement a year ago, I was the general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which has over 20,000 members serving as scientific, technical and professional civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence.
I can recall my desire that there should be a Strategic Defence Review. I remember the pain and torment of a decade prior to 1997—the very same decade that was described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as being the decade of cuts—when we had absolute short-termism. I, for one, welcomed both the Strategic Defence Review and, indeed, the tough, but I believe realistic, at least in terms of the developments as we understood them at the time, situation of understanding absolutely during a five-year period from 1997 to 2002 the limitation but also the guarantee of what the services and civilian support would receive by way of government share of expenditure.
It is wrong to predicate the belief that there is a 3 per cent cut in absolute expenditure. As the Minister said, the opportunity for efficiency savings, which
1860
undoubtedly exists in some areas, need not result in reduced defence expenditure but can be translated into moneys available for the enhancement of the SDR.
I do not believe that I can go along with those who say that Smart procurement is a failure; nor do I believe that anyone claims it is already a total success. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, set out too many examples of failure for that to be a boast that anyone can make. I claim that it is too early in the process to say that it is a total success. However, it is far truer to say that it is succeeding than that it is failing.
I say that in tribute not only to the policy but to my many Civil Service members—or, rather, my former members, although I am still a member of the same union—who are putting in place the innovative and sometimes very difficult managerial decisions which will bring about change in procurement. I believe that the jury is out but, to use a boxing analogy, there is a points lead to the Smart procurement. I believe that to call it anything other than that at present would be wrong.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—namely, in relation to DERA—is one on which I have considerably more sympathy with his point of view than I do on other issues. I have made my views on that matter known, both to the Minister and to the House, on previous occasions. Therefore, I shall not dwell upon it.
My third point of concern, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, relates to troop reductions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Government will not seek troop reductions that are not supported by political change and political advance. However, when those reductions take place—it is hoped earlier rather than later, as we all wish to see political advance in Northern Ireland—I make a plea to the Minister for the civilian personnel working in support of the defence forces who will then be affected. Any stage of withdrawal of a substantial proportion of our defence establishment will leave a considerable number of civilian support staff in Northern Ireland, in a sense, somewhat marooned. I ask for sympathetic treatment, both for those who request postings perhaps to mainland UK and for those who perhaps wish to seek voluntary severance.
I ask for that sympathy in the total knowledge that it will be given. Although I may have a difference of opinion on what would be the right outcome for DERA, I am asked by my trade union colleagues to place on the record their appreciation of the Minister, who has acted in an open, frank and collegiate manner and has shown sympathy for the personnel difficulties that accompany difficult decisions. I am sure that that same attitude will prevail in respect of any changes in Northern Ireland. As I said at the beginning, on that basis I am broadly supportive of what I consider to be a fine White Paper.
1.4 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for bringing this debate to the House

1861
today. I should also like to thank and congratulate the Minister on her excellent summing up at the end of the previous short defence debate and for what she has said about Sierra Leone today.
In the last defence debate I commented on efficiency savings and cuts to the defence budget. I wish to emphasise once again that the so-called annual 3 per cent efficiency savings are insufficient to fund the SDR and, overall, are now acting as cuts. Some aspects of SDR have already slipped. If we continue to make financial cuts and do not provide realistic funding, SDR will not be achieved on time.
No longer will our servicemen and women accept poor standards of accommodation, poor equipment, excessive operational deployments and poor pay and conditions of service. As I have warned your Lordships before, I sense now that if SDR fails to deliver on time, massive premature voluntary retirement will take place, leaving the country with an ineffectual and poorly trained Royal Navy, Army and Royal. Air Force.
Chapter 1 of the White Paper covers the current security environment. Therefore, it is an opportune moment to remind ourselves of the threat. Briefly, the risks are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; 20 countries that have a chemical and biological capability in addition to those countries that have a nuclear capability; serious concerns over North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya; the fighting between India and Pakistan; the tense situation between China and Taiwan, and the rivalry between China and India; the possibility of a resurgent Russia under Putin; civil wars within nation states such as the Balkans, where the interests of our country and NATO may be affected; international terrorism; and terrorism from Sinn Fein/IRA.
In connection with the IRA, a great number of people firmly believe that the recent statement about their weapons is completely meaningless and full of conditions. In the past, it seemed that only negotiating from a position of strength had any effect on the IRA. Since 1997 they have seriously weakened the British position. To contemplate the withdrawal of troops now and to destroy our sensitive observation posts at Crossmaglen, Broadway and the New Lodge in Belfast, Fort George in Londonderry and our military base at Cookstown will be seen as a complete victory for the IRA and a virtual surrender by the British.
That really must not be allowed to happen and I question why the Government are so naïve as to adopt this course of appeasement. The recent IRA statement, so full of conditions, does not promise to complete any destruction of their weapons, nor offer any timetable for putting arms and explosives beyond use. And beyond use is not to guarantee that they can never be used again. They have said that they will initiate a process whereby a number of arms dumps, selected by themselves, can be viewed by a third party. Why not all their arms dumps, and what is the reason for not destroying them now?
1862
From all those threats it is concluded that we live in a volatile and dangerous world. It is absolutely clear that we must have superbly trained troops for war-fighting and rapidly deployable expeditionary forces with the appropriate heavy-lift capability by sea and air for operations in other parts of the world. In connection with that, perhaps the Minister can bring your Lordships up to date on the progress of acquiring heavy-lift aircraft and shipping. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on his views about the C-17. We need them now.
I wish to stress the importance of ensuring that our intelligence coverage is sufficient and technically as up-to-date as possible. It has been assessed that Russia may not be a great threat at the moment, but it should not be forgotten that, whereas Putin's domestic policies are somewhat obscure, he favours weapons of mass destruction, has a hatred of NATO, and has dramatically increased his exports of weapons and his defence budget by 57 per cent to modernise his conventional forces. At the same time, his rocket forces, nuclear weapons and nuclear submarine fleet have all been kept in good condition.
Those are certainly matters of which we should take careful note. With the small defence forces that the country can afford, intelligence is, as it always has been, a key factor of early warning of changing attitudes in this increasingly dangerous world.
Intelligence matters are always sensitive. However. I should like to stress the importance of ensuring that they are funded properly and with sufficient funds to achieve their essential tasks. The Government's current agreements and responsibilities for the American intelligence agencies underpin the transatlantic relationship with the US which allows us a provision of almost the total US product. From our national effort and our unique talent for intelligence assessment which is shared with the United States, the special relationship with the US gives us a quasi-superpower level of intelligence. It is absolutely critical that nothing upsets that special relationship, if we are to be assured of receiving the product from the USA and, for that matter, the heavy lift capability and the logistical support without which it would nearly be impossible to carry out large-scale overseas operational deployments.
Chapter 2 covers aspects of NATO and European defence. I am well aware that the noble Baroness has said that there is no intention of giving Eurocrats a role in our military command; that we have no intention of moving to some sort of mini-NATO for Europe; that there is no intention of ruining an organisation that has reliably provided Europe with its security for some 50 years; and that there is no intention of establishing a European Army.
There is no disagreement with Europe playing its full part in defence matters that do not directly affect the USA. But it is essential that it does not occur at the risk of our special relationship with the US. To safeguard that relationship, would it not be better for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe to establish an additional command to Allied Forces

1863
North and South called Euroforce, which would work through the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO? I believe the so-called European and Security and Defence Identity to be flawed in that it currently gives the impression of the wish to establish a European army, and some in the US might think that this will create a European superstate which would rival them. Furthermore the ESDI proposal is not really plausible until such time as the European countries are determined to increase their own defence budgets, and that is most unlikely for many years to come.
Turning to Chapter 3 of the White Paper, I have not been able to find any specific mention of training. Your Lordships may recall that I touched on this matter in the last debate and I feel that it is important that I repeat once again what I said then. Due to all our current operational tasks and the fact that in 1999 47 per cent of the Army was operationally deployed, there was serious skill fade with regiments becoming less capable in their primary roles, because opportunities for training were not available. If our troops are not trained properly for war fighting, we cannot expect to win battles in the future.
Some 39 exercises were cancelled last year, including the Royal Marines Arctic exercise, due to financial restraints. Now the Marines are unlikely to hold a formation level amphibious exercise for the next two years or so due to a forthcoming deployment. We cannot go on like that any longer and the current deployment to Sierra Leone is likely to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Those troops must be returned as soon as possible, as the noble Baroness has indicated. Most cancellations were due to Kosovo, the over-commitment factor, but some were due to budgetary constraints. If over-commitment for operations affects training to such an extent, it is surely an indication that the SDR force levels are not right.
Over-commitment in the Army has resulted in the fact that there will he no high readiness brigade at the required collective performance level for the next two years or so, and then only one of the two brigades as required by the SDR. Will the noble Baroness say whether the Sierra Leone deployment will delay that further and when will 12 Brigade now be operational? Could she also update your Lordships on the training review and let your Lordships know how many operational aircraft are without pilots and what is being done to fill these spaces?
Chapter 4 covers people in the Armed Forces. In the last debate I covered recruiting and retention in some detail and I do not intend to go over this ground again. However, I would like to point out that recruiting has gone well, but the inability to retain people in the armed services is causing serious problems. In the main, it is the constant operational tours and the consequential separation of families due to too many commitments in the past which forces people out of the services. Those experienced and well-trained people have probably completed around 7 years service and are the very people one does not want to lose.
1864
I am aware of and welcome the steps that the MoD has taken to improve conditions resulting from operational deployment, including the fact that the deployment figure had dropped to around 27 per cent. However, another positive step that could be taken to help retention is that many of those who apply to leave the Armed Forces prematurely might stay if they were offered around £5,000 remuneration for any occasion when a second or more separated tour takes place within 24 months.
The code of conduct for commanding officers has not been mentioned and, in view of the Human Rights Act, there are many problems with which they will have to grapple. I do not think that the code of conduct provides enough guidance for commanding officers, although I am aware that the code was drafted very widely to ensure maximum flexibility in its interpretation. If I may, I would like to write to the noble Baroness on this subject.
For a brief moment I would like to touch once again on the shortage of surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses in the Defence Medical Services. I accept the fact that it takes a great number of years to train doctors and it is pleasing to note that doctors are well recruited for the future. But that does not help the present situation. Will the Minister say why it would not be possible to recruit military doctors from the USA, where their medical services have been run down, or, for that matter, recruit for a limited number of years doctors from other countries such as those in the Commonwealth and adopt a similar line for getting more nurses? After all, the post of civilian military practitioner already exists within the Armed Forces.
I turn briefly to Pay 2001. There is great concern from all servicemen and women about that proposal. It may well cause divisions within the team spirit ethos, so important to the Armed Forces, and possibly affect recruiting and PVR rates. The message that I have received on defence group visits is that it is most unpopular and why, when we are struggling with retention, do we have to pursue such an unpopular policy?
Chapter 5 deals with the defence estate and equipment matters, among other things. Although there will be around 500 houses added to the estate, will the noble Baroness say whether the completion date for the refurbishment of married quarters has slipped to 2005? Will she also comment on why we need to bring more troops back from Germany when, at great expense to the defence budget, new barracks have to be built or are being built at the moment in the UK?
Furthermore, as the defence budget is in such difficulties, would it not have been better to have postponed the modernisation of the Main Building, saving around £1.5 billion? May I also ask the Minister whether she will say how far advanced is the new reconnaissance vehicle known as Tracer and why the Multi Role Armoured Vehicle has been approved by the MoD when, as far as I am aware, it is too large to fit into a Hercules aircraft?

1865
I apologise to the noble Baroness for asking her so many questions and I should be quite happy if she were to write to me if she does not have the time to cover all those points.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are highly professional; determined to achieve success; protect our liberty and freedom; are brave and courageous and always prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. Those men and women are an outstanding example of loyalty to their country and dedication to duty.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review, quite rightly, earned considerable praise for its quality, its intellectual vigour, for the way it thought through the new security challenges which will face our Armed Forces and for the way it was presented. But—and it is a very big but—the real test of the Strategic Defence Review and any Defence White Papers which follow is whether Her Majesty's Government will deliver the operational capability, stability and quality of life improvements which were promised. That is the real test.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reminded us, at the time of the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review, of what the Armed Forces had been going through. They had had Options for Change, which certainly did not reorganise the Armed Forces to meet the new operational challenges posed by the new strategic environment and was based on such flawed assumptions of only 1,500 servicemen being deployed on UN-type operations. Certainly, the smaller and better Armed Forces trumpeted by Opt ions for Change never materialised.
Indeed, in the middle of the ongoing major reorganisation caused by Options for Change, the Armed Forces were faced with further major reorganisational changes following the defence costs study exercise. Throughout that period there was the annual demand from the Treasury for a 2 per cent efficiency saving. In other words, the defence budget was reduced every year by 2 per cent. All that change and uncertainty was carried out at a time when the Armed Forces were heavily stretched on operational duty.
The big question remains: will Her Majesty's Government provide the resources necessary to give our Armed Forces the fighting capabilities that they need, as spelt out in the Strategic Defence Review, and will the re-organisation be completed in the timescale outlined in that review? For the Armed Forces to feel let down again would have serious consequences for morale, recruitment and retention.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the priority that this Government are prepared to give to spending on defence. If they are prepared to deploy the Armed Forces on so many operations and keep them at such a high level of operations, they must fund them so that they can be looked after and protected in the way that they deserve.
1866
I have noticed a tendency to say how good the SDR study was, rather than face the much more important question of how Her Majesty's Government are coping with delivering the capabilities that were promised. I sense that the 1999 Defence White Paper was rather complacent in that respect.
There is little doubt that the budget agreed for implementing the SDR was always very tight, with little left in the kitty to cope with the unexpected such as rising oil prices and additional operational commitments. In addition, the timescale for implementing the SDR is also tight. Some of the key assumptions on such things as the level of operational demands have proved optimistic. The services are still committed in Kosovo and Bosnia, despite reductions there, and now we are involved in a new dangerous operation in Sierra Leone.
I want to add my strong support to what the Government are doing in Sierra Leone. I believe that it is quite right to help in the evacuation of British and other countries' citizens. However, it would have been nice if one or two of our fellow Europeans, who support the ESD1, were there as well. I recognise how difficult it would be for the Government to withdraw the British contribution before the UN force is properly in place. I hope that we shall not be sucked into another quagmire because I believe we have our hands in too many mangles already.
When I hear talk about the additional UN forces coming from Bangladesh, India and Jordan, and talk about days becoming weeks, I fear that it will become months, and that getting the British force out will prove even more difficult.
Returning to my concerns about the MoD's ability to deliver the SDR, it is common knowledge—the noble Lord, Lord Vivian mentioned it—that at least one important major exercise arid many minor exercises have had to be cancelled because of the shortage of money. Given the high level of operational commitments and that major equipment such as the communication system, Bowman, have either been reduced in scale or delayed into service—the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke at length about the importance of the C-17 and that the bid has been reduced from four to three—that indicates that the defence budget is under severe pressure. The SDR is unlikely to be delivered on time as the MoD has not been given the resources to implement the SDR properly.
In addition, if my experience of the MoD is anything to go by, that financial pressure will also mean that there will be reductions in or delay into service of operational reserve stocks and items in the war maintenance reserve. Such reserves are not as important for peace support or more benign operations, but they are critical for high intensity conflicts. Quite , rightly, the SDR stresses the importance of retaining a true high intensity conflict capability.
In relation to the budget, the noble Baroness has made it clear that the Treasury's 3 per cent efficiency savings are not a reduction in the defence budget, but

