Sitting of 25 November 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Final Salary Pension Scheme
    Angela Watkinson: How many employees pay into a final salary pension scheme. [81269]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): It is estimated that 9.6 million employees pay into final salary schemes. They will, therefore, continue to play a significant role in people's pensions savings. A Green Paper on pensions, to be published shortly, will set out our proposals, which are designed to increase the flexibility and security of final salary schemes and other types of pension provision.
    Angela Watkinson: What protection can the Minister offer to my constituents who are so close to retirement that it is too late for them to make alternative pension arrangements? They have contributed to final salary pension schemes all their working lives and now find
    2
    that those schemes are in severe financial difficulties or are heading for wind-up. Those constituents are suffering severe stress at the prospect of a pension that falls way short of what they formerly expected.
    Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Lady could be a bit more specific, I could deal with her point, because there is no point in giving a general answer about the Department's line. If there is a genuine problem, the hon. Lady should write to me and I will offer her a meeting
    Mr. David Willetts: That is a change of approach.
    Mr. McCartney: No, it is not a change of approach—I am just that kind of a Minister.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Minister think that there is any connection between the £25 billion that the Chancellor took out of pension funds and the decision of four out of 10 final salary schemes to close to new members? If he does and presumably he does because he lives on the same planet as the rest of us—what will he tell the hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country, many of whom are in my constituency, whose final salary schemes have been cut and whose income in retirement will be reduced?
    Mr. McCartney: I think that I live on the planet more than most Conservative Members of Parliament. It is interesting to note that when the same question was put to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) about the removal of the then tax credit on pension funds, the hon. Gentleman said:
    "Actually, I don't think we'll be doing that. Helping pension funds doesn't mean going back to the same system as we had before, you know."

    3
    The Conservative party has introduced a red herring. The tax changes made by the Chancellor were designed to ensure increased investment across the entire portfolio, which will assist pension funds greatly in the long term.
    Mr. David Crausby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major and recent reason for the decline in final salary schemes—although they have been declining since the 1960s—has been employers' inability to take advantage of pensions contributions holidays, which they enjoyed for so many years? Does he also agree that the only way to reverse the decline permanently is to introduce an element of compulsion for employers and pensioners?
    Mr. McCartney: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the very inappropriate pensions holidays that have sometimes been taken. The purpose of the Green Paper is to address that and other issues. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to see its contents, as it will deal with all issues connected with fairness and security in retirement.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although some employers use the current circumstances to close their final salary schemes, others wish to keep such schemes open? However, under the existing law and the power of trustees, they know that to do so might at some stage bankrupt their company. They would keep those schemes open, with some relation to salary, if there were greater flexibility in the law. Will the Minister look at this issue in this Green Paper or, as we heard at the weekend, in another one six months later?
    Mr. McCartney: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that those are among the issues that will be examined in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Does the Minister accept that one of the big problems associated with the closure of final salary schemes is that employers use the opportunity to reduce the amount of their contribution into those schemes? Does he accept that the Government have no power to stop that process and that if they merely produce a Green Paper and more consultation follows, we will have to watch the process continue? Why, then, has the right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of putting a mandatory floor below employer contributions?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes that comment before he has even read the Green Paper. The purpose of the Green Paper is to have a long-term agreement to provide security in retirement. That includes responsibilities on the part of the state, the employer and the employee and an effort to refashion, remodel and modernise the pension promise. I hope that at the end of the Green Paper process not only will we have a national debate but there will be a national consensus on where we need to go.
    David Cairns: One of the additional benefits of these schemes is the generous provision of widows' and survivors' benefits. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the proposal in the Pickering review to end compulsory provision of
    4
    such benefits? Does he agree that in this area of pensions, as in so many others, where there is no compulsion there is no provision?
    Mr. McCartney: That was among several issues in the report, and we indicated that at this stage it was not a route that we wanted to take. All those issues will have to be considered in the Green Paper. One thing is certain, however: survivors' benefits are extremely important, overwhelmingly for women. It is no intention of this Government, when reviewing the pensions system, to undermine its capacity properly to look after women in retirement.
    Mr. Willetts: Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to the promise in their last pensions Green Paper that the proportion of pensioners' income from private savings should rise from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.?
    Mr. McCartney: That is all part of the Green Paper—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question so he might like to listen to what I have to say. Since the last Green Paper, we have taken steps in respect of the basic state pension and in relation to poverty. The third step—in this Green Paper—is about how we modernise the arrangements so that the basic state pension and the second-tier pension meet people's needs. That, of course, includes a mixed economy, as was set out in the previous Green Paper. The current Green Paper follows that, and at the end of the debate on it I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the Government's proposals.
    Mr. Willetts: I have in my hand the previous Green Paper. It contains a personal foreword by the Prime Minister, which states that the Government are committed to increasing the percentage of pensioners' income that comes from private savings from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. All I am asking is whether the Minister of State is still committed to that objective of the last Green Paper. It is very simple.
    Mr. McCartney: Of course that remains our objective. That is why the Green Paper that will be published soon examines arrangements to secure the continuation of funding by employers and deals with inadequate relationships as regards the costs to employers that run counter to their retaining pensions schemes. We want to give real choice to people who are saving for retirement so that there are secure pension schemes both in the public and private sectors.

    Social Security (Complaints)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What steps he is taking to improve the service of the telephone complaint lines for social security clients. [81270]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): First, may I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the extremely poor service that one of his constituents received earlier this year? The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department about that.