1867
can be used for other purposes. That is not as I understood it. I had understood that the defence budget was going down from 2.7 per cent to 2.4 per cent of GDP. One has only to look at the state of soldiers' accommodation to realise what I am saying about the tightness of the defence budget. I hope that the Minister will share with us the changes that have had to be made to the initial plans for the Strategic Defence Review.
I turn to our most important asset—people—our servicemen and women who carry out such a wonderful job supporting our nation. We already know that they are faced with a serious problem of undermanning that will not be put right before 2005 at the earliest. Even then I understand that there will be serious undermanning problems in certain corps and specialist areas. I would he interested to know what the recruiting surveys show about why people do not wish to join the Armed Forces.
Although retention is improving, it is not as good as it should be. I want to know the main reasons why servicemen and women are leaving the Armed Forces sooner than we would wish. What additional measures are Her Majesty's Government considering to help to improve recruitment and, more importantly, retention? Can the Minister confirm that the Army training organisation is working to full capacity, is fully staffed and fully funded?
While on the subject of people, I want to highlight, as I have before in the House, the concern that exists throughout the Armed Forces, particularly among the commanders at the sharp end, about the increasing rise of litigation and political correctness. They are deeply concerned about the effect that that is having on commanders' willingness to take risks in training. We are in danger of producing a breed of commanders who are too cautious and wary of taking decisive decisions that could be disastrous on operations. If we undermine leadership at the lowest levels, and the feeling of collective responsibility that goes with it, we could do serious harm. Ironically, that could put the lives of our servicemen at greater risk when they are on operations. The German saying of "train hard and fight soft" remains relevant.
Mention of training in the White Paper, as indicated by other noble Lords, is a little thin. I sense that there is a misunderstanding in many people's minds that, with so many servicemen on operations, the need for training is reduced. Of course, operational experience is invaluable, but I do not need to tell Members of this House that that is only part of the equation. Recently, we have had experience in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo and now in Sierra Leone, which, although dangerous, complex and difficult, has not been high intensity conflict.
In speaking of high intensity conflict I do not speak of a third world war. Quite rightly, the Strategic Defence Review laid great emphasis on retaining a war fighting capability, which is the ability to take part in high intensity conflict. If that capability is lost, it will take years and years to regain. There is no doubt that the capability of our Armed Forces in that respect has
1868
declined significantly due to the extraordinarily high level of operational commitments which has meant a great reduction in the time available for complex joint and all-arms training. I would be interested to know what the Government are trying to do to rectify that weakness.
On the European Security and Defence Initiative, I have to declare an interest in that I am a member of the sub-committee that is looking into that. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am strongly in favour of Europe doing more, but I am also convinced that we are not talking about a European army. I believe that there is some muddled thinking about the true American attitude to that initiative, although I am not sure whether there is such a thing as a clear American attitude to it. The Americans to whom I have spoken over a number of years have said that Europe should do more. By "more" the US means providing real—I emphasise the word "real"—military capability. In that respect, NATO also is important. It would be disastrous to the transatlantic link if the rhetoric overtakes the reality.
We have to recognise that there are major capability gaps in Western Europe's military capability. I do not see how that capability can realistically be improved without some countries significantly increasing defence spending. That means much more than simply refocusing their defence spending. For us it means at least delivering the Strategic Defence Review.
In conclusion, we have small, but first-class, Armed Forces. Quite rightly, they are greatly respected, not only in this country, but also by a number of other nations. Critical to recruiting and retaining the right quality of people and giving them the effective operational capability will be the Government's determination to allocate the additional resources that they clearly need. At Christmas time, the Prime Minister was at pains to praise the service and quality of our Armed Forces. I know that that message was well received by them. Loyalty goes two ways—upwards and downwards—and the Armed Forces will be looking to the Prime Minister and to the Government to deliver the additional resources that they so badly need.
1.29 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, when returning to central London last week after an appearance on the morning "Kilroy" show, I was initiated by my chauffeur into the intricacies of the car's on-board global positioning system. We were using the GPS to negotiate the arterial streets of London, some pock-marked by holes in the road such as your Lordships' latest allocation—into which this House has recently much peered. "Blooming hopeless", opined my chauffeur about GPS, and as we approached Regent's Park, the whole system went entirely AWOL. "Ah! We have come into range of the MoD's radio defences", said my "Jason Button". He fingered the culprit. "It's the ring of radio steel protecting London's chief targets from outside missile attack. It breaks up the GPS monitor every

1869
time", he concluded. But I was grateful that the MoD had its finger on the button, ready and alert to repel attack.
But what of the United Kingdom's global positioning? What of the Government's standing in their own country, in Europe and in the wider world as regards their first and fundamental duty, as our Government, of ensuring the defence of the realm? Well, as I believe the 1999 Defence White Paper demonstrates, the Government can be satisfied with a task well done.
That the Government are doing well is illustrated by the dog that does not bark. All previous Labour administrations have faced, albeit unfairly, the twin scare stories that, first, they would ruin the economy and, secondly, leave our island vulnerable to external attack. Recently, however, many have commented on the trust in which the electorate holds the Chancellor for his running of the economy, but fewer have noted the equal confidence that the British people have invested in the Government's handling of defence. The truth is indeed that of a people at peace with their government. No better expression of that contentment can be found than in the investiture of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen as Secretary-General of NATO—clearly the right man in the right place at the right time.
But the Government have also carried that domestic conviction and reform on into Europe. Just as we are advocating a better way for Europe in other policy areas, including reform of the economy, similarly, the Blair administration is leading in developing the post-Kosovo debate. That Europe could do better inside NATO is uncontested. Indeed, to quote my noble friend Lady Symons, "Europe does not measure up". But it is Britain that is suggesting the "where" and "how" of reform and change.
Premier Blair initiated the common European foreign and security debate some 18 months ago. This was an example of being "quick on the trigger"—a phrase used by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It was also a departure that surprised and delighted many of our European allies who have become too used to two decades of a British government with their back against the wall and Eurosceptic to the core.
The initiative has grown into the Helsinki European defence initiative—formed in recognition that Eurosclerosis had hampered the urgent mobilisation of troops at the time of the Kosovo crisis. That happened at a time when we still had a generous pool of some 2 million soldiers available in Europe as a whole. The fast pace of implementing the proposal for a rapid reaction force has been gratifying to all but the greatest sceptics, who regret all aspects of sensible European integration and this Government's role in it. Indeed, we still need to prevail over those who generate "hostile weather systems" against this initiative on the bogus ground that Britain's sovereignty is being somehow irredeemably undermined. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, implied that.
1870
However, if we do not persuade with clear arguments that it is a worthwhile aim to make allies in Europe to rebut our enemies abroad, 'we will throw out the baby of mobilising Europe swiftly with the bathwater of reinforcing NATO effectively—for NATO is our lodestar and we make it clear that our desire to strengthen our cisatlantic arm does not imply traducing our transatlantic partners. In that regard, we are particularly supportive of the forthcoming capabilities commitment conference.
The British agenda can be extended under the imminent French presidency of the Eli without creating a fully-fledged, independent European army, a concept redundant to all but the most Napoleonic. Nevertheless, we can and should introduce efficiencies and boost effectiveness by, for example, promoting a single market in arms procurement to aid and abet the interoperability of Europe's army and navy stores of weapons.
Those practical steps towards rational reform bring me to a prediction. In 25 years' time we shall continue not only to harbour a NATO of nations dedicated to a common defence of western values, but there will also emerge a single market and a single currency to buttress the transatlantic alliance. The marrying of political and defence imperatives will indeed see Machiavelli supping with Clausewitz.
In these global reforms Britain has a unique window of opportunity. Where once we were the belligerent on the Continent, in the Americas and in an Empire transmogrifying into a commonwealth of nations, we can now use that triple special relationship—that triple alliance—to foster peace and democracy worldwide. No better example presents itself than Sierra Leone, where the escape of Major Ashby and his colleagues, as reported this morning, testifies to British courage on active display. I, too, wish to thank the Minister for her excellent opening speech, which included reference to Sierra Leone.
But such challenges seldom come as single spies; they come as battling battalions. Because of that, we must ensure that Britain does not bite off more than it can chew. We must not be left overstretched. However, it should be noted that it was the Opposition who in 1997 left us with 5,000 soldiers short of a full complement in the Army. It was the Opposition who bequeathed us a weapons procurement policy that was two arrows short of a quiver. No wonder then when discussing government policy the Opposition would prefer to trade a Bowman for an Archer.
But domestic reforms also find the Government scoring a bull's-eye. The Defence White Paper points to the innovative use of modern technology to win the battle of minds as well as the battle of mines in the theatre of war. Some 6.7 million hits on the FCO and MoD websites during the liberation of Kosovo helped to keep anxious Serbs and Albanians abreast of the truth about the malign Milosevic.
My only misgiving in the 1999 White Paper which I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend is the reference to key skills training for school students located in Newcastle. Perhaps I may ask: why

1871
Newcastle? I am mindful of the much discussed putative north/south divide and of the recent accusation that the Army recruits soldiers in the north and officers in the south. The Government must ensure that they put the accent on ability and not on class.
Equally, I pay tribute to the development of the Service Families' Task Force, the Veterans' Advice Unit and the learning forces initiative. Those all testify to the vibrancy of the "policy for people" philosophy that infuses the White Paper.
I reiterate that I believe the Government's sensible and practical policies towards strengthening Europe within NATO are the distinguishing characteristics of their White Paper. The foreword to the 1999 report is concluded by the Secretary of State, himself a distinguished former Member of the European Parliament, with the declaration that this is a programme of reform and modernisation that will equip the United Kingdom with the effective Armed Forces that we shall need well into the 21st century. Noble Lords may agree with me that around the world, and for the benefit of all, we may be glad that it has so often been the British soldier, if not Kilroy, who was there.
1.40 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for enabling us to take part in this debate today. It is worth coming in for on a Friday and quite a lot of Peers have.
We are coming to the end of some interesting speeches and I shall not detain the House too long. But I should like to remark on one or two points that have arisen. First, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in his independent role—I said to him that perhaps he ought to be sitting on these Benches—was splendid. As the noble Baroness is aware, I have talked both publicly and within the MoD to friends and officers, saying that we must do something about the medium and heavy lift capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, got everything in the right order. I hope the noble Baroness will go back to her department and really push for the C-17. We are not in a position, with our jolly good, but ancient workhorse short-lift, almost medium-lift aircraft, to handle too many situations at once with the air support of munitions, people and equipment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that the main enemy is just across the road from the noble Baroness's office, and it has not been attacked in a way that produces any response. Those chaps in the Treasury sit behind locked doors; they are smug; they are well-fed; they are comfortable and well paid. And when I say those words I think of the chap in his slit trench in Sierra Leone at the moment who will not necessarily have everything he should have or may require. He will of course say the same thing, but in slightly more robust language.
Instead of the Chief of Defence Staff, or in concert with, taking senior Foreign Office officials with him to the African countries, and particularly to Sierra
1872
Leone, it is a shame that he does not also take the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could see on the front line what soldiers, sailors and airmen do and what they have to put up with. I have to say, and I hope I am wrong—the noble Baroness is free to correct me—that I have never seen a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing beside a soldier, sailor or airman. Yet he cuts defence budgets. He lords it in a mighty way about what we can have and what we have to do. One has the impression that he does not care very much for the defence forces. I wonder also how many of the people he employs in his Ministry belong to the TA. Noble Lords may be interested to know the volunteer reserve content of the Treasury. That is an interesting point.
The Chancellor is a brave man and I do not quarrel too much with what he has done so far for the nation. But a visit to see what happens on the ground would be useful for him. As we used to say in my day, "There is nothing like having your hair parted by a bullet to bring you down to reality and teach you what a frontline soldier, sailor or airman has to do". So let us hope we move in that direction.
What really worries me is the state of the infantry. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is having a good month of recruiting. But how short is the infantry. Fracturing major units, battalions and regiments; carving them up and sending them off with other regiments is very much an ad hoc arrangement and is no good for overall efficiency. It has worked so far, notwithstanding what my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge said. But so far we have not had to go to war. We have been taking part in peacekeeping and other operations. That is something on which we must work. The infantry is the main arm and something must be done.
I come back to training. There is no doubt, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that we are not trained for war. When we look at Sierra Leone, which is just a mission to relieve British residents—beautifully handled and I congratulate the noble Baroness on what was definitely a copybook operation with harsh but good decisions taken at political level—we recognise that it is a town. Those who may have some experience of fighting in what we call built-up areas, streets and houses, will appreciate that that sort of situation sucks up soldiers.
My anxiety is that, if we are forced to extend ourselves, the whole area will need reinforcing; the British contingent will need reinforcing. Do we have those reinforcements? Are they standing by? Are they available, bearing in mind Kosovo, Bosnia, Timor, Northern Ireland and the normal roulement of what goes on inside the United Kingdom? It is the harshest fighting of almost any sort. If we do not have the numbers, the training and the experience, it becomes an extremely tough learning curve. It is okay to guard an airport, though an airport is basically inside a town. I merely put that position forward: that there is danger in that situation. We must not be frightened of it, but we must be careful how we deploy our troops there.

1873
All those areas we are working in are areas where battle helicopters, support helicopters which can use their missiles, machine guns and all the paraphernalia that goes with that, are essential and I am perturbed to hear that some of that equipment does not work. It is a classic case where the attack helicopters can help the infantry in an important way. Are there any out there? Or are there just the big Chinooks? The noble Baroness will not mind my saying that we have discussed a certain Chinook ad nauseam, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont and I, and others, perhaps do not have the confidence in that aircraft that we should. We are trying hard to come to terms with it but it is a bit "iffy" as I see it.
We have splendid men and women in the armed services and we keep on saying so; it is right that we should. It is right that we should tell the people of this country that they are special and that they are doing a magnificent job wherever they are deployed. But they must be looked after. They must be cared for and have what they need to fight—I emphasise the word "fight". It should not be a question of them dishing out food parcels to destitute refugees, and so on.
I turn now to this very good SDR. It is one that we all support and it is about the only real in-depth review. I have always congratulated this Government on it. However, like one or two other speakers, I just do not think that we will be able to match the targets that it sets with delivery at times, and I am sad about that.
I have two further points. There have been some 200 new Peers introduced into your Lordships' House, hardly any of whom—indeed, if any—have any military experience whatever. Again, in another place, there is hardly anyone with any military experience. However, I believe that one can learn. Perhaps I may put a plug in here for those noble Lords to be made aware that your Lordships' House does have a study group on defence, which is very bereft of Labour Peers. It is an all-party group of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is sitting beside me, is the president. Both he and I were grabbed by the late Lord Shinwell, who established the group, some 30 years ago. It was set up by a Labour Party, by a Labour Minister, and it should he full of Labour Peers. He did not invite us to join: he just said that we would start "next week"; and we did.
There is also this excellent thing that the MoD does with the support of the CDS and Sir Neil Thorne, a former Member of Parliament, where Peers and Members of the House of Commons can spend time with all three services of the military and have a very interesting time. I think that they probably will not get their hair parted by a bullet—some of us, of course, cannot—but they will learn a great deal. They will become enthusiastic about their defence services and their Armed Forces. So I put those two final points to the Minister. I hope that something may develop therefrom.
I am always a little anxious about any brochure I receive that is too shiny on the outside. Indeed, I become a little suspicious. However, the SDR reads
1874
awfully well. I cannot work out whether it has been written by soldiers, sailors and airmen or just by the very excellent civilian staff that the noble Baroness has. It is good marketing and it is a good sales line. Its written with sincerity—I will give it that. But, as the noble Baroness said, there is much to do. As regards some of the things that are claimed to have been done by now and some of those that are claimed will be done by 2001 or 2002, it will be a race against time. I am on the side of the noble Baroness to get it done. Indeed, she will have my support in every way to see that this is achieved as far as possible.
1.54 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the White Paper. I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing it in such a fine way. I should like to pick up on the final points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Not only have we seen a substantial increase in the number of Labour Peers coming into the House but, on the other side of the coin, we have also seen, under the House of Lords Act of last autumn, a substantial number of people with previous experience of both working and living in the forces actually leaving this place. That is an overall issue which is of concern to us.
I am one of the few noble Lords on the speaking list who has come here with no experience of either working or living within the forces. Like two or three of my noble friends who are in the same position and who have probably spoken for the first time on a forces/defence debate, I believe that not only have we much to learn but also that we may perhaps bring the benefit of the experiences that we have gained in the wider world to our contributions to such debates.
It is important for us to seek to encourage more people to play a part in such matters. One of the suggestions I should like to make is that there could be a positive outcome from today's debate if we all recommitted ourselves to encourage other Peers, irrespective of party, to play a bigger part in the affairs of state and of defence. I refer particularly to the two points precisely made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, as regards those of us who are in the group of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. We received a call from him recently urging us to start playing a more active role, and we should respond to it. We should find the time for it and become further involved in it. We are shortly to have a meeting about support for the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme with Sir Neil Thorne to see what we can do to try to get more Peers involved and lined up to go on courses. In that way, intelligence, knowledge and perhaps a little skill might indeed be developed out of our association with the Armed Forces. I quickly point out here that I have no desire whatever to change the way in which I part my hair, even though I have an interest in increasing my knowledge of the forces.
This year those in the services have been putting themselves out to try to raise our understanding and knowledge of what they are doing and, indeed, to whet our appetites. I attended the three presentations that were held earlier this year. They were well supported

1875
and very well run. I found them to be of great benefit. I should like to congratulate the organisers in the three services on setting up those presentations for us. As I say, I found them helpful, informative and stimulating. They also provide a first-hand opportunity for us to talk with forces personnel.
There was something that I found particularly encouraging in those conversations. Although the personnel felt that there were still many problems to be solved—indeed, as other speakers today have said, there are question marks remaining about the extent to which there will be delivery on the review—they said, none the less, that there had been a significant change within the forces in the form of a lifting in morale and spirit and, indeed, a general optimism. I was very pleased to hear that. I hope that other colleagues who have spoken to Armed Forces personnel received similar messages. I was told clearly that the SDR has gone down extremely well and that people are now much more positive about their future, their role and their prospects.
When we attend such presentations, we can sometimes perhaps have the rosiest picture put before us. But I suspect that what was conveyed to me was not too far from the mark. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the department is continuing to monitor morale within the services? If so, can she say what is the current response coming through to her? If she cannot answer today, I should be very happy to receive that information in the form of a letter in due course.
However, I must be open and honest and say that there are also a good number of criticisms that came through about the continuing concerns of those employed within the forces. Again, they have been expressed strongly by most speakers in the debate. The principal topics addressed in Chapter 4 of the White Paper—this is the area in which I have a particular interest—are overstretch and undermanning.
When I first entered the House of Lords just over a couple of years ago a substantially higher number of people in this country were unemployed. At that time nearly three-quarters of a million people were on the unemployment register. I was surprised to discover that nearly 10,000 vacancies existed in the Armed Forces. I pressed the then Minister responsible for these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—I am sorry that he is not present at the moment—to set out a programme and tell us what steps the Government were taking to try to fill those vacancies, especially from among the ranks of the unemployed. I also pointed out that there had been increasing criticism of the Armed Forces' image and of their human resources and management practices. There was much criticism of the Armed Forces in the press at that time, in particular of attitudes to race and gender. Some promotion issues had also been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, assured me that steps were being taken through the New Deal and a range of other initiatives in the SDR to seek to solve those problems. Over the past year those and many other issues have been addressed.
1876
Much more significant progress has been made overall and is described in Chapter 4 of the White Paper. My noble friend the Minister covered many of these topics in introducing the debate some few hours ago now. However, on balance, I believe that substantial progress has been made on personnel and management issues in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces human resources development policies and practices are being transformed and now stand comparison with good employment practices almost anywhere one cares to look. Given my trade union background, I am happy to note that there has been no interference from the Civil Service and no interference whatsoever with the pay awards which have been recommended by the Armed Forces pay board. I trust that the Minister will confirm that that will continue to be the case and that every effort will be made to ensure that changes that are made to pay will be acceptable to those who will be principally affected.
Good advances have been made in improving operational welfare; in establishing the service families task force; and in support given to the veterans advice unit. I do not believe that these are minor issues, especially from the point of view of those in the ranks. The good work which has been started should be maintained and pursued further.
I have listened carefully to the views which have been expressed on training. I was interested to note the announcement made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, when he had responsibility for these matters that £1 billion had been allocated for training purposes. That had been negotiated with his big, bad brother in No. 11 Downing Street. That was a significant and useful sum in terms of pursuing policies to improve recruitment, to train people and to enable them to gain portable qualifications.
That training should encourage people to stay in the services and reduce wastage. I refer also to assisting people who want to leave the services. Between 22,000 to 24,000 seek to leave the services each year. However, the Armed Forces, in partnership with Coutts Consulting, are practising excellent management techniques and assisting with resettlement in civilian life. That is a big step forward, although some people may feel that that harms the Armed Forces in that it helps people to resettle in civilian life and people are tending to leave. We need to keep working on that practice. Those who leave the services will spread the good message of the good life and the good training they have received. They will tell others of the qualifications they have gained and of the assistance they have received, even to the extent of receiving assistance in finding placements when they leave.
Paragraph 78 lists an impressive catalogue of achievements. However, it is only a start and much remains to be done. Overstretch, especially for the Army, remains a big problem. Undermanning also continues to pose a big problem. It has been eased to some degree in certain quarters within the forces but continues to be a major problem within the Army, as does understaffing. We cannot ignore the fact that the labour market has tightened substantially in the two years that I have been in the House of Lords. It has