    5
    The creation of Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service represent one of the biggest operational changes that the civil service has ever experienced, so, perhaps inevitably, there has been some disruption to the high standards of service that we prefer to give. I am pleased to say, however, that Jobcentre Plus contact centres are already providing improved telephone access and response times to many customers and we are determined to improve and develop standards as those changes go nationwide.
    Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that clients of Jobcentre Plus, the Pension Service and the former Department of Social Security are among the most vulnerable and that, owing to the work load of the hard-pressed staff, the changes to which he has referred may create more problems than heretofore, so the provision of adequate telephone lines and the means for those clients to complain is very important? I was especially disappointed to find that t he number of the Banbury incapacity benefit manager, which I was given to ring to follow up my complaints, was engaged all morning, as I found out when I tested it before I came to the Chamber. Will the Minister ensure that there is adequate telephone capacity so that vulnerable people can make inquiries and complaints?
    Malcolm Wicks: Of course I shall check on that and I apologise again to the hon. Gentleman and especially to his constituent. From time to time, we all experience I he frustration of not being able to get through on the telephone. However, overall national performance on all aspects of customer service is currently about 84 per cent. against a target of 79 per cent. That measures speed of response, accuracy and so on. However, when individuals are not getting that service in response from the Banbury office, I realise that ministerial statistics butter no parsnips—they certainly butter no Banburys.
    Hywel Williams: Will the Minister tell us about the availability of telephone help through the medium of Welsh and other languages? I made a test of that this morning and contacted a Benefits Agency office only to be told that there was no such service because the person concerned was away on a Welsh course. The service seems rather fragile. Would the Minister care to comment?
    Malcolm Wicks: Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the high training standards in our Department as evidenced by the colleague who was taking the Welsh course. May I write to the hon. Gentleman about the services that we offer through the medium of the Welsh language? As a former external examiner for the University of Wales, I appreciate the importance of that.

    Incapacity Benefit Assessments
    Linda Perham: What representations he has received regarding incapacity benefit assessments carried out by SchlumbergerSema. [81271]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): We have received a number of representations from my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and members of the public about personal capability assessments carried out
    6
    by SchlumbergerSema. A small proportion of medical assessments—about 0.5 per cent.—result in complaints about the doctor.
    Linda Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for seeing me last week in the case of Mrs. Gray. In the light of her case and continuing concerns expressed by disabled constituents about the quality of service provided, will he assure me that the assessments will be closely monitored, especially when the contract comes up for renewal?
    Mr. Brown: We closely monitor the work of SchlumbergerSema, so 1 know that the number of complaints is going down. A set of standards has to be met and, so far, all the targets are being met.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Although I acknowledge that there has been progress in achieving a smoother and less judgmental assessment system, would the Minister not be prepared, in turn, to acknowledge that many claimants still resent intrusion, particularly in recurrent cases and those where perhaps the matter could have been resolved on evidence from the patient's own GP? But is he not even more concerned that, for all the Government's talk of welfare reform, there are almost as many claimants for incapacity benefit as five years ago, while there are no fewer than 250,000 extra disabled claimants for income support? Is that not a rather shameful failure to deliver?
    Mr. Brown: If the previous Government had undertaken more pilot schemes on rehabilitation and other pathways to work, this Government would not have to undertake the necessary studies to try to achieve—I do not mean to make this a partisan point, tempting though that is—what I know we both believe in, as we have had exchanges about this before: helping those who can work into some form of work that they can comfortably undertake.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Eric Martlew: What assessment he has made of the most recent employment statistics. [81272]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The employment level is holding up well, given the world economic slowdown. We have record numbers of people in jobs thanks to economic policies for stability and labour market policies that keep people engaged with the job market, whatever the stage of the economic cycle.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those at the jobcentre in my constituency who in the past five years have seen unemployment drop dramatically, especially youth unemployment, which has dropped by more than 40 per cent.? But does he acknowledge that, at present, many people—not just in Carlisle, but throughout the country—who wish to

    7
    work are on incapacity benefit? Will he outline the Government's proposals to help those people and support them back into work?
    Mr. Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Jobcentre Plus staff and all the associated partners on the good work that they are doing in Carlisle. The number of young people unemployed for more than six months has fallen by 70 per cent. or more—a great tribute to the efforts of all concerned. In relation to incapacity benefit, I announced the consultation document last week, which will suggest a more intensive programme of interviews and other support for people going on to the benefit in the proposed pilot areas. We will introduce groundbreaking rehabilitation collaborative work with the national health service and a new £40 a week back-to-work credit in those pilot areas for the first year of employment. My hon. Friend is right: 90 per cent. of those coming on to incapacity benefit expect to get back into jobs. Those proposals will help them to do just that.
    Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware of the growing number of white-collared unemployed who do not show in the statistics because they do not as yet qualify for benefits? What assessment has his Department made of that problem?
    Mr. Smith: White-collar employees qualify for benefit on the same basis as anyone else, and the full array of programmes to help them—the new deals and Jobcentre Plus—are at their disposal, as well as the action teams for jobs. We also offer extra help through the new deal ambition initiatives, one of which includes collaboration with the IT industry, which would help precisely the sort of unemployed people to whom the hon. Lady has referred.
    Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the low unemployment rate in this country, which is lower than that in most other comparable European countries. There is, however, a small number of long-term unemployed. What steps will be taken to change the new deal 25 plus to help those people into work?
    Mr. Smith: We are refining and improving the new deals and our wider array of Jobcentre Plus programmes all the time. As work-focused interviews are rolled out with Jobcentre Plus, they are making a big difference, and the extra discretionary help that we are now able to put in the hands of the front-line advisers is producing good results in helping sometimes very long-term unemployed people who face considerable barriers to employment back in to jobs. As my hon. and learned Friend says, we are making good progress: thanks to initiatives of that sort, 100,000 more people are in jobs than were at the beginning of this year.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: In the last quarter, what percentage of new jobs were created in the public sector?
    Mr. Smith: A significant proportion, as we fulfil our promises to invest in the national health service, education and rebuilding the nation's transport
    8
    infrastructure. We make no apologies for keeping our promises to invest in public services and public infrastructure—if the Conservatives had done some of that when they were in office, we would not have had the mess that we have had to deal with.