1877
tightened especially as regards young people. JSA claimants aged 18 to 24 now account for 21 per cent of the total. The number of claimants in that age group now stands at its lowest level for 25 years. Those people in times of higher unemployment would have been eligible to be recruited into the forces.
Other changes are taking place in the labour market. People are staying out of the labour market for longer with the increase in the numbers undertaking further and higher education. We are now approaching a situation where 50 per cent of our young people go on to university to obtain degrees. Again, in the past those young people would have been eligible to enter the Armed Forces. I believe that the labour market will become even tighter in future years.
It was good to hear my noble friend say that recruitment has improved. However, I was disappointed to learn that problems of retention are undermining that progress. I echo the question that has been asked by others; namely, can we be given an update on overstretch? In particular, I should like to see the figures for each of the services in terms of the numbers recruited and those who leave. We need to have all the facts to be able to determine how we move forward on these issues.
While savings through Smart Procurement and other technological changes are widespread, I sincerely hope that application of e-commerce in the MoD and in the forces will generate savings and opportunities for redeployment and greater investment. I still believe that the longer term prospects for adequate staffing will be problematic arid need to be addressed. We need to look for new initiatives and innovative ways of trying to solve those problems. There will never be enough money to satisfy any of the public services. Although we need more money, we shall never get as much as we wish.
We should consider the interesting suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about ways in which we can retain more servicemen. I should like to persuade the powers that be to introduce a debate solely on the problems of overstretch, recruitment and retention. Such issues could then be discussed in more detail.
It is interesting that the United Kingdom can change its entry regulations to admit non-UK workers if they have IT specialties, as announced in the recent Budget. We have great problems within the forces and, perhaps in collaboration with the Commonwealth, this may be an area for people to come in on a bigger scale than at present in order to fill some of the gaps and to make careers for themselves in our Armed Forces.
An increasing number of youngsters are being incarcerated or placed on community programmes. Although I do not suggest the introduction of boot camps or anything like that, we should examine the possibility of using the Armed Forces to provide such youngsters with training and discipline. That would bring a purpose in life to those who lead what the Home Secretary described as "chaotic lifestyles". After all, we have had conscription in the past. Many people of that ilk were conscripted into the forces and
1878
found their way by being alongside others who knew what they wanted from life. An exploration of those areas may be worth while, although we cannot today go into them in great detail.
We should also examine the role of reservists to ascertain whether a more flexible and greater use can be made of them.
I have a number of other points to make but I have spoken for long enough. I welcome the White Paper. It is a good paper overall, but much remains to be delivered. I hope that we shall all pm our shoulders to the wheel to do that.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting this report. She need not feel worried about it being, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, put it, "shiny and well presented". Being a somewhat cynical chartered accountant, I have looked at its contents and I find them relevant, interesting and most helpful.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, because, at the conclusion of his remarks, he mentioned conscription. I can speak as one of the last conscripts. Indeed, it is 43 years ago that I was Recruit Lyell. People younger than I, sons of my friends and people of my age say, "Oh yes. You poodled around and did not do a great deal". I wonder if they have ever looked at what happened.
My noble friend Lord Burnham will remember that there was a Guards brigade in Malaya and that young National Servicemen fought in Korea, with considerable success. Those campaigns were perhaps not exactly similar to the two other campaigns in postwar times that have been fought largely with conscript forces—one in Vietnam, or Indo-China as it was then called by the French, and one in Algeria—but perhaps the enemy and the entire concept of the conflicts were different.
I was a conscript. Six of the speakers in the debate today are considerably senior to me in military rank—five are very senior indeed—and on occasions such as this, I always rise to speak with great humility. I wish to put one or two of my thoughts to your Lordships, but not only on the defence estimates.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I serve on the House of Lords All Party Defence Study Group; I am purported to be the acting secretary at this moment. I look to my left and I notice that my noble friend appears still to be reasonably satisfied with me. I try to provide him with information and help.
The main thrust of any thoughts that I may have on the White Paper concern the section classed as "People in defence". I am in full agreement with the general aims in paragraphs 65 and 66, which are all good and well presented. It is only when I come to paragraph 70 and see the word "overstretch" for the first time that my blood pressure and hackles rise. Several other noble Lords have the same reaction. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig, presented this as being one aspect which is no doubt

1879
constantly in the mind of the Minister, but it is worth reiterating again and again. In conversations I have had in all parts of the United Kingdom and elsewhere, with military friends of mine—serving officers and retired officers—the problems of overstretch and of retention, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Vivian, are constantly brought up.
In July 1957, when I was still a recruit, there was a major change. I remember seeing a Part II order go up that the British Army was to change from being a national service army into an all-professional new regular army. I did not necessarily have in mind the picture half-way down the Lords' corridor of the New Model Army marching out to relieve the siege of Gloucester during the war of King versus Parliament, but I took the order on board despite the fact that then was due to serve for only two years. In fact, I served considerably less than that thanks to a ski-ing accident—whether that was on leave or duty I am not too sure.
Noble Lords have referred to the SA80 rifle. I have the letters VC after my name—not like my father; no, I am visually and vertically challenged. Being somewhat too short for the major parades in which the Scots Guards were engaged in 1958, I was sent off to Hythe. It was then discovered that I was considerably visually challenged. I am just able to see across your Lordships' House. Never mind, the commanding officer took the fine decision to send me off to Hythe. On 15th May 1958 we were all sent along to the armoury and given huge plastic pouches. We cut them open and out came the new self-loading rifle. I borrowed a fellow officer's glasses, changed the lenses and stunned everyone and myself by achieving 94 out of 100 at 200 and 300 yards with the aid of the rifle. If I could do that, guess what the British Army could do. That was May 1958. Ours was the first course at the Army School of Infantry at Hythe to use those rifles. I wonder whether the Minister could have a look at the records in what I call the dungeons in the Ministry of Defence to see whether there is a parallel with the SA80 and whether anything can be learnt from what clearly was the enormous success of the self-loading rifle. I seem to recall that our self-loading rifle was a development of the FN that had been in use in Belgium.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have referred to the developments in Sierra Leone. That goes to show just what are the demands on our regular forces—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Royal Marines—let alone on the civilian support, which is so important. It was very nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brett, refer to them. I may come to that point a little later.
I was interested to see in paragraph 70 of the White Paper the details and figures of overstretch and how many personnel who had been in places like Kosovo and Bosnia had also been in the Gulf. Although their duties and the needs of each situation tend to vary, those personnel are able to be redeployed. But I just wonder what lies hidden. What figures are not mentioned—for instance, Northern Ireland or Germany? Sierra Leone will provide a seismic shift in
1880
the pattern of infantry and other Army changes. For the moment, it will change the Army guidelines, to which I referred as the movement of units. That is constantly under risk from developments like Sierra Leone.
In the past 10 days I have had the chance to visit two infantry battalions. One is just back from an 18 month tour in Northern Ireland. Next year it is likely that it may take a roulement tour. That is supposed to be from May to November, but by the time one has taken the work up, the actual tour and the continuation, it is likely to be nearly one year. That is in the middle of a two-year posting in the United Kingdom.
Another battalion with which I had contact is resident in Scotland and used some of the farm buildings at home for training. It has trained for a roulement tour. I was able to see at close quarters how its training is particularly relevant not just to Northern Ireland but is a development of the training I had 42 years ago as a very junior platoon commander. Both battalions reminded me of the motto—it is a pity we did not adopt it when Independent Television was coming in—"Be the Best, Join the Army". Each and every one of them had those words in front of them while they continued with their training.
I have in front of me a note saying, "Return to your Lordships' House and support the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, seeking recruits to the Defence Study Group". The group visits all three services. That has been superbly put about by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who was one of almost 50 recipients of letters which I mailed seeking support. This is also a chance shot at the noble Baroness on the other side. Perhaps the desire of your Lordships to take part in such visits could be conveyed to the Whips' Office. If it could look sympathetically on the programme, I am sure that today's debate would go down much better.
Everywhere I have visited with my noble friend Lord Vivian and other noble Lords on the Defence Study Group, we have received marvellous briefings commencing with the great words, "Efficiency Savings". Everyone believes that the concept is fine; the details are also pretty good—they are helped by developments in information technology, new ideas and imagination. Indeed, I was very pleased with the new idea put about by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, regarding civilian support for the military in Northern Ireland and no doubt elsewhere. As military personnel move, the talents of those who have given support to the military can be utilised in some way. I know that the Minister will take that idea on board and put it into action as she sees fit.
However, we must reflect on efficiency savings in relation to what the late Harold Macmillan called "events". We have only to look at Kosovo, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Indeed, 10 years ago I drove to Switzerland on holiday. On my arrival, after driving all day from London, I turned on the television only to see on CNN reports of the invasion of Kuwait. There are "events" at all times. There is the Strategic Defence Review; and there is Sierra Leone. The noble Baroness

1881
has made this point. All that movement will bring about a consequential seismic movement elsewhere in relation to defence forces.
Several speakers have referred to reservists and the Territorial Army. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Vivian had some strong remarks to make in that respect. I have some personal knowledge of the Army medical services being reinforced by enormous and very welcome territorial support. Were it not for that help, they would be in a grave state. Territorials are taken on as full-timers and are in front-line service all over the world. I hope that the Minister will be able to give as much support as possible, indeed give a high priority, to the Territorials.
Within the past week I have seen two examples of the wonderful people who make up our forces. Last Friday, I attended a quasi-military event with the Scots Guards Association and I was misdirected in Purbright camp. I found myself in the middle of what can only be described as a passing out parade. There were lots of mums and dads and sisters running about. They surrounded my car and I became slightly concerned. I then saw a squad of recruit guardsmen marching down the road towards me, singing, pursued by a particularly fierce Coldstream Guards sergeant who was their squad instructor.
It took me back to the time, 43 years ago, when I took part in a similar event. I had a Coldstream Guards instructor, Sergeant Clements, who went by the attractive name of "Kiwi", as it was seen that he spit-and-polished everything, including us and himself! Those young recruits evidently had enormous pride and had taken their valuable first step as soldiers. Their standards were certainly as high as I was able to achieve all those years ago. But there was also the pride and happiness of all the mothers and fathers and other family members who supported them. They were immensely proud to be there that day. I hope that we can build on that.
On Wednesday of this week I was unable to attend the important debates in your Lordships' House. I accompanied my noble friends Lord Luke and Lord Vivian on a visit to HMS "Sheffield". The predecessor of that ship was in everyone's thoughts and prayers during the Falklands conflict. For me, that visit was one of this year's highlights of the Defence Study Group. Commander Lowe and the ship's company were a prime example of the qualities to which the WI) and White Paper refer. All of them were smiling, effective and first class, from the weaponry right down to the fire-fighters. I was taken right down the ship to see people who were called "writers". Each and every one of the crew was first-class and on top of the job. It was interesting that, no matter what came about as a result of Pay 2000, they were still keen and proud to do their job.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships as one of the junior military Members of your Lordships' House. In your Lordships' House, as elsewhere, humility in one's military career stands one in good stead. I add my thanks to the Minister but, above all, to each and every one of the service men and women
1882
who continue to be the best in the world, and to earn the gratitude of the rest of the world, particularly in places like Sierra Leone or wherever events may take them.
2.26 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that is a very hard act to follow, but I shall try. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I echo the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that this important debate takes place on a Friday. The defence of the realm is, after all, the most important function of any government. I would have thought that if any subject deserved prime time it was this. If it had taken place at prime time it might have ensured that the Front Benches had better support from behind. For the first time I find myself offering sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in that respect. But we have had a very good debate. I express particular gratitude to what I might call my noble and gallant five-star friends for their contribution to the debate, which, as always, has been professional and instructive. We had an introductory speech of the high quality we have come to expect from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons.
In the brief time that is left I should like to concentrate my remarks on only one paragraph of the Defence White Paper. In the section, "New threats and challenges", paragraph 8 is, as far as it goes, a constructive and thoughtful part of the report, but one sentence which needs closer attention begins:
"Although we still conclude, as did the SDR, that no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK and its interests will exist for some years".
That is very much a matter of opinion and judgment, but I suggest that the threat is much closer than that sentence suggests and it requires rather more urgent attention than the White Paper implies it is receiving. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has recently been in the United States and has some information about the subject. It may be that he will express views that differ from mine, but, after all, that is one of the delights of debate in your Lordships' House.
By way of background, for the past year or more I have been chairman of a cross-party group which has been formed to examine the problem of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Our report,Coming into Range, will be published next Monday. The very title suggests what it is about. It paints a slightly more disturbing picture of the ballistic missile threat than that in the White Paper.
It is obvious to any serious student of military strategy that ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction will be the defining characteristic of strategic thinking in this century. Since the ballistic missile was first used at the end of the war more than 5,000 have been fired. That fact greatly surprises many people. It is even more surprising and significant that there are now more than 13,000 ballistic missiles in the hands of 37 different countries. Such proliferation should give us all great cause for concern. It may

1883
disturb regional power balances—an important matter in itself—pand, even more importantly to us, prevent western intervention in regional crises.
Military intervention in such crises now seems to be an important part of our military strategy. As has been confirmed, we are committed to the idea of sending expeditionary forces to deal with crises involving human rights, humanitarian aid and political instability. It is what I have called in another context the right to interfere. Although we may not all agree with that right, it is now at the heart of western strategy.
I do not want to be alarmist but all the evidence supports the view that before too long several states will be able to strike at European cities with missiles armed with chemical, biological and even nuclear warheads. Some people seem satisfied in the belief that we are well out of range. But missile ranges are lengthening and in the not too distant future non-ballistic missiles could be fired from surface ships, which will bring all sorts of areas and bases within strike range.
Although the Strategic Defence Review and the White Paper, which is a high-grade publication, have several admirable and constructive qualities, they give rise to the suspicion that we may be entering a new century with new ideas and aspirations, but with weapons and strategic concepts that are more appropriate to the last century and to Cold War confrontation, which require different weapons systems and different strategic concepts.
The Strategic Defence Review was an extremely imaginative and first-rate attempt to solve some of the strategic concepts of the future. Among other things it promised a massive agenda for change, including the use of rapid reaction forces to deal with regional crises. But unless we can defend our rapid reaction forces and their bases, including the home base, from missile attack, that agenda for change will be dangerously incomplete and Britain's future capacity to project its military power overseas will be in doubt. Once that is in doubt, our influence in world affairs and our value as an ally will be greatly reduced.
The White Paper rightly emphasises the capacity that we must have to deter threats to our interests and to those of our allies. That is all very well as a statement but, as far as I can see, there has been no attempt to redefine the requirements of deterrent strategy to meet the new strategic environment. We are still trapped in the time warp of mutual assured destruction, the anti-ballistic missile treaty and all the trappings of the Cold War as regards deterrence. I do not suggest that the whole strategic concept has not been changed considerably. It has. I am talking now simply about deterrence. All we have at present is our Trident system. It still has an important part to play. However, we must recognise that its use would be inconceivable in a great number of circumstances. In a great superpower confrontation, it would be, yes; but in the multipolar world in which we now live, no. It would be foolish to regard the Trident as a weapon system for all seasons.
1884
The conclusion, therefore, of my group, after over a year of careful study and analysis based upon sources of information and intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic, is that in the short term Britain should take some urgent steps to acquire ballistic missile defences at least sufficient to protect our expeditionary forces against missile attack. If we are going to continue to send British forces overseas to engage in these various brush-fire operations (or whatever they may be) we must be able to protect them; and we have no way to protect them at present against counter-attack from missiles and missiles with weapons of mass destruction in their warheads. That is not, as it may seem, an alarmist statement. It is based on a study over a year by serious people who know a bit about defence. We have the same information and intelligence as the Ministry of Defence. The difference is in the conclusions.
This kind of threat assessment is always subjective and always a matter of opinion. However, our judgment is that the ballistic missile threat, not just to our forces, but to their bases and perhaps eventually to the home base, has been seriously under-estimated. We believe indeed that in the long term Britain should be prepared to consider joining in a system of global missile defence led by the United States and organised through NATO. As noble Lords will know, the United States is already working on a national missile defence system. It has to be admitted—we have had discussions about it in your Lordships' House—that such a global defence system could not be developed within the constraints of the famous anti-ballistic missile treaty. For that reason, the United States is attempting to renegotiate the ABM treaty with Russia in exchange for a further reduction in its stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I should have thought that that was a deal which would appeal to most people on whichever side of the argument they stand. However, all I have to say, based on information which I regard as being totally reliable, is that if the United States does not succeed in renegotiating the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, the United States will abrogate that treaty and withdraw from it unilaterally.
We are at an important turning point in our strategic thinking. It is no longer any good expecting arms control to solve these problems. The anti-ballistic missile treaty, the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime are all excellent political aims and policies for any civilised government to follow. But none of them will protect our forces and their bases against the emerging threat.
If we resist the need to develop ballistic missile systems we shall do grave damage to the alliance. We shall cause strains in the alliance and strains with our principal ally, the United States of America, possibly leading to US isolationism, which is never far below the surface, or at best to the US wanting to act militarily outside the ambit of the NATO alliance.
None of those things would be in the interests of Europe. I suggest that we must now begin to pay serious attention to the problem. We pay great attention to such issues as the European security and defence initiative, which, despite what the Minister

1885
said, I believe to be an institutional irrelevance. I wish that we could get away from the argument that it is not the creation of a European army. I know that the Minister has a brief to follow, but this really is wet in the extreme! I may be taking issue with my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, but it comprises 60,000 service people, all European. When all or a small portion are deployed, they will have a European commander who will have a European staff which will have European intelligence, European logistics and European support. If that is not a European army, I should like to know what is. But that is only a matter of semantics. I should be happier with the whole concept if only the Minister did not protest too much about it not being a European army. I ask her to think about that before we next come to discuss the matter in your Lordships' House.
I shall leave that aside—it was an irrelevance on my part—and return to the main issue of the debate. I know from personal experience that the noble Baroness thinks deeply about all these issues. I ask her to return to the Ministry and look again at paragraph 8. Are we not underestimating what I regard to be the most serious emergent military threat of the 21st century?
2.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as with all defence debates, this debate has raised a wide range of subjects. I note that we have heard more speeches from Members on the Cross Benches than from those on the Conservative Benches. That should not pass unnoticed in a defence debate. For some time I have felt a little naked on these Benches in defence debates. I shall welcome to these Benches the arrival next week of Lord Roper, a very good friend with whom I have worked and written on defence issues for many years, and the return of Lord Redesdale, who has experience of serving in the Territorial Army.
I should like to touch briefly on a large number of subjects. As regards manned aircraft, I am more persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, than I am by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I worry whether within the next 10 years the manned fighter bomber will become the equivalent of the battleship. I should like to comment on recruitment and retention, about which we are all rightly concerned and which deserves separate treatment. As my noble friend, Lord Dholakia, has reminded me, there is underway in this country a sustained effort to recruit among ethnic minorities. It is going well and we are grateful for the help of Colin Powell in that respect. It is one way in which we can reduce the current shortages.
But I want to talk mainly about defence as such and the threat against which we believe we are now preparing. After all, defence is needed to meet anticipated threats. It is now 10 years since the end of the Cold War. There is no foreseeable threat to the territory of the United Kingdom or to what we used to regard as core western Europe as a whole. Therefore, it has been rational to reduce defence spending over the past 10 years.
1886
I disagree with the Conservative point of view as put by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, which seemed to me to echo that of the American Republicans who wish always to cut spending on education and health and increase it on defence. They then resist using or deploying forces outside the country. Incidentally, I must also say that, having spent some time going in and out of a remarkably unsafe building—the Ministry of Defence Main Building—I would have thought that recent refurbishment might have made the survivability of those who work in the building rather better. The Conservative approach to defence seems to me to lack a degree of common sense.
It is now a question more of security than of defence. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, we are talking about stability and about Britain's global and regional responsibilities. Britain has responsibilities as a member of the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and as a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Again, I would say to our Conservative colleagues that: the vigour with which they insist that Britain maintains its permanent membership of the UN Security Council does not sit easily with their resistance to the use of British forces in support of UN operations outside Europe.
I want to concentrate on Chapter 2 of the Defence White Paper and on the question of NATO and the very relevant issues which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised about nuclear missile defence and the implications of that for the transatlantic partnership. I share his view that the transatlantic partnership remains the key to British and European security and that the maintenance of NATO is therefore of fundamental importance to Britain. However, as the noble Lord also said, I believe that we face some immense problems which arise from the divergence of assumptions on the different sides of the Atlantic.
I spent two weeks either side of Easter in the United States, at the spring conference of the Transatlantic Policy Network. I met a number of Congressmen. I met several members of the foreign policy advisory team of George W Bush, and I have to say that I came back very worried. We were told firmly that nuclear missile defence in the United States,
"is a done deal and it is not worth discussing the issue further".
We were told that in terms which effectively meant, "Let's not discuss the rational question of how far there is a real threat". The weight of opinion behind it in the United States is now such that there is no way of resisting.
Those of us who then listened to people who spoke about the severity of the North Korean threat to the United States found that a little difficult to grasp. However, we were equally worried when some of those to whom we spoke said, "Well, of course, it is not really North Korea; it is really China and Russia". The assumption that China and Russia are fundamentally antagonistic to the United States and must remain enemies against whom one deters is part of the worry that I have about the discourse of American defence policy.

1887
I was also worried when one of the experts there to whom I spoke said that within the defence circles of the United States a discussion was just beginning about the ethical quality of the current trends within American defence; that the pursuit of the revolution in military affairs and in nuclear missile defence is intended to ensure that no American is ever killed in any conflict and that the only ones who are killed are always foreigners. That view is beginning to worry some of the more responsible people who are involved in these discussions.
I found myself thinking about the debate held 20 years ago in the Committee of the Present Danger, which suggested that the Soviet Union was building up an overwhelming preponderance of weapons and was inherently expansionist in the early 1980s. This partly led to the SDI debate.
I remember, 20 years before that, when I was first in the United States as a student, the missile gap debate. I even remember visiting in Vermont an observation post on the corner of a property there which still had in it the identification charts for German bomber aircraft. It had been manned from 1942 to 1945. In spite of the fact that no German aircraft had the capacity to reach Massachusetts, let alone Vermont, that had fed the American vision that there is a threat out there and that, above all, one must maintain the United States secure from it.
Over the next two years, there will be a very severe set of difficulties across the Atlantic in relation to nuclear missile defence. It involves the United Kingdom directly because, as an authoritative article in Survival said recently, upgrading the radars on British territory is clearly a breach of the ABM treaty as currently signed. Therefore, it requires amendment. Thus, the British Government will have to accept amendment of the ABM treaty.
I worry also about the divergence of the discourse about defence and security in western Europe from that of the United States. In the United States, one hears conversations about rogue states—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea—and about weapons of mass destruction—chemical and biological weapons. The last time I was at Harvard, I was shown some wonderful charts about how far biological weapons spread if dropped from the World Trade Tower in New York. There is a whole set of discussions going on about that sort of thing. They speak of the revolution in military affairs, the greater Middle East, the strategic importance of central Asia as a buffer between Russia and China, Islamic fundamentalism and the role of the Turkey/Israel partnership in resisting Islamic fundamentalism, the geopolitics of oil, and so on.
As the Minister's excellent introductory speech clearly demonstrated, the European discourse uses a very different language. It is about peacekeeping, peace-making, conflict prevention, weak states, defence diplomacy, partnership and dialogue. One needs a different balance of forces for that. One needs different equipment. The deployment in Sierra Leone demonstrates that.
1888
There is a particular problem for Britain in that regard because, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned in the debate, the United Kingdom wishes to maintain interoperability with the United States, as well as recognising that in active conflict situations, we are most likely to be working alongside our European allies. So we are torn in both directions in terms of what sort of equipment we want to have and how much high technology we wish to procure.
I welcome, as my party has throughout, moves towards closer European defence co-operation. Again, I wish to remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, how that started. It started in 1994…95 with the Franco-British defence dialogue in great secrecy. Michael Portillo was one of the major players in that dialogue. It grew partly out of the experience of British and French commanders in the field in Bosnia and the recognition by both British and French commanders that they were the two who were serious and that there was a great deal to be gained from working more closely together.
The United Kingdom has become the model for successive European defence reviews elsewhere. The United Kingdom Government have rightly taken the lead in pushing very good progress so far. We have some way to go. We are waiting to see the next key decisions which will be in Germany when the Weiszacker Commission reports next month as to how far the Germans are prepared to follow the model which the French, following the British, have now taken.
Rational further progress down that road includes pursuing further shared logistical chains, further joint training establishments and, please, one may ask the Government, a little more visibility for those areas in which the British and the Dutch, the British and the French, already collaborate closely. I always wish to remind people that there is the British-Dutch marine amphibious force, now 26 years in operation, about which very few people in the British Parliament are even aware.
The underlying question is, where will forces be needed and what will they be required to do? We dearly hope that current progress in Ulster will reduce one cause of overstretch for the British Armed Forces. We also recognise that in south eastern Europe, Britain and her European allies have now taken on a long-term commitment. It should not be one that will require too many front-line British forces. There is likely to be a gendarmerie requirement for state reconstruction for which the British are less well equipped than some of our continental partners, and a requirement for soft security operations in which the EU, as well as NATO, is an active participant.
Africa and the south, as we see with Sierra Leone, will clearly be a major preoccupation. As Chairman of Sub-Committee F of the Lords European Communities Committee, I have read various papers from the Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers. They spoke of how to cope with the flood of immigrants and refugees entering Europe. The common conclusion of the various country studies was

1889
that we have to do something about preventing state collapse in the countries from which refugees come. There are now some 50,000 to 60,000 Somalis living in London, some of whom have come to London legally—but many of them are here illegally—over the past 10 years because the Somali state collapsed. Clearly, there is a British and a European interest in playing a role in relation to those countries. That ought not to be the major role. We do not want to take on the white man's burden again, but everything that Clare Short and others talk about in terms of defence diplomacy, supporting regional forces and retraining them is highly desirable.
In the Middle East, unlike Africa and south-eastern Europe, we are likely to work with the Americans; indeed, we will be working in support of them. In that area British, European and American views diverge. We face a difficult dialogue with our American partners, particularly under a Republican administration, as to what we do in the Middle East. Clearly, continuing to sell arms to the Middle East is not a sensible policy. Anything that we can do as the EU, and at a transatlantic level, to tighten controls on arms sales to that unstable region will be highly desirable.
Lastly, there are the Caucasus and the other areas around Russia. It is possible that if the Chechen war had overflowed into Georgia or if there had been problems with Russian minorities in the Baltic states, we may have seen problems that would have required some sort of limited confrontation with the extremely inefficient, badly organised Russian armed forces. I hope that the British Government will stress—here again we differ from our American partners—that Russia should be engaged in dialogue and should not be assumed to be a long-term enemy. Pursuit of NATO enlargement should be taken carefully and slowly rather than as a process that is seen explicitly as excluding Russia.
Closer co-operation with our European partners is the basis for an intelligent British defence policy. The maintenance of the transatlantic partnership, in spite of the many and real difficulties ahead, is as important. On these Benches we believe that we should maintain the size of the budget, particularly if Ulster allows us to reduce overstretch; that we should put much more effort into maintaining the quality of our Armed Forces; that improvement in recruitment should take place; and that we must ensure that we obtain the best quality equipment possible.
3 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before turning to the substance of my remarks, perhaps I may remind the House that I have an interest as a serving TA officer. However, I am no longer in a command appointment, but in a pool of specialist watchkeepers. That allows me more time to attend your Lordships' House.
Several noble Lords have remarked on the lack of Conservative Peers in this debate. I should point out that, although we have 42,000 men serving in the Navy, as a result of the House of Lords Act we have
1890
lost the benefit of contributions from Lord Effingham, Lord Ironside and, I suspect, other former Royal Navy officers who are no longer with us.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate. Noble Lords have always had the benefit of high quality defence Ministers, and the noble Baroness is no exception. Some noble Lords have remarked on the timing of this debate. But since 1992 I have taken part in several similar debates that have been scheduled on the last sitting day before the Summer Recess, so I think that in fact we are making progress. The average length of the excellent speeches we have heard today has been 13 minutes. I believe that that gives an indication of the value of our debate, especially as very little time has been wasted. I have found it a fascinating and informative debate.
I am grateful for the Minister's update on the situation in Sierra Leone. Matters are moving very fast indeed. The speed with which our forces were able to deploy was quite remarkable and commendable. How much more we shall be able to do when we have the heavy-lift aircraft, the need for which was identified some time ago, although the Minister has yet to place an order. We on these Benches applaud the actions of our forces, but we have deployed a very potent force, much greater than would be needed for the stated role of our troops. On the other hand, it makes sense to be able to wave an even larger stick at a potential opponent, if that proves to be necessary.
I feel that a problem has already developed. Now that our forces are in place, the people we aimed to evacuate are apparently now more confident and wish to stay. Will this situation not force the Government to leave our forces in place longer than is necessary, desirable or even planned for? Can the Minister tell the House what commitments, if any, HMG have made to the Government of Sierra Leone, or to President Kabbah, in the run-up to this crisis?
We are concerned about mission creep, as we were when UK forces were deployed to Macedonia. As it eventually ended up we were within a few days of having to mount a force of 50,000 men to deal with President Milosevic in Kosovo. However, on the other hand, in 1995 I personally witnessed the aftermath of the results of inaction when the UN force collapsed in Rwanda in 1994, so there is a balance to be struck.
I do not expect the Minister to say anything about the rules of engagement for our forces in Sierra Leone. However, I am always amused to learn that the warring factions in a conflict understand our rules of engagement when parliamentarians do not, even in confidence. Can the Minister give an assurance that our rules of engagement are broadly similar to those which obtained for our NATO forces in Bosnia? If not, what training was undertaken before deployment? This impinges clearly on some of the questions put to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Can the Minister say on what date and at what time Ministers approved the rules of engagement for this operation? I appreciate that she may prefer to write to me in confidence on these points.

1891
Members of another place are concerned that they have not had a Statement today about this very serious matter. Can the Minister give an assurance that a Statement will be made on Monday which will lay out clearly Her Majesty's Government's strategy for this operation?
On reading the White Paper, it struck me as very much a mutual pat on the back. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said that it was well produced. That pat is well deserved for our soldiers but less so for the Ministers. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that it was "rather complacent". As we examine the SDR during its implementation, we realise that the Government almost undertook one of the best post-war reviews of defence. Indeed, favourable comments were made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and many others. That review has been built on the work of the previous administration. When they defend the SDR cuts—the SDR has indeed reduced defence expenditure—Ministers point to the cuts made by the previous administration, in particular Options for Change.
But our major threat from the Warsaw Pact had disappeared. What message would have been received by the Russians and others if we had maintained defence expenditure unchanged and if we had not followed the Partnership for Peace route? In the end, the Government ruined their own SDR by not properly funding it; in particular, by having a plan that the staff carefully worked out and costed and then allowing the Treasury to impose an arbitrary 3 per cent year-on-year efficiency saving. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, made some interesting comments in relation to the Treasury and the Chancellor. When one remembers that a large proportion of the defence budget is fixed, the 3 per cent could become rather more like 6 per cent on the items that are variable; the items that can be adjusted.
Many aspects of SDR are not new; they are just built upon the efforts and results of the previous administration. There is nothing new in jointery. That was always being continuously developed. Defence diplomacy—eloquently written up in the White Paper—is a new mission which, according to the White Paper, covers verification of arms control, visits by ships, aircraft, units and personnel at all levels, staff talks, personnel exchange programmes, education programmes, loan service and the British Military Advisory Team. I am not quite clear which of those laudable activities is a new one for the MoD. But I agree with Ministers that they are all highly desirable. Perhaps one of the most important is the promotion of democratic control of the Armed Forces.
16 Air Assault Brigade will be an extremely potent and desirable force, but noble Lords will recognise that it is not an additional brigade. It builds upon the experience and structure of 24 Air Mobile Brigade, and that was already based at Colchester. And indeed it builds upon the availability of the Apache AH64 attack helicopter ordered by the previous administration.
1892
During a similar debate on 12th July 1996, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—I am sorry he is not in his place and speaking to us today—said at col. 540 of Hansard:
"it makes no sense whatsoever to cut the strength of the services without counting the commitments to which they are engaged. In short, 'overstretch' is still with us, despite the assurances that we were offered in Options for Change and Front Line First".
I agreed with his comments at that time and still agree with them today, but I should now like to add SDR to Options for Change and Front Line First. The noble Lord went on to say that the SDR would be,
"appropriately adjusted so that there is a match between commitments and resources".
We do not seem to have made much progress there because we are still over-committed. The Minister's notes will tell her to remind us that the Government have now managed to reduce commitments to slightly below what they inherited, and that is laudable. But having a peak period of over-commitment, as we did with Kosovo, is perhaps not so important as the total length of time over which we have been overcommitted, which is several years. Ministers often ask Opposition spokesmen what commitments we would cut. With great respect, that is a decision for Ministers. But they must either cut commitments or increase resources.
I welcome the Minister's comments about improving conditions for servicemen and families involved in operations. But at the end of the day we must reduce the percentage of our forces engaged in operations. That will be the most beneficial thing we can do for retention.
I used to sleep well at night, but after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I shall now be reaching for the sleeping pills. He referred to the difficulty of deploying under the threat of a ballistic missile. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and I suggest the Minister does the same.
I should like briefly to follow up on the many comments made about the TA. It is interesting to note that one of the officers who managed to escape in Sierra Leone was from the Royal Navy Reserve. I am minded to conclude that the Government were right not to use compulsory call-up for the TA for what I would call "base load commitment and overstretch". The TA played a vital voluntary role in reinforcing the regular forces on operations. But the staff are not fully seized of the fact that the TA is a once-only insurance policy.
If a unit, or part of it, is called out this year, it would not be practical to call it out next year without very serious problems for retention in that unit. If it was necessary to call out the TA in order to be able to put 50,000 troops in Kosovo, both regular and TA, that would be completely different and would fit in with the Government's desire to have a more usable TA. If the Minister truly desires to have a more usable TA, she will have to stop allowing the man-training-day budget to be cut in order to overcome the financial problems caused by her friends in the Treasury.