    Pensioner Poverty
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What action he plans to take to assist older people living below the official poverty line. [81274]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have brought in the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s, so that single pensioners are at least £18 a week better off and couples have gained by more than £27. Of the £6 billion extra that we are spending on pensioners compared with 1997, £2.5 billion is being spent on the poorest third of pensioners.
    Mr. Cunningham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to know that most people appreciate the fact that 650,000 pensioners in the west midlands have gained from the fuel poverty allowance. However, when he considers proposals on old-age pension increases in April, is he satisfied that when those increases are implemented, they will be a step in the direction of eliminating pensioner poverty?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. The increases will help us further to address pensioner poverty, and taken together with the introduction of the pension credit next October, all the measures that we have introduced mean that the average pensioner household will be £1,150 a year better off, and the poorest third of pensioner households will be £1,500 a year better off. Of course there is more to do, but that represents substantial progress in helping the poorest pensioners in our country.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Secretary of State is absolutely right that we have to fight pensioner poverty, but does he accept that the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit make it rather difficult to achieve the target to which the Minister for Pensions committed himself today, that in future pensioners should receive approximately 60 per cent. of their income from private sources?
    Mr. Smith: As I just said, we can always do more. We take seriously the recommendations of the National Audit Office's excellent recent report, which pointed to the need to build on local strategies targeted on those who are not getting everything to which they are entitled; to reduce duplication in the information that we request from people; to measure non-take-up better; and to spread information about pensions and benefits as widely as possible. We are doing that by sending out 2 million copies of the pension guide and by creating the Pension Service, a dedicated service for pensioners which will provide a more sensitive and user-friendly source of information and advice.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the minimum income

    9
    guarantee and the pension credit are welcome, a great number of pensioners will not receive those benefits? Despite the current take-up proposals, does he accept that further work is needed, and will he set out what measures are being taken to increase take-up?
    Mr. Smith: I accept that we need to build on the substantial progress that has already been made by intensifying take-up activity in precisely the way that I just outlined. My hon. Friend will have noted that in its report the NAO states that it was
    "very pleased that the Department accepts all our recommendations".
    The report also underlines the importance of doing all we can to encourage pensioners to contact the Pension Service or other advice agencies, stating that those pensioners who had made such contact
    "were better informed, and were generally satisfied with the help they received".
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that
    "a sustained fall in the numbers of poor pensioners is unlikely until and unless the Government's policies aimed at encouraging greater use of private pensions start having an effect".
    How can that happen when the Chancellor of the Exchequer raids the savers' funds? How can that happen when the extension of the means-testing that the Chancellor has introduced creates massive disincentives to savings? How can that happen when vehicles such as stakeholder pensions become such a flop that nine out of 10 of the schemes have no members at all and respected companies are simply giving up selling them? How will the Secretary of State encourage private saving?
    Mr. Smith: Those remarks would have a lot more credibility if the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman had a single positive alternative to any of our policies. They do not.
    To address the specific points on means-testing, is the hon. Gentleman advocating either spending more out of taxation and public spending or cutting some of the help that goes to the poorest pensioners? Judged by the Opposition's record, they would cut that help. He refers to stakeholder pensions. More than a million of them have been sold so far. Although we need to do even better than that, that is very good progress for a new pension product across the first year. Conservatives Members should support our efforts to build confidence in private pensions rather than carping at them.

    Health and Safety
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What plans he has to improve health and safety in the workplace. [81276]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The joint Government and Health and Safety Commission strategy set out in the document "Revitalising Health and Safety" aims to achieve significant reductions in the
    10
    incidence of injury and ill health in the workplace. There are specific targets and delivery plans in place for 2004 and for 2010.
    Mr. Dismore: Bearing in mind the fact that it is more than seven years since the Law Commission first proposed an offence of corporate manslaughter and that more than 200 people are killed every year as they simply go about their normal business at work, will my right hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office what can be done urgently to implement this extremely important manifesto commitment and to introduce vital legislation to protect people from death at work?
    Mr. Brown: I have a great deal of sympathy with the representations that my hon. Friend makes. The policy lead is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will do as my hon. Friend asks and raise the matter with my right hon. Friend to see whether we can make progress.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister look carefully at the rising trends in the costs of insurance claims as a result of accidents at work? They are feeding into worrying increases in employers' liability insurance premiums, and many small businesses are finding it very difficult to obtain cover. I understand that, in the summer, the Health and Safety Executive were engaged in considering the prospect of having discussions that would lead to lower premiums for firms that had good safety records. Will the Government support such a move?
    Mr. Brown: There is a lot of sense in relating premiums to the risk and in rewarding the good and discouraging undesirable practices. Discussions are taking place across Government on this very important issue, and they include discussions with outside bodies such as the CBI, the TUC and the Association of British Insurers.
    Helen Jones: Although I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way of improving health and safety in the workplace is to ensure that firms are subject to rigorous and regular inspections? Is he confident that the Health and Safety Executive currently has the resources that it needs to ensure that firms are investigated properly and efficiently?
    Mr. Brown: I am absolutely confident that the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission are able to prioritise their work and, with the resources allocated to them, carry out a good job. There will always be a discussion about priorities and, in the next few weeks, I shall meet representatives of the commission and the executive to consider targets and priorities.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister attend the Amicus meeting this evening in Portcullis House on bullying in the workplace? Is he proud of his Department's record on health and safety, because on

    11
    his own figures there are nearly 100 assaults and attempted assaults each month on members of his staff in Jobcentre Plus offices alone?
    Mr. Brown: It is quite wrong to give the impression that the new Jobcentre Plus offices are a dangerous place because they are open plan. The Government are committed to providing the new-style services—integrated benefits and labour-market advice—to people who seek our help in modern, workable circumstances instead of conducting interviews from behind a glass screen. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to take that approach.