1893
Ministers frequently refer to the Reserve Forces Mobilisation and Training Centre when defending the SDR implications to the TA. But my recollection is that this centre was planned by the previous administration and that the new government Ministers had approved it by October 1997. So it is not clear how it relates to the SDR.
We know that the Minister is responsible for defence procurement, but when reading the specialist press I detect increasing uncertainty as to what Smart procurement is. The noble Baroness said that it is "radical", but is it just doing procurement better? Is it cutting out one approval stage of a major equipment programme, or is it the introduction of integrated project teams, which were introduced during the last administration? Can the Minister say exactly what it is; why it is a different policy from the previous administration; and why informed commentators are confused about what it is?
Much comment has been made about the Clansman radio and the SA80 rifle. Of course, the Minister is proud about the fact that she has ordered a personal-role radio, which will be very useful But, by its very nature, it has none of the complexity of the Bowman radio.
I know how much the Minister is looking forward to my Unstarred Question on the radios, but I think that we need to put the rifle in its proper context. The Minister has been good enough to agree that it is not ideal for "extreme conditions". Does she agree that this refers to extreme arctic arid desert sand conditions? The problem is apparently jamming. But I have fired several thousand rounds through my service SA80 rifle and I cannot recall ever having had a jam. Admittedly, my experience is only in a temperate climate, but I did experience jamming problems with the old SLR.
My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to the introduction of the SLR. When the Minister takes my noble friend to the dungeons, she will probably discover that the SLR had its own problems when it was being introduced. The light support weapon, part of the SA80 family, also comes in for criticism because it overheats. However, it is important to remember that it is a light weapon. The armchair commentators, to whom I believe the Minister referred in her opening remarks, who wax lyrical about the general purpose machine-gun should be reminded that, while it is a very fine weapon, it is also very heavy, as is the ammunition. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that the GPMG is in service in Sierra Leone.
There is a modification programme in hand for the SA80 rifle which involves changing relevant parts. My only anxiety is that it may adversely affect accuracy. No doubt that is why it is taking so long to develop and trial the modifications. I hope that the Minister can agree with me that the SA80 rifle is a weapon that soldiers in West Africa and in the Balkans can have full confidence in, as I do. It may be that the Minister is considering its replacement. No one should be surprised. If the procurement process takes five years, the weapons will have been in service for 20 years by the time that it is introduced.
1894
The radios are more of a problem. Is it correct that not only the enemy can listen to our military radio traffic but that the media can also do so? Is that desirable? The other problem that troops may experience in West Africa comes from the fact that I doubt whether there is an operational civil mobile phone system. My noble friend Lord Vivian raised the issue of armoured fighting vehicles. Once the Minister has replied to my Unstarred Question on radios she can look forward to another one on armoured fighting vehicles. I am glad to see that she has just given me a very pleasant smile.
I have no intention of second-guessing the Minister in her procurement decisions. I am riot prepared to pass judgment on the basis of a few sheets of A4 paper on issues such as BURAM and FLA. The Minister's desk will be groaning with briefing, much of it classified. However, I should be concerned with either interference or delays from other government departments.
It is notable that neither the Minister nor her noble friend Lord Gilbert have ever ordered a warship. It would appear that she is unlikely to order a substantial ship from a UK yard. My understanding is that the roll-on, roll-off ferries will not be 'warships. That creates obvious procurement opportunities and challenges. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, the FORT class, have a potent self-defence capability in terms of helicopters with an anti-submarine and anti-surface capability. Will not the ro-ro ferries be vulnerable to the most modest interference when on passage?
I join with the Minister and other noble Lords in their praise of our Armed Forces, which is well deserved. Noble Lords rightly drew attention to the risks attendant on operations. However, we must never forget that realistic training, particularly for specific operations, is not free of risk. But it is necessary: we must have live firing exercises on suitable ranges. However, live firing, by its very nature, involves risks that bring the activities into conflict with the Health and Safety at Work Act. Will the Minister reject any changes in live firing exercises when her military advice is that it would degrade combat effectiveness?
Over the past year or so there have been some tragic accidents involving live training. Will the Minister confirm that there is a training accidents investigation team which carefully investigates those accidents? Will she join with me and the rest of the House in offering our condolences and deepest sympathy to those involved—and to their families—in such accidents, whether they occurred during operations or training?
One interesting point is that the quality, if not the fitness, of our recruits is ever increasing. In days of old a high quality NCO could expect rapid promotion. Unfortunately, nowadays being graded "very good" means relatively slow promotion. To achieve only a reasonable rate of promotion one has to be outstanding. There is little chance of meteoric promotion, such is the competition in the services. That is an interesting and, in a way, nice problem to

1895
have, as it is a measure of the quality of the recruit intake. I know that much effort is being brought to bear to deal with this problem, as it adversely affects the ability to retain personnel.
One day the Minister might like to challenge myself or her noble friend Lord Gilbert as to how much we would spend on defence. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, would spend more, as he told us in his most interesting speech earlier today. I believe that we in the UK expend broadly an appropriate amount on defence, and much more than our European allies, with the possible exception of the French.
The government of the day can decide to spend X billion pounds on defence and then provide a certain capability and resources from within that budget. From that will flow what commitments can be met. Alternatively, one can decide what commitments are to be met and then determine the resources and capabilities required. From that the funding requirement would follow. If the programme was unaffordable, the commitments would have to be reduced.
The Government, under the helpful guidance of the Treasury, claim to have done the latter. But in reality they have failed because of the 3 per cent year-on-year efficiency savings or cuts. Despite the protestations of the Minister in her highly illuminating speech, most noble Lords are convinced that the MoD is desperately short of finance. The Government have compounded this by continuing to require operations to be undertaken for which the MoD is not properly resourced. We simply cannot go on with a 20 per cent operational commitment. Until the Cabinet addresses these difficulties, I think that it is extremely unlikely that the nation will be able to reap the full benefits of the SDR.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the Minister speaks I pray the leave of the House to declare an interest—as I should have done but omitted to do—as a very new member of the committee dealing with the common foreign and security initiative.
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had a superb debate. It has been a full, wide-ranging debate which has demonstrated the enormous range of expertise and interests in your Lordships' House on all matters to do with defence. The debate has been truly thoughtful and at some points truly provocative. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in it.
There has been a certain amount of criticism about the debate taking place this morning. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that I have looked back and I have noted that, whereas today there have been 17 speakers in the debate, plus myself as the Minister, when we last discussed defence, which was on a Wednesday afternoon, there were some 15 speakers plus myself as the Minister. So we have not suffered in
1896
the quantity of noble Lords who have participated, and, as the debate has shown, certainly not in the quality either.
I am slightly concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, may have misinterpreted what I said about the visit of the Chief of the Defence Staff to Sierra Leone. It is a visit; he is not staying to take charge of what is happening there. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, commented on the size of our deployment to Sierra Leone. As I hope I indicated in my opening remarks, we believe that the size of the deployment is consistent with the tasks we have outlined for it.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl may know that the airport is on one peninsula and the main town, Freetown, is on another; they are separated by a considerable amount of sea and the land route is extremely difficult. Given the territorial requirements, there is a great deal of complexity in the evacuation operation, and perhaps that goes some way towards explaining the numbers involved. Of course the deployment has to secure communications and access to the airport. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for his support on this issue.
I am not sure what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was asking me when he said that people may feel that there was no need to leave now that the British troops had arrived. Let me be absolutely unequivocal: our advice is clear and straightforward to all those for whom we have consular responsibility; it is to leave Sierra Leone as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl said that he would not ask me anything about rules of engagement, and then promptly did so. It is important to say that it would be foolish for us to discuss the rules of engagement. We should all understand that anything that might affect the operational effectiveness of our troops—however interesting it may be—must be kept confidential.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I said that I did not expect the Minister to say what the rules of engagement were.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl then asked me to define them in terms of other rules of engagement, which was a very neat way round the issue.
Let me pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said at the start of the debate. He said that my right honourable friend had "baulked" at the expenditure involved in the operation in Mozambique. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean to be unfair, but it is important that I should say to him that military planners had to make some assumption about the cost of chartering a heavy-lift aircraft, the number of support staff required, subsistence costs and so on. Costs were revised downwards once we had the report from the reconnaissance team and once we had established the offsets we could make in the light of Treasury guidance. There was no baulking on the part of my right honourable friend. It is also important to acknowledge that that operation was a considerable success for the British Army.

1897
Much of our debate today has centred around your Lordships' concerns—it is far from the first time that your Lordships have voiced them—about resourcing in the MoD. A great deal has been said about cuts and about the extent of those cuts, particularly by the noble and gallant Lords, if I may group them together in that way, and by the Front Bench opposite.
It is important to remind ourselves that in the period from 1997 to 2000…01, defence spending is due to fall by some 3 per cent. I have to compare that with the 17 per cent cut experienced in the Ministry of Defence between 1990 and 1997. With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, I sometimes think that they fall into a collective amnesia about what really happened while they were in a position in government to make decisions about defence spending.
Of course we recognise that the MoD's public service agreement target of achieving a 3 per cent annual efficiency in the efficiency baseline from 1998…99 to 2001…2002 is challenging. Of course it is. Nevertheless, our efficiency programme is an essential tool in delivering our programme within the resources available. I make no apology for repeating the point that we must make every pound count for defence. This is not—I repeat it again because I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is particularly concerned about this point—a decline of 3 per cent per year. It is an efficiency saving of 3 per cent per year and the bulk of that will be used in the MoD to enhance our SDR requirements.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord doubts the figures on this matter. Perhaps he would like to come to see me and we can go over the figures. Perhaps I may then convince him that the figures given to me are given in good faith and that this is not trying to slide a 3 per cent cut under the counter.
I was urged by almost all noble Lords—certainly by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim—to challenge the Treasury. I am not prepared to take up quite the kind of challenge that my noble friend Lord Brett asked me to in relation to the paratroopers arid our friends in Her Majesty's Treasury, but we all know that, whatever government are in power, this time of year is a time for very hard talking. At this time of year departmental Ministers go in and out of the Treasury in order to argue their case. That happened under the previous administration; it is the same under this administration. I assure your Lordships that a very robust case indeed is made by Ministers in my department.
A good deal was said about overstretch, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. In July 1999 47 per cent of our Army were on or recovering from operations. In May 2000 that figure is down to 27 per cent. I stress to your Lordships that I have not taken into account the Sierra Leone figures, but we can do that. They are not enormous and there will be a slight adjustment upwards in that. The noble Lord said that I would remind your Lordships that that was a lower figure than the Government inherited in 1997. It is a lower figure than we inherited. The noble Lord then implied
1898
that that was because of a peak due to Kosovo. Kosovo was last year. In the course of less than a year we have decreased our commitment by some 20 per cent. Noble Lords may feel that there is still overstretch but I did not detect, sadly, any noble Lord acknowledging what has been done to tackle the overstretch problem, and tackle it by a very considerable 20 per cent in less than a year. I believe that the Government have been as good as their word in trying to address that problem of deployment.
A great deal was said on the issue of procurement. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked about Smart procurement and asked why mistakes happen. Mistakes happen for a great number of reasons. They happen because there is not early enough planning; they happen because that planning is very often too rigid; and they happen because it is very difficult to adapt specifications within a huge range of options, particularly in fast-changing programmes where there is a good deal of technological and engineering impact. But I do believe that the teams that are pulled together—the integration project teams—bringing together as they do the customer, industry and the scientific and technical expertise that we need are going a long way to address the issue.
We have only just finished the roll-out of the integrated project teams. They completed their training process only a couple of months ago. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Brett: it is early days for us to start judging the success or failure of the Smart procurement programme. We shall be in a much better position to do so in a few years' time.
A number of noble Lords have cast some doubt on that. I know that officials in the MoD sometimes become rather alarmed when I decide to issue these invitations, but I think it would be splendid if some of your Lordships who are worried about what is happening in relation to Smart procurement would come to the Defence Procurement Agency in Bristol, and to the Defence Logistics Organisation in Andover, to see for yourselves what is happening.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Lord Gilbert were concerned about the big procurement projects that we have in train at present: the future large aircraft and the beyond-visual range weapon for the Eurofighter. I hope that I shall not have to ask your Lordships to be patient on the matter for very much longer. I hope that we shall be able to bring some useful information to the House very soon. The Government recognise the importance of these decisions. We recognise the urgency, especially in relation to the future large aircraft.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Earl spoke about the roll-on, roll-off ferry. It is a matter that crosses my desk. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that a decision had been 1:ak en on building these ferries in Germany. I assure the noble Lord that no decision has been taken as yet about where they will be built. The noble Earl was right: these are not classified as warships. They were not so classified under the previous administration, and they

1899
have not been so classified under this administration. We currently charter civil ships in order to have roll-on, roll-off capacity. It would be very difficult for the purposes of procurement then to say that what we have chartered on a civil basis becomes a warship for the purposes of procurement. I do not think that that argument holds water; neither did the previous administration. There has been a good deal of speculation about the matter. Most people have decided that the Ministry of Defence has taken the decision even before we have actually done so. I hope that we shall be able to take a decision in due course.
A great deal has been said about the slippage on the Bowman project. I remind your Lordships that this piece of procurement began its life a very long time ago—in 1988. The in-service date was set to precede the last general election. The original date was December 1995. If noble Lords opposite try to use this as a hammer on the Government, they had better take a look at their own record on Bowman before starting to do so with too much energy.
The main Bowman system is expected to enter service in late 2003/early 2004. Yes, we are going to deliver it incrementally. I make no apology for the fact that we are looking at the personal radio element. We need to move ahead on this project. If we can move ahead on it only incrementally, at least that is some progress.
As regards the Eurofighter cannon, as was made clear in a recent letter from Air Vice-Marshal Steve Nicholl to the Daily Telegraph, giving the pilot's view, in a modern fighting world the Eurofighter's cannon has minimal value. This is not being imposed by Ministers who are desperate for cuts, as implied by some noble Lords. It is the view of the customer, the RAF, that this capability may in many ways be more of a liability than an asset. There are disadvantages in having the cannon: there are problems of recoil shock, corrosion from exhaust fumes and fatigue in the airframe. So it is not just a case of reaching for the easiest argument; namely, that of cost. We must examine what is really happening.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl were concerned about the warship-building programme. We are embarking upon the biggest warship-building programme for at least 20 years, probably longer. Over 30 warships are to be built in the United Kingdom over the next 15 to 20 years, including the Type 45 destroyers and the future service combatant and aircraft carriers. The noble Lord asked whether I would ever do any of the ordering for these ships. I took the decision in November last year to begin the planning work on the aircraft carriers. I very much look forward to the day when a Labour Minister is also able to commission that work from a British yard.
As to the SA80, as the noble Earl said it is generally a very effective weapons system and highly accurate but it is unreliable in certain conditions, in particular extremes of climate. We are considering various solutions, including potential modifications to the system proposed by the design authority Heckler and
1900
Koch which have recently been validated in MoD trials. We are assessing the proposals and expect to come to a decision very soon.
One or two points have been made about the MoD building. The noble Lord was perhaps implying some lack of judgment. I can tell the noble Lord that I walked down a corridor in the MoD this week and heard the extraordinary noise of water pouring through a ceiling. We cannot ask people to work in those conditions. I know that it is an expensive project, but, my goodness, it is well overdue.
My noble friends Lord Gilbert and Lord Brett and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, were concerned about DERA. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I hope that he will refrain from repeating the figure of £250 million as the sum that we are looking for in a sale. I believe that that figure is much too low. I do not want to sell short the DERA privatisation. This is not about getting £250 million for the Treasury but ensuring that DERA receives the proper investment. DERA's work is rising exponentially and we cannot ask the British taxpayer to continue to fund it. One would be talking about a doubling or trebling of the investment in DERA. We hope that by dealing with it in this way DERA will have the opportunity to attract the kind of private investment that is very much needed. I am wholly aware of the importance of continuing to talk to our international partners, in particular the United States and others. I did so when in the United States recently. I plan to go to the United States later this month to continue those talks.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I shall be delighted to cease quoting the figure of £250 million if the noble Baroness can tell me what sum will accrue to the MoD from the sale.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if I did so I would come up against the problem that I have just articulated; namely, that it would imply a value for DERA. I hope noble Lords agree that we want as much as we can for the British taxpayer from the sale of DERA. These flotations can be difficult to handle and often require a good deal of expert advice. I do not want to do anything that may prejudice the maximum value that will result from the sale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, is a splendid advocate for servicemen and women in relation to housing. The noble Baroness asked about the draft report. That report is still undergoing final modification by officials and is due to be delivered to Ministers very shortly.
I have said something about overstretch. However, I was asked in particular about recruitment. Recruitment is buoyant. The current level of achievement for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines is 99 per cent; for the Army, it is 95 per cent; and for the RAF, it is 96 per cent. Those figures are good, although not perfect. I was also asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Lord Brooke about overstretch. Overstretch and undermanning are still big problems in the Army. We inherited an army which was 5,000 undermanned and

1901
we are trying to make good that deficiency. However, we have increased the need. I can tell noble Lords that on I st March 2000 the Army had a shortfall of 8,800 UK-trained regulars against the post-SDR requirement, which was bigger than the one identified by the previous government. On 1st March 2000, the naval service had a shortfall of 1,410 in trained strength as against its requirement. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures for the RAF with me, but I shall write to noble Lords with that information.
Tri-service recruitment is going well, and our recruiting strategy will take us forward into the next century. The Government will be pursuing that policy with considerable vigour.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian asked about separation. Separation is a difficult problem. As we all know, the separation of families is a major contributory factor to our difficulties in retaining personnel. We have significantly enhanced the separated service allowance package, details of which were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in December 1999. If the noble Lord did not see them, I shall ensure that they are sent to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, was worried about Pay 2000. We decided to defer the introduction of Pay 2000 by one year, to April 2001, as implementation turned out to be a complex operation. We recognise that there is great concern about this, and we shall continue to give it the attention that the noble Baroness would wish.
My noble friend Lord Brooke said some kind words about the overarching personnel strategies in the Ministry of Defence. He and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, were among those who asked about training. Training is enormously important. The increased use of simulation in pilot training for Hawks and the Combined Armed Tactical Trainer has allowed for innovative and interesting ideas. The expansion of the Army Foundation College to achieve full capacity by September 2000 is also part of that strategy.
My efficient officials have just told me that the RAF has a shortfall of 909 against their trained strength requirement. I thank my officials for being more efficient than me.
Several initiatives are in place to ensure that service personnel have a smooth passage into civilian life. As I do not wish to detain your Lordships, I shall write to those who have expressed an interest. It will also give me an opportunity to explain an interesting initiative that we are undertaking. I know that my noble friend Lord Brooke will be interested in a youth initiative that involves six schools in Newcastle and West Norfolk, and which aims to ensure that those who may not have got off to the best start in life will have an opportunity to improve their prospects.
Several noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Lyell, raised the subject of the Territorial Army. It needed to be restructured to meet the demands of the modern world. Far from undermining the conclusions reached in the SDR, the intervening
1902
period has shown that the Government's readjustments were right. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the supporting roles played by the signallers and the medics, and these were reinforced in the Territorial Army restructuring. Those personnel are now very busy due to current operations.
The number of troops in Northern Ireland will be reduced when the security situation warrants it. Noble Lords would expect me to say nothing more or less about that sensitive question, at what is a sensitive time. I have noted the points made by my noble friend Lord Brett about the civilian knock-on effect, arid shall do my best to ensure that they are taken into account. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for his thoughtful and helpful contribution on European defence. I know that he not only takes a great interest in it, but spends much time and thought on it as well. I understand his concerns about accountability. I believe that we have a good deal of work still to do on this issue. As I hope I indicated in my opening remarks, we hope to take this matter forward in the meetings we shall have with our European Union colleagues over the course of the next few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is also a passionate advocate of better relationships in this respect. We are making some significant progress on the procurement front over the arrangements that we have of OCCAR which went through your Lordships' House in the legislative process a few weeks ago. I am sure he is aware of the Letter of Intent process that we are also discussing with some of our European partners.
I do not see the issue of our trying to establish a better role for European defence capability a s being in contention with our relationship with the United States. Neither do our friends in the United States. I have quoted to your Lordships' House before from Strobe Talbott, and from the other side of the political divide, from Mr Robert Zoellick. Both have made clear that they believe that what we are doing in this respect is a useful step forward in improving our capability.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be in order to remind the Minister of what the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee for Europe, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, said when he was over here in December. He took a very different view. He made it absolutely clear that there are substantial and growing parts of political thought in Washington which believe that the autonomous action allowed by the European defence initiative will indeed undermine NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am bound to say that if he had heard all the contributions today he might he in a better position to know that many of these points were covered. I was talking from the point of view of those who speak for their parties on this issue in the United States. I have been to the United States often enough discussing these issues to be well aware that there is a

1903
wide range of opinions in the United States on this issue as there is on the Declaration of Principles that we recently signed with the United States, and on the issues discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
The fact is that it is a pluralistic democracy. Many people have very different opinions. I think that we should stick to the more authoritative ones, if I may say so.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, was worried about the cancellation of exercises, he thought because of lack of money. We have been over a number of these issues. I shall send him a list of the exercises that have been cancelled and the reasons. Most of those cancellations have been due to operational commitments and personal welfare. There have been occasions when there has been a shortage of funding, but nothing like to the extent that the noble and gallant Lord appeared to imply in his remarks.
There was a thought-provoking contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I thought that some of the accounts he gave of what is going on in the United States were somewhat alarming, and I am sure very much more to the liking of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in their turn but possibly not to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. There are many opinions on this issue and there was going to have to be a good deal of thinking time. Perhaps we would all do well to remember that this is election time in the United States.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for what I thought was a first-class contribution. It was extraordinarily thought provoking on the position of the ballistic threat. Perhaps I may make clear to the noble Lord our position on ballistic missile defence. Our national programme of work and feasibility study shortly to be started in NATO will, I hope, allow us to continue to make informed judgments. That is what the noble Lord asks for: informed judgments about the real situation on the ground, and about the kind of capabilities in which we should be investing in the future. I am sure that this is a debate to which your Lordships will return over the course of the next few weeks and months.
I listened carefully to what the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said about what is happening in Sierra Leone, to which I return now in my closing remarks. I outlined the tasks that we have put upon our servicemen and women. Within those tasks there are options about how they should be undertaken. We are not dealing, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows, in the realms of a pre-ordained script. It is enormously important that nothing is said which undermines the security of those operations.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, understands that as well as anyone, but already I detect that urge among media commentators to see whether they can sift through every last word spoken by Ministers in order to see whether they add up to the same nuancing. I am afraid that while there may be a bit of the "mission-creep" which some people fear, although I do not believe that will happen, during the
1904
next few days we shall be the victims of "commentary-creep" while people try to find something new to say. I hope that we in this House will not subject the issue to such treatment. I hope that we shall give it the serious treatment it deserves.
I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said about military experience in your Lordships' House. Many of us would do well to look at the ways in which we can educate ourselves. I have had to do so and I commend to your Lordships the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme. Sadly, I doubt whether I shall be allowed to participate in it, but I look forward to hearing reports of it from those noble Lords who are allowed to do so.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for what has been said. I return to a constant theme that has rightly come from everyone about the high regard in which we hold our servicemen and women. That is particularly apposite today when they are in active service on an operation that has a high level of public exposure.
I agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about sympathy and condolences, wherever it occurs, for those who lose their lives and for their families. But the fact is that that is the risk we ask them to take. We are asking them to take it today, as we asked them to take it on many other days. I can think of no better way than to wish them God speed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
3.52 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Committee of Inquiry into withdrawal from the European Union]:
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, which is consequential. The purpose of the amendment is simple. The use of the definite article unwittingly implies that withdrawal from the European Union is, if not a foregone conclusion, at least a strong

1905
possibility. In so far as it gives that wholly unintended impression, it obviously irritates those who not only maintain that the EU ranks alongside motherhood and sliced bread in terms of sanctity, but that the EU is beneficial to the United Kingdom in every conceivable respect.
That, in a sense, understandable irritation must prejudice them against the Bill as a whole. That would be unfortunate, because the only purpose of the Bill is to elicit facts, shorn of emotional baggage, upon which a dispassionate and informed decision can be made if it come to that point. Therefore, the substitution of the indefinite article makes the issue more neutral and impartial, so to speak. It makes it clear that the Bill is designed to assess the effect of a possible, rather than a probable, course of action. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I rise briefly to support the amendments moved and spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I quite understand his feeling that the use of the definite article in the Title of the Bill and in Clause 1 is perhaps a little too definite for the spirit and purpose of the Bill. Therefore, he proposes to replace it with the indefinite article and, as I say, I see his point. Without that change, the Bill could be held to be drafted to set up a committee of inquiry to consider the implications of our definite withdrawal from the EU, whereas we are considering such a pleasant prospect only in theory.
The committee of inquiry's report is designed to inform public debate about what life might be like outside the EU so that, as the noble Lord said, the debate may take place against an informed background. As Members of the Committee will have gathered from Second Reading, many of us believe that the United Kingdom would be very much better off outside the EU, while of course maintaining free trade with its single market. Indeed, I would claim that since Second Reading on 17th March the four current horses of the EU superstate—tax harmonisation, the defence initiative, corpus juris and the charter of fundamental rights—have all kept on galloping straight at their apocalyptic goal. That is not to mention the Nice IGC, at which the Government are committed to handing over yet more of our remaining sovereignty to the octopus in Brussels.
I do not want to make another Second Reading speech now. However, I would have thought that it is obvious that our so-called partners are indeed determined to press on to the superstate which both the Government and the Conservative Party say they do not want. I am not entirely clear where the Liberal Democrats stand on this vital question, but I believe that they say that they do not want to be part of a European superstate either.
So before long, the British people will have to choose whether they want to live in a subservient region of that superstate or whether they want to keep their hard-earned right to govern themselves. The proposed committee's report would merely help them to make up their minds. Therefore, I agree with the
1906
amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Withdrawal is, alas, far from certain at the moment. The indefinite article is more appropriate.
Baroness Rawlings: As with most of the other amendments today, in speaking to the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I wish to make clear from the start that I shall say very little during the Committee stage of this Bill. No doubt, that will be a relief to noble Lords and to Members of the Committee at this stage on a Friday afternoon.
As we on these Benches fully support Conservative Party policy, which does not include withdrawal from the European Union, we are all united on this matter. Therefore, we feel that the Bill is taking up valuable time, especially as the IGC to be held later this year will review and make many changes to the European Union. For that reason, despite having had Europe Day this week, which probably went unnoticed by many people, as did the proliferation of all the other named days, we feel that the Bill is probably ill-timed.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 1 and 12, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who spoke so eloquently at Second Reading of the Bill. I fully support what he said on that occasion:
"The European Union is a work in progress which must constantly debate its directions, its speed and its geometry, and which must soon change its rules to accommodate the applicants at its door. Its political and economic order are by no means settled. Throughout its history it has constantly outgrown its old treaties as it has added new members and new functions. The model of enlargement for a reformed and reunited Europe is one such legitimate question".—[Official Report, 17/3/00: col. 1871]
After all, enlargement of the European Union is undoubtedly the most important task facing us, not only now but in the future. We ignore this at our peril.
I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments for which there may be some arcane reason. But despite his explanation, it seems not immediately obvious to me.
4 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: When I saw the amendments, I was tempted to wonder whether substituting the indefinite article for the definite meant that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was recognising that withdrawal can be no more than a very remote, hypothetical possibility. But I shall resist going down that line.
I make my remarks in very much the same spirit as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The Government's position on this Bill was made clear. We think that it is completely unnecessary and highly undesirable. These amendments in no way affect that judgment. Indeed, I am pleased to hear again from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said on Second Reading; namely, that withdrawal from Europe is not the official policy of a single mainstream political party in this country. And so the Government's

1907
position remains absolutely unchanged. They are opposed to the Bill and these amendments do nothing to change that.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for his support: I spoke to him extremely briefly about the amendment. He has correctly interpreted my reasoning. I am sorry that my explanation was not clear enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and that she finds the reason to be arcane.
The Minister interpreted the proposal correctly. I do agree that it is a remote possibility but it is a remote possibility for which it would be wise to provide. We are not taking up very much time, certainly compared with the mass of government legislation with which we have been dealing recently. I think that it is worth while pursuing matters and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page1, line 11, at end insert (", and
(d) the impact costs and other public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a result of its membership of the European Union").
The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour and, indeed, the lateness of the day, I do not wish to detain the Committee very long on these quite obviously clear amendments which are in the whole spirit of the Bill as accepted by the House on 17th March.
Perhaps the Government are not entirely free from blame for the necessity for this debate to take place at all, let alone on a Friday. Momentous events have been taking place in Europe over the past 10 years and there has been an increasing intensity in relation to the effects of the arrangements which this country has been making with Europe.
Over the years—and I have been interested in this European adventure since 1963—there has been a tendency for successive governments to endeavour to keep both Houses of Parliament out of the picture until after they have already acted. In other words, they have not sought the opinion of the country in any detail prior to taking some of the drastic steps which are beginning profoundly to affect our country in many ways, not only economically but also, indeed, politically and, above all, democratically. That is perhaps unfortunate. The entry of the UK into the European Union—then called the Common Market—was slightly unfortunate in that people were not fully aware of the Government's intended actions in a way that would normally commend itself to people accustomed to straight talking. We had the deliberate concealment of the fisheries concession.
Lord Clinton-Davis: There was no official whip in the House of Commons, so at that time I voted against the entry into the Common Market because that was my view. I was wrong. The House of Commons considered the matter in the light of numerous
1908
amendments to the Bill and in the light of the consideration that was given to it at the time, at Second Reading, in Committee and in all the other stages. So, with great respect, how can my noble friend argue that the House of Commons and this place did not consider the Bill? That is absolute nonsense.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention. However, the existence of an undertaking by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bexley, was not disclosed to the House of Commons. A letter that gave substantial fisheries concessions that Parliament never had an opportunity to consider was not disclosed to Parliament and was not, as far as I am aware, disclosed to the Government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The point made by the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was not whether the House of Commons was kept in the dark—I agree that it was not—but whether the British people were kept in the dark. From what was said at Second Reading on 17th March and the letter that the Prime Minister of the day sent through every letterbox in the land, it must be absolutely clear now that the British people were not fully kept in the picture and were misled when we voted to stay in the Common Market—not to join it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I did not intend to enlarge on that point but just to mention it. That happens to be factual. In any case, it was unfortunate. Over the years there has been a tendency to relegate these European matters. Both Houses of Parliament have rated them as some kind of second-class discussion that can take place only after other presumably much more important business has been dealt with. The Government would have assisted the position by treating these important European matters with due parliamentary priority, which, with hindsight, should have been given by both Houses of Parliament. There is still plenty of time to correct these matters.
The amendment that I propose to your Lordships is non-controversial. On the assumption that the exponents are those who believe most profoundly in the further development of the European Community, as long as the facts are revealed, which is all that the clause amounts to, they will be fully in support. It is in their interests. In connection with their future conduct in relation to the European Community, people can be fortified only by the facts being revealed. After all, everyone who supports these schemes, as they indeed are at the moment, should be fortified by the facts. This amendment simply extends further the clause in the Bill by which the facts can be examined and evaluated. It should be to the benefit of all, whatever view they may hold on the future of the Community, to have the facts revealed. That is because if they resist the facts being disclosed and resist a proper and impartial evaluation being made, that does not say much for the validity of their strongly held convictions. For that reason, I sincerely hope that this amendment will be agreed to.

1909
The only reason why I have ventured to put down an addition to this clause is because developments have been taking place which might conceivably be missed by the three present implications:

"(a) the economy of the United Kingdom,

(b) the national security of the United Kingdom, and

(c) the constitution of the United Kingdom".