    Travel-to-Work Costs
    Clive Efford: If he will help unemployed people with their travel-to-work costs when they first obtain a job. [81277]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Yes. We recognise that the lack of affordable transport can be a significant barrier to work for jobless people, and have a number of measures in place to help them overcome these difficulties, including the extension of half-price rail fares to 125,000 more people on the new deal programmes and the £10 million transport project fund to be used with action teams.
    Clive Efford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Such measures will help many people who seek employment. What steps is he taking to engage other transport service providers, such as London Transport, in discussions to encourage them to provide cheaper fares to people who seek employment?
    Mr. Smith: We are working not only with the rail companies through the Association of Train Operating Companies, but with a number of bus operators including, I understand, some that cover my hon. Friend's constituency. The action team funding works out on average at more than £150,000 for each action team area over two years. We will be pleased to consider further proposals from jobseekers, those who help them into work or employers in his constituency.
    Mr. Mark Field rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Field: Hi. [Interruption.] A little bit of informality does us no harm.
    Although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep matters relatively simple—
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: That is why the hon. Gentleman has been called.
    Mr. Field: Absolutely right. I will have words with the hon. Gentleman later on.
    I accept that we need to keep things simple and that the main focus will be on public transport, but the Secretary of State will be aware that the congestion charge comes into play on 17 February next. Will he give
    12
    some thought to extending travel-to-work allowances to those people who have antisocial jobs within central London?
    Mr. Smith: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity of working congestion charges into the question. Frontline advisers on the use of the discretionary funds at disposal, which are up to £300, are encouraged to include any action that can remove barriers standing in the way of jobseekers accessing work. I am sure they will do just that.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    11. Mr.Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the take-up of stakeholders pensions since their inception. [81279]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Figures from the Association of British Insurers show that up to the end of September 2002, 1,151,371 stakeholder pensions had been sold. A detailed breakdown of sales will be available around the middle of next year. Sales of more than 1 million in their first 18 months on the market represents a very encouraging start.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response. How many of those are people who have transferred their pensions to stakeholder schemes from other schemes? If they have, the figure does not reflect a net increase in the number of people who hold pensions. How does he intend to address the crisis in the industry given the catalogue of errors, outlined by my Front-Bench colleagues, that the Government have introduced?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has not changed since he stood against me in 1987, when he was shown the door.
    Mr. John Bercow: He has: he has got a seat.
    Mr. McCartney: Nice one, but I was talking about the attitude of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rather than his seat.
    Some 97 per cent. of the sales have been made to people of working age and half of them have been sold via the workplace. It is a significant increase in pension provision. Before stakeholder pensions, some people had no opportunity, either with their employer or not, to save for a pension.
    The record of the previous Government was different—£13.5 billion of mis-sold pensions to workers. The present Government resolved that and went on to introduce something else—the stakeholder pension. More than 1 million people who did not have a pension 18 months ago have one now.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: In April this year, the Government introduced the earnings-related state second pension, the best pension deal for low-paid workers that has ever been on offer in the history of British pensions. The Government

    13
    promised that it would remain in force until there was a take-up of millions of stakeholder pensions in the target group of low to middling incomes. That target is not being achieved. Will that promise be kept? Can we look forward to the continuation of the earnings-related state second pension?
    Mr. McCartney: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should say that the Government are not pursuing with vigour the issues around stakeholders and the second state pension. He is absolutely right—the state second pension has been a tremendous fillip for 14 million low-paid workers, 2 million people with disabilities who have work records that kept them out of the basic state pension previously, and 2 million carers. Most of the recipients are women, which is a major step forward. We have not gone to the trouble of taking such step only to reduce later our capacity to make it one of the most effective measures introduced by any Government.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I note that the Minister did not quite answer my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who asked how many people who had signed up for stakeholders had transferred out of another scheme. Perhaps he would like to have another go. I know how interested he is in hearing how things are at the grass roots. Certainly, lower-paid workers in my constituency are not signing up because they do not want to commit their savings to the final compulsory annuity. Will the Minister take a look at the difference between the state of the pensions market now and in 1997? One of the great destructive things the Government have done is to take away the incentive for people to invest. The compulsory annuity scheme is part of the problem. Will the Minister take a second look at that?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should perhaps try for an Adjournment debate on the subject.
    Mr. McCartney: I hope that it is not me who has to reply—[Laughter.] I like the hon. Lady really.
    If the hon. Lady had listened to my reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), she would have heard that a detailed breakdown of sales would he available around the middle of next year. That is a movable feast, but the important fact is that more than 1 million stakeholders have been sold. Another vital figure relates to the fact that 97 per cent. of sales have been to people of working age, so the initiative has been a tremendous success. Why cannot Opposition Members, whether from the Liberal or Conservative party, get behind a proposal to provide for people who, without stakeholders, would not have a future in pensions?