Other matters also need to be considered. No doubt, over the years and for good or ill—I am not saying one or the other—there have been profound changes in the United Kingdom itself that are not necessarily covered by the three implications dealt with in the Bill.
In particular I refer to the extremely large establishment of unofficial task forces, which are quite costly. For example, at the European level there are over 300 committees the members of which are not known, whose terms of remuneration are not known, whose terms of reference are not known, whose contracts are not known and whose business connections are not known. The committee members are performing functions on behalf of our government.
Similarly, in the UK there are now numerous task forces composed of individuals, including many businessmen and so forth, who are presuming to examine and to act on behalf of the Government in many spheres. This may be inevitable and I am not necessarily criticising the results, but they should be known and out in the open. All that I am seeking in my amendment—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may—
Lord Bruce of Donington: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
All I ask is that the facts, in so far as they are ascertainable and capable of yielding to rational judgment, should be become known and available for discussion. Those who would resist making further information known to the public and to Parliament betray an uncertainty in their own minds as to the validity of their case. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord. I had thought when the Bill was drafted that the impact costs and other public expenditure might be included within "economy", but I see that the noble .Lord has a point.
There is endless detail into which one could now enter. There are endless examples of the colossal expenditure which this country has incurred over the years as a result of our membership of the European Union, but I shall not now trouble noble Lords with most of it.
However, matters like the water directives come to mind. It must be extremely doubtful that we would have spent, or have committed to spend, some £40,000 million over the past 10 years on water purification, in accordance with the diktats of Brussels. I believe that we are committed to spending only some £14,000 million on infrastructure and supply. One mentions water in particular against the background that our
1910
water was pure enough—certainly among the purest in Europe—to drink before we started on that kind of extraordinarily expensive exercise.
Only last week in your Lordships' House the Government had to admit that they had "failed to persuade the others"—to use the jargon (in other words, they had been outvoted)—in their attempt to save our small farmers and other people obliged to use incinerators, in particular small incinerators, for waste disposal.
I could go on: our slaughterhouses, working week, herbal medicines, bridges, lorries, dairy farmers, whisky distillers, pheasant shooting, market gardeners, Civil Service, condoms, taxis, cheesemakers, paper rounds, hedgerows, boatbuilders, hallmarks, oak trees, duty-free shopping, ponies, the roast beef of old England, the London bus and the excellent lavatory designed by Thomas Crapper are all among the British interests which have been damaged by our good partners' in Brussels mad rush for harmonisation.
I imagine that the noble Lord's amendment would force the Government to examine the fact that at the moment the United Kingdom would he some £2,000 million a year better off if we exported to the single market from outside the European Union because our contributions to the European Union outweigh our tariff advantages by that amount. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the common agricultural policy, which costs us some £8,600 million per annum—£250 per capita in extra food costs every year; the well-known scandal of the common fisheries policy or, indeed, the amount of taxpayers' money which goes in European fraud.
Perhaps the committee of inquiry might care to look at the fact that there really is no such thing as EU aid, because we pay £11 billion annually to the European Union of which it is graciously pleased to give back only some £5.5 billion on projects designed always to improve its own image. Of course, we could spend the £11 billion much better ourselves on other matters, as we could spend our contribution to the European aid budget, which is corrupt and misdirected and to which we contribute £700 million per annum. Noble Lords may be amused by that statement, but it is the Foreign Minister who said that the foreign aid budget is corrupt and misdirected; it is not a figment of the imagination of some crazy Euro-sceptic.
Our contributions to European pension funds loom—£20,000 per person in the United Kingdom over the next 40 years or so. And so the list goes on. Those are some of the issues which I had thought would be included under the consideration of the economic effects of our being outside the European Union. But I am happy to see the noble Lords s amendment on the face of the Bill to make it absolutely clear. I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have not made a speech in this place since I had a stroke on 3rd December, and I reserve anything I have to say to matters which are serious. This is no exception. This is a silly Bill.

1911
First, this Bill has no application at all. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and from my noble friend Lord Bruce, who said that he has been interested in this issue since 1963. Well, my noble friend is listened to with great respect on this side of the Chamber. But I do not suggest for one moment that he is ever capable of persuading a single Member of this Chamber to his point of view, nor is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
This Bill is designed to exclude the United Kingdom from the European adventure. It is still an adventure because there are many things that we cannot foresee in relation to enlargement. But, in reality, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will have nothing to do with enlargement. He will have nothing to do with the success of the European Union. As I say, he will have nothing to do with reality because the EU exists. It does not enjoy all the features that we would like it to have and it does not entertain all the policies that we would like it to pursue but, nevertheless, it exists. Indeed, it will continue to exist because I do not think that the Conservative Party has the remotest chance of success in the next election. The British people will endorse the principles of the European Union when they are put to them.
My noble friend Lord Bruce has never for one moment hidden his objections. I see the noble Baroness rising. Does she wish to speak?
Baroness Rawlings: No.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, she does not. She merely wishes to introduce the beverage of water to her diet. No one, for one moment, wishes to prevent her from doing so.
The European Union has many features—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord has been making a Second Reading speech for the past five minutes. Is he, or is he not, going to speak to the amendment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought that I had spoken to the amendment. I had to introduce my remarks in that way because I think that the amendment is flippant.
As far as concerns the amendment, we are entitled to know,
"the impact costs and other public expenditure",
of not going into the European Union, but we have not heard a word about that from my noble friend this afternoon. We are entitled to know what that cost will be. People can make their assumptions on the basis of the three principles set out in the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord who spoke in favour of the amendment has his own views in that respect.
However, there are five, six or seven considerations that could be included—and I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head in agreement. I do not think that the amendment improves the Bill one iota. I speak with some hesitation because, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I suffered a stroke some five
1912
months ago. But, regardless of the three, four or seven amendments that need to be made to the Bill, that does not mean that I have lost the enthusiasm with which I approached the whole subject when I first became a European Commissioner. The "adventure" is one that the present Government are entitled to pursue. However, I would wish them to pursue it a little more diligently than they do. Nevertheless, the present Government are in favour of the European Union as it stands; they do not need the help of this Bill.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: As I said when we first discussed this matter, I do not believe that we should withdraw from the European Union but I strongly believe that it needs very serious improvement. I cannot see the difficulty in considering the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has made, because to know the facts, particularly if we are to have a referendum, cannot but be useful.
We all know, sadly, that because of the pressure of business, both in the European Union and in national parliaments, we only too frequently do not get information until it is too late to do anything about it. That was the position with regard to scrutiny for a long time. As regards the Amsterdam Treaty, we had a little more time to consider and to scrutinise, but not enough. I cannot see why it would not be extremely valuable to any national parliament to be able to have a practical assessment of what everything has cost. We do not have that. We do not debate the budget and, because of the delays in scrutiny, we often do not consider the probable costs of something until we have accepted it in principle.
Water—which my noble friend mentioned—is a good example of that. When I sat on European Communities Sub-Committee C we recognised that the proposal which the Union was making could not be costed by it. However, it had to be costed by someone and it proved to be extremely expensive. We were not able to ascertain why a comitology committee of the kind that the noble Lord has described recommended a different level of quality from what had been perfectly acceptable to the World Health Organisation for many years. We could not get any answer to that; we could have no peer scrutiny. We realised that the cost would fall on the consumer, not the state.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was responsible for the costs of water. No one could have prevented the House of Lords or the House of Commons from making a protest about the costs of water. However, they chose not to do so. The reason the government of the day advanced against the proposals made with regard to water had nothing whatsoever to do with costs. That being the case, why is the noble Baroness so much opposed to the opportunity which the government of the day had?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I find that information interesting; I was not aware of it. It is clearly relevant. However, I do not think that it alters my contention that we do not know enough, and in sufficient time,

1913
about what is going to happen. I am not saying that that is not our Government's fault; it often is. Nevertheless the fact remains that I believe it would be for the good of the British public to be told what everything has cost over several years so that they can make a judgment. That seems to me to be wholly neutral and factual and in the interests of good government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope that I may add to what my noble friend Lady Park has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was extremely honourable in revealing to the Committee the fact that he has been a European Commissioner. It is unfortunately a fact of these debates in this Chamber that those who have been commissioners—some of whom may still be in receipt of a European pension—never declare that particular interest. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for that.
On the technicality of the point that he raised with my noble friend, I believe that the water directives come under the environmental sections of the treaties. The noble Lord will know that the water directives, like other environmental and indeed all single market directives, are subject to the qualified majority vote. It is, of course, true that on the occasion we are discussing the British government did not put the matter to a vote and agreed with the directives. However, as regards the cost point that the noble Lord made, if the British Government do not put into law something which has been agreed under the competence of the treaties in Brussels, I trust he will agree that we would be subject to unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court under the treaties.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davies: But qualified majority voting did not come into operation until 1987—I cannot remember when in 1987—but the ideas put forward by the Commission operated before 1987. Afterwards the Government had every opportunity—which they chose to ignore—to put forward proposals which would be subject to qualified majority voting. They chose not to do so.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may quickly say something from the Cross Benches. I have been listening to this great debate on Europe; it is quite fascinating. I think that the amendment is a very good idea. I do not see the problem. It is not a Bill about withdrawing from the European Union. The implications may indicate that we should stay in; they may indicate that we should stay out, but it is sensible to have an evaluation.
It is something which should be evaluated. It would be very nice to have documents which put in one place the implications, both ways round, so that one can see whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. That is how management makes up its mind, and that is what we are meant to be doing here.
1914
We should not be having a debate on the cost of water and who should have done what many years ago—otherwise I could bang on about how we were misled on the Single European Act, which I sat through here.
Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his explanation. I feel that the amendment covers an area which should be left to the committee which we are about to discuss in future amendments, and that the scope should be left open.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As ever, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has eloquently demonstrated his long and detailed interest in this subject. I say straightaway that the Government are very much in favour of the fullest possible dissemination of information about the European Union. I had a certain sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, at Second Reading when he said that he thought that the EU was an area not of no debate, but of intense and active debate.
In our view, Britain's future lies inside the European Union. As I said before, we consider the setting up of the committee suggested in this Bill to be completely unnecessary and undesirable. I do not propose to argue the point in any detail. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal pointed out at Second Reading that we opposed this Bill in its entirety and, with great skill, vigour and detail, gave the reasons why.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does nothing to change our view.
Lord Bruce of Donington: It had not been my intention to embark in any way on a continuation of Second Reading speeches. I shall therefore Craw a veil over the remarks that unfortunately fell from the lips of my noble friend who sits alongside me. He did not seem to address himself to the amendment but rather to the Second Reading debate, which he was unfortunately prevented from attending.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, put his finger on the matter. The amendment seeks only to institute, if possible, a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. What objection can there possibly be to that? It may well be, I readily concede, that a cost-benefit analysis will show that, on balance, membership did not favour the United Kingdom. But the circumstances obtaining when the report came out and showed that result might not be all that inimical to the further development of the European Union. It would depend on how one regarded the future in the light of the implications that had been determined in relation to the past. All we want to do is to put ourselves in a position where we can make a definitive judgment in which we can believe.
I repeat: successive governments have been very coy about this. When I last sat on the Opposition Benches in another capacity I remember asking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whether he could give us some indication. His reply was laconic and short. He said

1915
that the benefits were so self-evident that it was not worth while going into them. That, in essence, has been the attitude of successive governments. They will not discuss progress. They will not discuss cost-benefits so that one can get an idea. All we are trying to do as I see it—all the promoter of the Bill is trying to do—is to establish the facts as distinct from vapourings—they are little more than that—based upon nostalgia about past events that only partially happened. There surely can be no objection to that. As I say, those who resist it and oppose the results of the facts immediately imply that they are not confident in their own beliefs.
I am sorry about the attitude of my noble friend on the Front Bench. She knows—and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, ought to know—that not only have I been interested in these affairs since 1963 but I have played some, if only minor, part in the unearthing of fraud on massive scale not only in the European Union as a whole but in the Commission as well, of which he possibly ought to have been aware when he was there.
In order to cut short the discussion, perhaps I may say formally, taking due account of the excellent contributions, particularly from my noble friend—I still call her my noble friend—Lady Park of Monmouth, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page1, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: In proposing Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, with which it is grouped.
I take as my text for this group of amendments some of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 17th March. There was much in the noble Baroness's eloquent contribution with which I am unable to agree, such as her suggestion that the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—is a single currency area. In fact the United States and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso float freely in NAFTA, with the Mexican peso going into crisis straight after NAFTA's launch in 1994 and with the Canadian dollar fluctuating between 72 and 65 US cents since then. So I certainly could not agree with that part of what the noble Baroness said.
But what did strike me as helpful in what she had to say was when she commented on the proposed committee of inquiry as follows:
"The Bill is a recipe for what one might describe as 'total stalemate'. I am not against a committee to consider the implications of withdrawal. That will largely benefit those of us who strongly argue for staying in the EU".
That is another of the noble Baroness's views with which I am unable to agree, although I respect her for holding it. She concluded as follows:
"I fear that the Bill as it stands would introduce a procedure which could go no further".—[Official Report, 17/3/00; col. 1813.]
1916
There, I think the noble Baroness is right. Indeed, I indicated as much in my reply to the Second Reading debate—at col. 1884 of the Official Report.
The Bill as drafted requires the committee of inquiry to consist of three people who could be presumed to favour staying in the European Union and three who favour leaving it. It is true that the Bill foresees an independent chairman, but the noble Baroness was probably right when she indicated that he might have an impossible task in getting such a committee to agree its report.
So these amendments re-cast the committee into two members who favour staying in the European Union, two who favour withdrawal and two who do not appear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold an opinion either way. They also require the Chancellor to choose a seventh member as chairman, again to be someone who has not made up his mind as to whether we should stay or whether we should leave.
Finally, in order to make sure that the committee is as balanced—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way? How can he suggest that no one has any views about withdrawal or entry into the Common Market? How does he suggest that noble Lords should be adjudged about that? Let us say that subsequently they form a view in favour of or against the issues of the Common Market and they shift their opinion. Does he then disqualify them or entertain them?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It would in fact be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that judgment. The Bill requires him to appoint two people who will have been nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor to be in favour of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union. That might include the Labour Party. I regret to say that it might include the Conservative Party. It could include the Britain in Europe organisation for instance. Then there should be two people nominated by organisations which appear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be in favour of withdrawal. That might be the UK Independence Party or the Campaign for an Independent Britain, which is chaired by his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who unfortunately cannot be present.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Or the Green Party.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Or, indeed, I am advised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Green Party, with whose position I was not entirely familiar. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Then, it would be up to the Chancellor to use his judgment to appoint two people who had not made up their minds and a chairman who had not made up his mind. The Chancellor might get that wrong, but I am sure that he would do it in good faith. All opinion polls indicate that quite a lot of people have not made up

1917
their minds. We are, after all, talking about whether we want to stay in the European Union; we are not talking about economic and monetary union, as the noble Lord suggested.
Finally, in order to make sure that the committee is as balanced, open-minded and harmonious as possible, the independent chairman would have to be agreed by five of the six other members. So one person on each side of the divide who already had firm views could object to the chairman, but no more than that. I am sure that that would make for a much more harmonious committee than under the terms of the Bill as originally drafted.
I appreciate that some of your Lordships may feel that this sort of definition of the committee of inquiry is unusual and, therefore, perhaps unnecessary. I feel that it is important that the committee's report should be regarded by the public at large as being the product of balanced judgment. I say that because the British people appear to be more sceptical about our relationship with the European Union than do our political classes and political media. So it would not be helpful if the committee's report were regarded as yet another sleight of hand from the goldfish bowl of Westminster.
I put forward some evidence from opinion polls of the people's Euro-realism at Second Reading on 17th March (col. 1806 of Hansard. Since then, there has been at least one other poll, this time conducted by the British Marketing Research Board, or BMRB International, as it is often known, which claims to be one of the UK's largest market research agencies. This more recent poll indicated that 61 per cent wanted to leave the European Union completely. That included 45 per cent who also wanted to enter a free trade agreement with the European Union and with the Commonwealth. Only 24 per cent wanted to give up the pound and join the single currency, and 15 per cent were "don't knows". Of those who expressed an opinion, therefore, no less than 71 per cent wanted to leave the European Union.
I know that this is only one more opinion poll, but I trust that it serves to underline what I said at Second Reading, to the effect that there is a large body of British opinion which wants either to withdraw completely from the European Union or to reduce our membership of it to that of a free trade area, which comes to much the same thing.
In these circumstances, I trust that the Committee will agree that the report of the proposed committee of inquiry should be regarded as fair to both sides of the debate and that these amendments will give it a better chance to achieve that goal. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: As a relatively new arrival in this House, I hope that I may assist the Committee by giving a beginner's impression of the debate on this amendment. After years in the other place I am bound to reflect that proceedings on amendments and clauses like these remind me of the declining years of debates on capital punishment in another place. They came to
1918
have decreasing relevance and support and attracted a minority of debaters who had a hobby-horse but nothing much better to ride.
The proponents sound ever more like the rusting needle of a collectable gramophone. I do not believe that to debate in this Chamber whether the White Rabbit or March Hare should be a member of a bizarre quango conceived by a few people in private is a great contribution to the government of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, proposes that there should be people of no opinion on the committee to be appointed by the Chancellor. I suppose that we must rule out Martians because they have not yet landed. The American legal philosopher Hohfeld invented something called the "no right". Perhaps we shall have something called the "no opinion" as a major plank in our political debates. Spin doctors will be employed by them. However, they will be called "inner-spin doctors" because they will not know when to stop.
Imagine the job interviews for these appointments. One question may be, "What are your hobbies?" If the response is, "Food and wine", we could not have that because it would involve eating French prawns or drinking French wine. "Where do you go for your holidays?" Like most of the Government Front Bench, it may be that the candidate's response is, "Tuscany". That would rule out any candidate. Torquay or perhaps somewhere in the United States would be all right. The next question might be, "What films do you like?" If the answer was, "Death in Venice", it would be an absolute killer for the purposes of appointment. A book written by a German about an Italian city would not count as "no opinion". "What car do you drive?" If the person said that he drove a Daihatsu that would be all right. If one drove a Japanese car that would qualify one for this committee because i1 would indicate that perhaps one did not have an opinion.
This group of amendments specifically excludes the very people who know most about the subject which the committee must consider. For example, I refer to former Members of the European Parliament. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a former Commissioner. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the issue deserves much more serious treatment than the Bill and the absurd idea of a committee offered in this Friday distraction. The noble Lord seems to want to put on a statutory footing the meandering thoughts of second-rate think tanks that are available in the columns of every Sunday newspaper, every week of the year.
I was the child of refugees from totalitarianism. Let us talk about the European Union, and remind ourselves that for my generation the European Union has guaranteed comity between this country and Germany. That is perhaps the most important benefit that it has given us in addition to a degree of co-operation in trade. Let us learn the lesson that we hear from all young business people and industrialists, with the exception of a few controversialists who choose to differ, that the future of this country's economy lies in the European Union. Let us reflect on the message of the past week or so, when the London and Frankfurt