    Housing Benefit
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on housing benefit reform. [81280]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): On 17 October, the Secretary of State announced the next steps of our reform of housing benefit. Our aim is to provide a better,
    14
    quicker service based on simpler and clearer rules. For the first time, we will give tenants real choice over their housing decisions.
    I am pleased that North East Lincolnshire council, which I visited recently and includes my hon. Friend's constituency, has accepted our invitation to become one of the pathfinders for the new standard local housing allowance. That marks a radical step forward in the simplification of housing benefit.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. If that private scheme is to be successful, it is vital that claimants are aware of the changes in the scheme well before their introduction. Will my hon. Friend therefore tell me his proposals to inform claimants of such changes?
    Malcolm Wicks: I myself am visiting all the 10 pathfinder areas before Christmas to discuss those issues—[Interruption.] At least I get out a bit. I am discussing with local authorities plans for communication, which are vital. The pathfinders will not be introduced until the autumn of next year, and my Department will provide communications to all tenants. The reform is about providing choice and empowering people in the privately rented sector to make decisions that the rest of us tend to take for granted.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government's changes to housing benefit regulations have been legion—so legion, in fact, that they amount to one change every fortnight for which the Labour Government have been in power. Can the Minister give an assurance to the people struggling to administer housing benefit that the number of changes will be considerably reduced, if not completely eliminated, in future?
    Malcolm Wicks: I have a group, including local authority experts, to advise me on the timing of regulations. We try to introduce them at two stages in the year, rather than throughout the year. Much of what we are doing is aimed at simplification. At present, everyone has to reapply for housing benefit every year or so, filling in the forms and providing the information. We are scrapping that. That is the right way to do it—not to talk about it, but to do it.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the impact of stock transfer, reform of the housing revenue account and equalisation of rents on the housing benefit bill?
    Malcolm Wicks: Of course, but I think I will send my hon. Friend the details. The numbers claiming housing benefit have fallen somewhat recently, which is a testimony to our employment strategies. As with all benefits, the best social security policy of all is having a job.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to improve the take-up of benefits for pensioners. [81281]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We have made good progress in our efforts to ensure that pensioners take up their entitlements, including the national advertising campaign for the minimum income guarantee, the shortened claim form and working closely with partner organisations that represent older people. We are equally committed to ensuring maximum take-up of pension credit.
    Mr. Rendel: Given the lack of information about the cost-effectiveness of different methods of encouraging take-up, how can the Minister be sure that her plans are the best use of resources? What plans does she have to make sure that in future we get better information about how cost-effective take-up campaigns are?
    Maria Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, will have studied carefully the recently published National Audit Office report. We welcome the report's findings, which include comments on better information and evaluation, but the important thing for us is to make sure that elderly people who have entitlements to additional benefits such as pension credit take them up. We have reorganised the Pension Service to be much more effective at ensuring that people take up their benefits and entitlements, so I am confident that there will be an improvement in the current level of take-up. The first test, of course, will be pension credit.
    Mr. Peter Pike: How long does my hon. Friend believe it will be before we have a system whereby, when pensioners make their claims through the Pension Service, they get their housing benefit and council tax benefit calculated at the same time? We want one-stop benefits for pensioners, so that they get all the benefits to which they are entitled.
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. It is often difficult and confusing for people to have to claim their entitlements from different bits of central and local government and to fill in different forms. The major IT infrastructure programmes that we have in the Department for Work and Pensions should enable us to join up a lot more of our own claims processes. Some of the improvements that we are making by cutting the size of claim forms and introducing trigger points to indicate entitlement are already coming through, but with housing benefit being administered by local authorities, it is difficult to ensure such joined-up local and central Government administration. We are doing our best to make progress as speedily as we can.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Secretary of State said a moment ago that the Government had more to do to tackle pensioner poverty, and presumably that includes Scotland, where one in four of our pensioners still live in poverty. Is not the problem of take-up exacerbated by the massive extension of means-testing of benefits introduced by the new Labour Government?
    Maria Eagle: The pension credit abolishes the weekly means test and targets money on those at the lower end of the income bracket by using a simplified five-yearly assessment process. I hope that the hon. Lady, along
    16
    with other hon. Members, will encourage pensioners in her constituency to take that up, as it is an entitlement. We in the Department will do all that we can to ensure that, when pension credit comes in October 2003, there is maximum take-up.

    Learning Disabilities
    Jane Griffiths: What steps his Department is taking to support employment opportunities for adults with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [81286]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We are committed to improving employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities and set out our strategy for achieving that in the White Paper "Valuing People", which was published in March 2001. We are now working closely with key stakeholders to ensure that our active labour market programmes and policies reach as many people with learning disabilities as possible, and that they are delivered in ways that are responsive to their needs.
    Jane Griffiths: The Minister will be aware of the excellent work being done by the Shaw trust in supporting people with learning disabilities in getting into employment. Does she agree that constituencies such as mine, which has almost full employment, present a further opportunity? Will the work of her Department therefore be targeted on high-employment areas such as Reading?
    Maria Eagle: We are just as keen to ensure that people with learning disabilities have employment opportunities in Reading as we are elsewhere. I congratulate the Shaw trust, whose work in that regard I know very well. We are keen to ensure that our specialist disability employment programmes, such as Workstep and the new deal for disabled people, also help people with learning difficulties. Such people experience some of the lowest levels of labour market participation. It is obvious that in Reading, where employers are looking for good employees, they should be looking to disabled people and those with learning difficulties, as they can make excellent employees.
    Mr. John Bercow: What is the incidence of current employer non-compliance with the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Will the hon. Lady say something about the respects in which arid the degree to which the work of the Disability Rights Commission has improved the situation? Does she have any plans further to progress policy in advance of implementation of the terms of the antidiscrimination directive in 2006?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman asks three questions to which it would take me all day to reply. Given your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall be more brief. We know something about the number of inquiries that are made to the DRC about allegations of non-compliance. We do not collect information about the number of people who do not comply with the DDA, but we know that the problem is still widespread.

    17
    The DRC offers advice and a helpline, and guidance is available. The Department undertakes awareness-raising to try to ensure that employers recognise their obligations and the business case and advantages in respect of employing disabled people. We hope that a combination of those policies will ensure that we can increase the participation of disabled people in the labour market. By October 2004, the small firms exemption to the DDA employment requirements will no longer apply, so we have big job to do to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations and to enable them to take advantage of the skills that disabled people have to offer.

    Poverty
    Mr. George Foulkes: What his targets are for the reduction of household poverty. [81287]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We recently published our fourth annual report on poverty, "Opportunity for All", which provides a detailed account of our strategy, measurement indicators and what more we need to do. The report shows that we have achieved a great deal and that our approach is working, and we will continue to deliver on this challenge over the years to come.
    Mr. Foulkes: But has it yet dawned on the Government that if they continue to measure relative poverty and use a percentage of median wage as the poverty level, we will never be able to eliminate poverty? Yet as wages increase at a much greater rate than inflation, everyone is getting wealthier. Surely, there must be some more sensible way of measuring genuine poverty, so we will achieve our aims and not hear the sort of nonsense that was spouted earlier by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).
    Malcolm Wicks: We want to consult on this matter, because the Government have a bold target of eradicating child poverty. Even on the difficult relative measure—it is difficult because we are trying to hit a moving target as a result of economic prosperity—500,000 fewer children are now in relative low-income households than in 1997. [Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to listen. They increased child poverty, while this Government have reduced it.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There al e record numbers of homeless people in this country today. Would Ministers care to comment on the fact that homeless families with children have increased by 11 per cent. in the past four years? What are the Government doing about that shocking situation?
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not accept that there are record numbers of homeless people, but I acknowledge that there is a housing problem, not least in the south-east. We are enabling more of those parents to get into jobs. That means that 250,000 fewer children are in workless households than when we took over from the Conservative Government. That is a double victory:
    18
    an attack on child poverty and more of our children growing up with experience of an adult in work in their families.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my hon. Friend in consultation with the Chancellor to ensure that continuing reform of the benefits and taxation system means that people in employment gain significantly from their efforts?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is absolutely vital when people take the difficult step from welfare dependency into work that we demonstrate that work pays financially. That is why the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit are so important. They have made work pay and meant an average weekly gain of £35. Our strategy is to make skilled work possible and to make it pay.

    Unemployment Figures
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What assessment he has made of the most recent unemployment figures. [81288]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. Consequently, unemployment has fallen to levels not experienced since the 1970s and has remained at those low levels for more than a year.
    Of course we want to do more. That is why we are introducing even more support to ensure that no area is bypassed and no one is excluded from mainstream economic prosperity.
    Mr. Bryant: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows about the dramatic fall in unemployment in constituencies such as the Rhondda since 1997. However, has he had an opportunity to consider the new survey that MORI conducted on behalf of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust into the attitudes of young people in former mining constituencies to employment? Has he noted that fewer than 1 per cent. of young people in such constituencies believed it likely that they would become company directors? What are the Government doing to ensure that young people in former mining constituencies increase their aspirations?
    Mr. Brown: We need to increase and broaden people's aspirations. Proactive management of the labour market is therefore important. A first job is a stepping stone to a whole career. There is no reason why people from constituencies that traditionally relied on a single employment base such as mining and shipbuilding should not share in the rest of the country's aspirations.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will agree that unemployment, especially youth unemployment, was already falling before the Labour party came to power. Does he also agree that skills

    19
    shortages are the problem in areas such as Vale of York? Who will conduct a skills audit to marry the skills that employers require to places that currently lack them?
    Mr. Brown: The regional development agencies are considering skills needs region by region. I take the opportunity to praise Yorkshire Forward, which covers the hon. Lady's constituency. The RDAs have recently produced studies that cover the ground that she rightly mentioned.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: What progress has the Jobcentre Plus initiative made?
    Maria Eagle: How long have we got?
    Mr. Brown: Exactly. The reply could keep us here until 3.30 pm. Jobcentre Plus is a flagship programme for the Department which has been established throughout the country. Its purpose is to bring together benefits advice and proactive labour market advice, and to help people to achieve the most that they can by getting them into work.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the Minister agree that it would be better for the Government to spend more time and resources in encouraging more young people to become apprentices in sonic of the trades that are suffering skills shortages instead of staying on at school to study inappropriate A-levels or even going on to university? Where are we going to get our future carpenters, plumbers, bricklayers and welders?
    Mr. Brown: It is right to look at modern apprenticeships, and to make sure that we are addressing skills shortages in the economy. That is a matter that should be discussed on a regular basis between my Department and the Department for Education and Skills.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Over the last five years, unemployment in my constituency has fallen to below 2 per cent., but individual wards still have high levels of unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a need for programmes to promote employment and enterprise in such wards, even though they are within constituencies with low overall levels of unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have programmes in place to target specific pockets of high unemployment. There is a range of reasons for that high unemployment, which is why the schemes to tackle it are varied.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will be pleased, as I was, to know that the Whitby Gazette recently reported that unemployment in that fishing port is at an all-time low. Given the debate that we had last week on fisheries, what work will his Department do in the event of fisheries employment
    20
    opportunities failing—we hope that that will not happen—because of the forthcoming threat being brought in by Europe?
    Mr. Brown: Where there have been large numbers of redundancies in the fishing sector—and in other sectors—local jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus, where it is rolled out, stand ready to help. If a rapid response is required, it will be there.

    Selby Coalfield Taskforce
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement concerning the work of his Department in assisting the Selby coalfield taskforce. [81289]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Jobcentre Plus is a member of the Selby coalfield taskforce, and it is involved both on the ground and in the development of the taskforce action plan. An application for rapid response service help has been approved, and resources have been deployed at each of the four sites affected. Jobcentre Plus is working alongside other partners to provide information, advice and guidance to workers. Because of the special circumstances, workers in the Selby coalfield can benefit from early access to training and other support from the rapid response service.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given the anticipated scale of the redundancies in the Selby coalfield in late 2003 and early 2004–2,000 jobs lost from the mines directly, and 3,000 indirectly—will he confirm that he is prepared to waive the so-called 90-day rule, which limits the assistance given by the rapid response unit to those applying within 90 days of being made redundant?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate of his constituents' interests. I can confirm that, given the very special circumstances in the area, I have acceded to Lord Haskins's request for the 90-day rule to be waived in respect of access to Government schemes.

    Child Care
    Ian Lucas: If he will bring forward proposals to extend child care provision for those in work. [81294]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The Government's vision is for every parent to be able to access affordable, good-quality childcare, where they wish to have it.
    Ian Lucas: One of the most difficult aspects of child care is the preferential provision that is given to in-place nurseries, rather than to people who work for smaller businesses, who want child care to improve their work capabilities. Is any action to be taken to assist those smaller businesses with financial support for the provision of child care?
    Maria Eagle: The Government already have a good record of creating new child care places, having done so

    21
    for an extra 1.6 million children. Along with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, we are currently examining the best way of ensuring that both public and private sector provision is improved still further, to ensure that parents have the opportunity to get their children into nursery and pre-school places.
    Mr. John Bercow: What discussions has the hon. Lady had with her colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the
    22
    Regions about one of the principal impediments to the better supply of decent child care, namely the rigidity and inflexibility of our current planning procedures?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that Department is now two Departments. I cannot tell whether he wants me to talk to the Department for Transport or ask about local government. We are working across government to ensure that improvements are made in the availability of child care for all our children.

Fire Dispute
3.30 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith(Urgent Question):To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the firefighters' dispute.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): The Government deeply regret the continuing firefighters' dispute and believe that it cannot be justified. The firefighters are currently paid under a formula agreed at the conclusion of the last firefighters' strike 25 years ago. Under that formula, their pay has kept pace with pay rises in the economy as a whole.
Following the election of the new general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union earlier this year, the union declared that it wanted to change the formula and tabled a 40 per cent. pay claim. The employers agreed to discuss a new formula, and agreed in the meantime to pay 4 per cent—an above-inflation pay increase roughly in line with the existing formula—and pay awards to comparable groups of workers. The union refused that offer.
In an effort to help, in September the Government appointed Sir George Bain, the highly respected chairman of the Low Pay Commission, to inquire into firefighters' pay and a possible new formula. We did so following consultation with the Trades Union Congress, and also appointed Tony Young, the former TUC president, to assist Sir George.
Meanwhile, in August we began preparations with the military for strike cover. The employers co-operated with Bain. The unions again refused even to allow their members to talk to him. When the time for the strike approached, as well as continuing preparations with the armed forces, we tried to facilitate negotiation. We brought forward Sir George Bain's report. He recommended that above-inflation pay increases could be paid, but only if accompanied by modernisation.
Among Sir George's findings were that full-time firefighters should lift the ban on working alongside part-time ones; that overtime, where it needed to be worked, could be worked; that management could change, where necessary, the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on, then four days off to provide a better service; that firefighters could be allowed to do basic training as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment such as defibrillators; that the fire service could share control rooms with other emergency services to provide efficiency of response; and that action be taken to improve the management of sickness in the service to reduce the extremely high numbers who retire early through sickness and ill health.
The employers welcomed the report; the FBU rejected it out of hand. Those changes to working practices, I believe, are plainly reasonable. They would produce substantial savings that could fund a better pay award. The potential deal that may have been reached last Friday morning between the union and the local government employers was unacceptable for the simple reason that it was not funded through modernisation. In addition, the agreement to modernise was only to talk about it, not a firm commitment to do it. The costings of
24
the deal were not calculated or given, although they were plainly significant. In effect, the Government were being asked for a blank cheque, which we could not sign.
The Government's position is that, over and above the 4 per cent. already offered to the firefighters, there can be no further money without that claim being paid for by modernisation. If the existing firefighters' pay formula, on which their union insisted for 25 years, is to be changed, it has to be changed by agreement. The Bain report offers increased pay above 4 per cent., paid for by changes in working practices. It is, as I say, a fair and reasonable report.
The Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside agreed Government spending limits; to do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. If the Government were to yield to this claim for pay increases way above inflation and not linked to productivity, the consequences across the whole public sector would be huge. Nurses and soldiers—after all, many of them are manning the appliances at the moment on pay far below that of the firefighters—as well as teachers and police officers would also seek similar claims, and all that we have done to produce the lowest inflation, the lowest unemployment and the lowest mortgage rates in Britain for decades would be put in jeopardy. That is a course we cannot take.
Meanwhile, the military do a superb job in providing replacement fire cover. I pay full tribute to our armed forces, Army, Navy and Air Force, They have done brilliantly, as ever, and we can be proud of them. I also thank the public, who have responded in an intelligent arid mature way to the strains put on services. Up to this point, after six days of strike action, they have coped admirably, saving numerous lives in the process. Obviously, however, the risk to the public is there. That is why, even now, I urge the unions to call off the dispute—which cannot succeed—and return to the negotiating table to discuss how modernisation can fund pay improvements over and above the 4 per cent.
The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's position on Thursday. He had offered to make a further statement to the House today, precisely to keep the House informed. It has obviously been superseded by my answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but I know that my right hon. Friend wishes—with your permission, Mr. Speaker—to make a further statement tomorrow.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces, who, as ever, are going about their duties with the utmost efficiency and professionalism. We owe them a real debt.
We have, however, now entered the fourth day of the firefighters' strike, and the threat to public safety grows with each passing day. It is unquestionably time for the firefighters to return to work, and for all parties to return to the negotiating table. Governments of any hue should not give in to inflationary pay demands: but Governments should also speak with consistency and clarity. That has not been the case with the present Government. On Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister described the draft agreement between the employers and the fire union as "half-baked". The Prime Minister seemed to reiterate that today, but yesterday he said it was "still worth talking about". Which is it? This

25
morning, the Chancellor dismissed the fire union's pay demand as "simply unaffordable", yet the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government were
"quite prepared to make an exceptional case"
for the firefighters. Which is it?
This morning, the Prime Minister said—and he has said it again here—that to give in would be a defeat for the country, but yesterday one of his own Cabinet Ministers said that the firefighters' claims had been "ignored for too long". Which is it?
Sadly, rather than speaking with consistency and clarity, the half-dozen Cabinet Ministers who have speaking for the Government over the weekend have said different things each time they have opened their mouths. Public safety is at risk, so the Prime Minister must answer some very serious questions. Now that he says he has taken charge, he must tell us what he will do to protect the public throughout this strike.
Four weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister to ensure that troops would be trained to use the most modern firefighting and life-saving equipment. Halfway through the present walk-out, why has he not done that yet? What is the Government's line? The Minister with responsibility for fire services said that no troops would cross the picket lines. Lord Falconer said that they would. The Chief of Defence Staff said that they should not. The Secretary of State for Defence said that the police would do it instead, but the police said that they would not. What precisely is the Government's position?
How will it be possible to gain access to a significant number of red fire engines, and when? Other public services, such as the London underground, have been severely disrupted by wildcat secondary action masquerading as concerns about health and safety. Now that the Health and Safety Executive has said that this action is unjustified, will the Prime Minister take legal action to ensure that the public do not suffer yet more misery?
Will the Prime Minister also use all the emergency powers and trade union legislation available to him? Every time the Deputy Prime Minister has been asked that question, he has sidestepped it by saying that we should ask the Attorney-General. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Government's position is?
Throughout the dispute, the Government have been woefully ill prepared. No two Ministers have agreed on the same line. There have been insufficient preparation and planning over the weeks and months during which there has been notice of the strike. The Prime Minister has been hard on rhetoric, but there has been no action from the rest of his Ministers, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has played his part in the escalation of the crisis. At the beginning of the 21st century, men and women are without the fire and safety cover to which they are entitled. This should never have happened. The country deserves better from its Government. It is time for action, not words.
The Prime Minister: The truth of the matter is that the Conservative party, as its shadow Deputy Prime Minister—or whatever the position is that he holds nowadays—said earlier today, basically agrees with the Government's position. However, because it is so concerned to make political capital out of anything it possibly can, it has to try to pretend that, at the same time as it agrees with the Government's position, there is something that it would have done differently. Indeed, it says on its website today that the Government have caused the strike. Given that its position is the same as ours—that any pay award has to be funded by modernization—I do not see how it can say that we have caused the strike.
The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that any extra money
"had to be financed out of changing work practices and the modernisation in the Fire Service".
That is precisely what I have said today and what the Chancellor said yesterday.
We have made it clear throughout that if the military want additional resources—red fire engines or anything else—they will have them. However, the military have not asked for more red fire appliances than we are giving them. If more are needed, they will have them.
The position as of today is that only one of London Underground's drivers has refused to work, so it would be somewhat excessive to take legal action on that basis.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Deputy Prime Minister said that emergency legislation is a matter for the Attorney-General. That is actually the law: it is a matter for the Attorney-General.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have refused to make any preparations for this strike—[Interruption.] He says that we have made none whatsoever. I suppose that the military just suddenly happened along a couple of weeks ago. The fact is that since August the Government have been making preparations for the dispute. The logistics are rightly in the hands of our armed forces, who are doing a superb job. May I give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of advice? If he is going to employ opportunism as a tactic, make it less transparent.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Conservative proposal to use the law to make the strikers in contempt, which would result in the mass imprisonment of firefighters, would be unlikely to douse any fires either literally or metaphorically?
The Prime Minister: We know what the game of the Conservative party has been from the moment the dispute began: to exploit it for all it is worth—[Interruption.] Let me repeat that: from the very beginning, rather than attempt to help in the dispute, it has done everything it can to inflame it. That is, frankly, what we would expect, but it is worse than my hon. Friend says. The decision to use the law could be taken only by the Attorney-General, and that is not the position that he has taken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Robathan, our constituents will not understand us shouting across the Chamber at

27
one an other at a very serious time. Hon. Members should be allowed to ask questions and the Prime Minister should be able to answer.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Obviously, we all deplore the continuing strike action and the House of Commons is entirely correct to keep requesting and reminding the leadership of the FBU that it should not be conducting a national strike, that firefighters should be back at work, that the citizens of this country are entitled to receive the level of fire and emergency cover for which they pay through their taxation and that the FBU should be in negotiations based on the original Bain report. I pay tribute to the military services for doing a first-class job in this very unfortunate situation.
Will the Prime Minister concede that, over the past few days in particular, mixed messages have been emerging from the top of his Government? On the specific point that I raised with him a couple of weeks ago, will he confirm that Bain makes it clear that savings can accrue in due course from the process of modernisation, which we want to see encouraged, but that there may be additional costs sooner before the savings begin to come through? What is the Government's position? If there are transitional costs, will the Government meet them if the FBU signs up to modernisation?
The Prime Minister: The short answer is that Bain makes it clear that any changes have to be paid for through modernisation. It was always anticipated that the report would come in two stages—we brought forward the first stage. Essentially, it says that the 7.5 per cent. in the second year of modernisation, in addition to the 4 per cent., could be funded by changes in working practices. It then says that there could be further changes in working practices