1919
stock exchanges demonstrated that European partnership is the future. Let us understand why Rover and Dagenham have suffered such troubles. Let us do what has been done in Ireland by regenerating rural areas with the assistance of the European Union and getting people back to work in those areas.
Those are the European issues that we should be debating, not absurd trivia such as these proposals.
The Earl of Erroll: As one who has sat in the House for 22 years, I find it difficult when I hear sarcasm used as a method of argument. It was amusing because, yes, sarcasm is a form of wit. But the concept of someone having no opinion is quite common in British law. We have 12 good men and true—or good people now—who sit on juries, and who are supposed to have no opinion about the person's guilt at the beginning of the trial. We have judges who are supposed to be independent. The concept of someone being independent is about as difficult as the concept of someone rising from these Cross-Benches.
It is interesting to note that a committee is being put together along similar lines, with two partisan people who can appoint independent Peers in the future. The only people who do not have a say on the committee as to who is to join them are the current independent Peers. The concept of someone with an independent mind is enshrined in law, and I am afraid that sarcasm does not remove that requirement for independence of thought.
The amendment goes to the heart of the matter. I bothered to attend the debate because the one useful thing is to have something that is seen as a non-partisan, independent opinion of the implications and cost benefits—put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—of our time in Europe. As an independent, who is not of a strong frame of mind one way or another, I have a general feeling that we have lost sovereignty to Europe and so on, but I could not put my finger on any non-partisan figures if I wanted to know the cost benefits.
The Bill might be useful in providing a body that is not unduly influenced by the government of the day or by a "Get out of Europe" group, and which might come up with figures that we could all agree would allow sensible debate instead of sarcasm or opinion. That is all that I get at the moment. People are biased one way or the other. It is virtually impossible to obtain genuine, unbiased figures from anyone. An alternative route might be to table Written Questions but could I trust the answers, or would it be argued that the Government was just putting their view? That is why this Bill is useful. It may produce figures that we can debate seriously instead of taking swings at those who are anti-Europe.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall not spend much time on this matter, or enter the argument about sarcasm. It is impossible for noble Lords to say that they have no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union.
The Earl of Erroll: The Bill is not about whether or not we should stay in. It is merely trying to achieve some
1920
figures, which are felt to be non-partisan, about the implications. It is not a Bill about withdrawing from the European Union. Noble Lords seem to be changing the debate into that issue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The amendment refers to people giving their opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union. That being so, it is palpably absurd to rule out everyone who has spoken in the debate. I believe that the whole argument is absurd.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No one who has spoken in the debate would be ruled out from sitting on the committee either by the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted or now. No one, as far as I know, who has spoken on the Bill is an employee or otherwise in the pay of the European Union, give or take perhaps the odd pension. Therefore, I am afraid these amendments do not do what the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Earl should read the amendment he has tabled. It provides that two members shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons having no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the EU. I know of no such eunuchs. Perhaps they exist somewhere but they do not exist in this Chamber as regards this debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: There are many people outside who have not made up their mind whether or not we should be in the European Union. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has just indicated that he may be one of them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall not give way again because the quality of the interventions do not add to the debate.
The fact of the matter is that no one who has spoken in the debate so far has revealed an intention to have no views on the matter. It is quite absurd. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot agree the amendment because then no one would believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one moment in the future.
The fact of the matter is that the amendment is in line with the Bill itself. It is absurd. It remains absurd. We should not be debating it.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his explanation of the amendments, but I, too, should like further clarification.
The gist of his amendments, as I understand, are to balance the committee so as not to be biased for or against the European Union. His revised committee of seven members would be as follows: two members in favour of the European Union; two members against the European Union; two members who are neutral on the issue; plus one chairman who is neutral too.

1921
The amendments introduced by the noble Lord do need to be clarified. I wondered whether he would accept that the relevant subsection (3) could read as follows, which would be far simpler and less confusing:
"The Committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whom—

(a) two shall be nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be in favour of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union,

(b) two shall be nominated by organisations appearing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be opposed to the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union, and

(c) two shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union,

(d) one shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the chairman of the Committee.

(4) The person nominated under subsection (3)(d) shall not act in any capacity as chairman or as a member of the Committee unless at least five members of the Committee approve his appointment".
The issue which springs to mind as a potential minefield, and it has already been mentioned today, is that of trying to find impartial members to fill the two places. Is there really anybody in the United Kingdom who is politically interested or otherwise who has no views on such a big issue?
While we do not doubt the integrity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps, in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a better solution to the impartiality angle would be for the chairman to be nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That way there would be less chance of claims of bias. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might consider that for his amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I do not propose to deal in detail with the composition of the committee because, as I hope is clear to the Committee, our objection to it is fundamental. Any amendment to its composition does not affect that judgment.
5 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, most especially to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who enlivened our proceedings. It is a long time since I have been accused of being a rusty needle, a White Rabbit and perhaps the March Hare all in one go!
However, I must take some issue with him for describing the Institute of Economic Affairs as a second-rate think tank. I should have thought that it was one of the most prestigious think tanks in the country. Five years ago, it produced a publication entitled Better Off Out?. At the time, I regretted the question mark, but it is a serious work and has been taken as an Oxford and Cambridge A-level text. It is now in the process of being updated. I should imagine that the noble Lord would want to withdraw his accusation about the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Would the noble Lord agree that during the past five years there have been just a
1922
few changes in this country and in Europe? Would he not further agree that the question mark is an important part of the title?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Being an academic work, the question mark is important. Of course, the same question mark exists in the aims of the Bill. We are merely asking to set up an inquiry which might go some way towards answering that question mark, but it exists. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that during the past four or five years things have moved on in the European Union. I would say that they have moved on only in one direction; the ratchet has proceeded to click in favour of ever greater control from the centre and ever weaker national sovereignty.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would describe the International Trade Commission in Washington as a second rate think tank. It is one of the most prestigious bodies in the world. Indeed, at the time of our Second Reading debate the members of the commission were in London at the request of Congress to see what NAFTA might look like were it to be supplemented by the United Kingdom having left the EU.
I saw members of the International Trade Commission the day before our debate and they asked me not to politicise their visit—so I did not. However, I have to put it to the noble Lord that if the International Trade Commission in Washington comes to London to examine the kind of questions that the Bill poses, it is not the product of a few crazy lunatics, think tanks and Right-wing columnists on this side of the Atlantic.
I would also refer the noble Lord to the organisation Business for Sterling if he really believes that the only people in business who are against economic and monetary union and the single currency are a few old dinosaurs. That is certainly not the case. However, all these matters would be for consideration by the committee of inquiry which the Bill proposes to set up. Therefore, nothing that the noble Lord has said has detracted from the purpose of the Bill or, indeed, from these amendments.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his contribution and, of course, I agree with what he says. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the Bill is designed to exclude the United Kingdom from the European Union. That is not what it says. We simply want to talk about it. I find it very disturbing if one is not allowed even to talk about talking about the wretched thing.
My noble friend Lady Rawlings followed through very accurately the requirements of the Bill. If she would prefer to see the chairman of the committee nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons rather than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is of course something that your Lordships could consider. She may wish to table an amendment on Report.
However, when she asks whether anyone is indifferent to whether or not we stay in the European Union, that is not quite the question. I imagine that

1923
there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country—academics and others—who, at the moment, are indifferent as to whether or not we stay in the European Union. They may not be politicians but, certainly, many people have not yet made up their minds. In any case, it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to choose those people and for the committee to accept them.
Therefore, the proposal is that two people should be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from nominations put forward to him by those who favour staying in; two should be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from organisations which would prefer to come out; and there are three more—the two further members of the committee and the chairman chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and accepted by the committee. That way might lie harmony. However, as I say, if my noble friend wishes to table an amendment on Report, I am sure that the House will be very happy to consider it. In the meantime, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6:
Page1, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
Page1, line 19, after ("Union,") insert—
("() two shall be nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as persons appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union,").
Page1. line 21, at end insert (", being a person appearing to him to hold no opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in or leave the European Union").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page1, line 22, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(3)(c)").
The noble Lord said: I shall be uncontroversial and brief. There was simply a typographical error in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page1, line 23, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Report of the Committee]:
Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 9:
Paget2, line 10, leave out ("November 2000") and insert ("February 2001").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of postponing the date by which the proposed committee of inquiry should report from 1st November this year to 1st February next year.
1924
I put forward this amendment because a number of noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, at col. 1819 of the report of our Second Reading proceedings, suggested that 1st November this year is too tight a timetable. I had originally thought of 1st November this year because that would have allowed some public attention and debate before the Government's final negotiations at the proposed intergovernmental conference in Nice in December and before they take the drastic step of agreeing to the proposed European defence initiative, the charter of fundamental rights, corpus juris and elements of tax harmonisation, if that is what they will eventually be persuaded to do, as I fear they will be. However, if that timetable is too tight, the new date of 1st February next year should allow the committee's report to see the light of the day before the next General Election, which is, perhaps, a greater priority.
So if the Government have signed up to all the further surrenders of our national sovereignty to Brussels, to which I have referred, and, I fear, maybe others, then at least the electorate would be able to consider these further surrenders in the context of our membership of the European Union generally and have the chance of delivering their verdict at the ballot box.
I am painfully aware that none of our main political parties seems at present likely to fight the next General Election on a manifesto which includes leaving the European Union. Indeed, I spend quite a bit of my time trying to persuade my Conservative colleagues to get ready to do just that, but so far without success.
However, the next election is perhaps a year away, perhaps more, and a year is a very long time in politics. By the time the manifestos are drawn up, we shall probably know what has happened at the Nice IGC in December and what has happened to the other initiatives to which I have referred. We shall also know rather more about the progress, or lack of it, of the euro than we do at the moment. And if this Bill has been enacted, there will be a balanced report before the people and available to the political classes.
Of course, I believe that the report will come down strongly in favour of leaving the European Union and hope that even the Conservative Party would then see the goal which already stands open in front of it. But I could be wrong. I could be wrong because, if it continues in its present frame of mind, I fear that the Conservative Party may, even then, fail to see the open goal.
If that happens, I imagine that the UK Independence Party will give the people the chance to express their feelings about our membership of the European Union and that UKIP will therefore do even better than it did at last year's European elections. But at least the people will have been able to express their view about this most important issue of our time in a General Election which, I may say, they have never been able to do until now or in the past.
And, of course, I could be wrong because the report might conclude, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, felt confident at Second Reading, that our

1925
continued membership of the European Union is, indeed, in the national interest. I could also be wrong because the apocalyptic horses which are galloping towards the final extinction of our national independence in Brussels and at Nice in December may just turn round and trot away, although they have not been that sort of animal in the past. Or, I suppose, the Government might veto all these initiatives. But, alas, this seems unlikely too, given their doomed charm offensive in Brussels.
The ratchet of ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe, ordained in the Treaty of Rome, has never been reversed. The slices have never been picked up off the floor and put back on the salami. And I do not see why our friends in Brussels should abandon their obvious plans to complete their superstate just to please the United Kingdom, which is getting a little difficult for them—a bit of a bother-boy, even under the present Government.
Finally, I hope that Members of the Committee will not advance the objection that the subject of the inquiry is too vast and complex for it to complete its report, even by 1st February. As I said on Second Reading, much of the economic, constitutional and defence work has already been done. There is a solid body of serious academic study which reveals the true state of our relationship with the European Union. The debate which we have just heard in your Lordships' House no doubt would also be required reading for the proposed committee of inquiry on defence matters.
It is just that no British government have dared to confront all this evidence and draw the obvious conclusions. My fellow Conservatives do not dare to do so because they got us into the mess in the first place; they led us into this quicksand; and, being politicians, they are not very good at confession.
As far as I can tell, the Liberal Democrats have always supported the venture, but it is often difficult to know exactly what they think, especially when they do not pay full attention to debates on the subject in your Lordships' House.
Presumably the Labour Government support Europe because the Prime Minister wants to be emperor of Europe. I can think of no other reason why they want to carry on down the European road. I am not sure how well the Prime Minister's ambitions go down now with the French and the Germans.
I hope I have explained why this amendment suggests postponing the date for the committee of inquiry's report to 1st February next year. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: The Committee is grateful for that explanation. I understand the noble Lord wanting more time, as the progress of his Bill may not be as rapid as he would desire. Timing is all important.
Europe is at a fork in the road of its development. As we approach the Nice IGC, it is surely right that we follow the direction of a flexible Europe of nation
1926
states. That is not a new concept but one of common sense. However, we need to beware, remembering in Edward Clodd's story of creation:
"The fabled ship of Theseus, which remained the same although repaired so often that not an original plank was left".
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I do not intend to go into the detail of the amendment, which concerns the timescale of the report of the committee. That fact may have been obscured by some of the general points that have been made. We do not believe that there should be such a committee in the first place.
However, 1 noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in explaining one of the reasons why he was extending the timescale, quoted a comment by his noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, as is his privilege. I prefer another quotation from the noble and learned Lord which I believe sums up the spirit of his intervention at Second Reading. He said:
"I would argue against the wisdom of putting even a modest amount of public money into the pursuit of my noble friend's well argued private prejudice".—[Official Report. 17/3/00; col. 1 S10.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses. To my noble friend Lady Rawlings I say that the Conservative Party, and indeed the British Government, may wish to follow the road that leads to a Europe of nation states. However, that is not on offer in Brussels; that is not what is written in the treaties: it is not what our partners want to pursue; and it is not the road that will be taken as we proceed towards the Nice IGC and beyond. What makes this Bill ever more important is that, as the crossroads to which my noble friend referred come nearer and nearer, we shall have to go one way or the other. We shall have to go on to become the subservient region of a bureaucratic, corporatist, inward-looking, sclerotic economy, or we shall have to reclaim our independence, govern ourselves and stand on our own in the world.
Of course, I accept that the Minister prefers other parts of the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe at Second Reading. The part that I quoted is just about the only part with which I could bring myself to agree. I believe that my noble and learned friend was Foreign Secretary at the time that he advised my noble friend Lady Thatcher to sign the Single European Act 1985. Alas, she is not with us today, although she was at Second Reading. In retrospect that Act perhaps has done more damage to our independence than anything else.
Again, I am grateful for the interventions of the two noble Baronesses. I hope that I have answered their points in a balanced fashion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("who will provide forthwith a copy to the National Audit Office with a request for the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon").

1927
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 11, which is grouped with it.
I intend to offer only one explanation of the reason for tabling this amendment. There are occasions in our affairs, and indeed it always used to be the case for ordinary industry and commerce, when the term "true and fair" had some significance. Unhappily, in many areas of our public life, this is no longer the case. My desire to involve the National Audit Office in taking a final look at what emerges from the inquiry is to endeavour—modestly, in view of my own profession which is that of an accountant—to re-establish that sound principle; namely, bringing forward a true and fair account of what has occurred. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to support this amendment on the grounds that I cannot understand why either Front Bench should have any difficulty in considering the possibility of a dispassionate examination of an important issue on which a referendum is to be held. No decision is asked for here. I cannot see why this House in particular could consider rejecting it out of hand without wishing to hear what the committee says. The committee may say exactly what my noble friend Lord Pearson does not want to hear. However, I see nothing wrong and everything right in examining the facts dispassionately and reporting those facts for consideration.
The Earl of Erroll: I, too, rise to support the amendment. I said earlier that the reason that I may not hold a strong opinion on this matter is that so far we may have spent so much money on capital up front that it may no longer be worth withdrawing. I have no idea. However, what I do not have is the right information on which to base that kind of decision.
If I were managing a company, I would not manage it on the kind of inadequate information that I am given as a parliamentarian here. Very often I cannot trust information if it has emanated from certain sources.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, I support the general thrust of this amendment because I support the principle of a "true and fair" account of the facts. One can then form an opinion. All too often, decisions are based on opinions held by both sides. Indeed, in some ways, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has introduced a preconceived notion of what the Bill will do—that is laid down in Clause 1 where it implies withdrawal. I believe that that may have clouded many people's judgment.
1928
I support the amendment because I would like to see a true and fair accounting and I want to see the figures. That would allow me to form an opinion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I can put on record that neither at Second Reading nor at any time have we ever gone into any reasoned argument as to why we should stay in the European Union or why we should leave it. There has never been any cost benefit analysis in the Treasury or elsewhere in government of our membership of the European Union. In fact, I can tell the Committee that when an acquaintance of mine was a Minister in the Treasury under the last government, he managed to get a cost benefit analysis going. Unfortunately, the result which was emerging was not to the satisfaction of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right honourable friend Mr Kenneth Clarke, and the cost benefit analysis was squashed.
So there never has been an official cost benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. There has certainly never been any analysis of the constitutional and defence implications of our membership in the past and of our continued membership in the future. At Second Reading on this Bill all the Government did was repeat that they believed that our membership of the European Union was in the national interest, but could give no reason why that should be so. That is what this Bill is designed to put straight and I hope that the Minister will not mind if I put those facts on the record.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("together with the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 12:
Line I, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past five o'clock.

  UN Committee against Torture
  UN Committee against Torture
  Prison Service Projects
  Prison Service Projects
  Pakistan: Debt Relief
  Pakistan: Debt Relief
  Parliamentary Written Answers: Reference to Web-pages
  Parliamentary Written Answers: Reference to Web-pages
  Belfast City Airport
  Belfast City Airport
  Belfast to Bangor Railway Line
  Belfast to Bangor Railway Line
  Northern Ireland Railways
  Northern Ireland Railways
  Northern Ireland Act: Designated Public Bodies
  Northern Ireland Act: Designated Public Bodies
  Duchy of Lancaster: Visit by Minister
  Duchy of Lancaster: Visit by Minister
  Urban Design
  Urban Design
  South-east Europe: UN Meeting
  South-east Europe: UN Meeting
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia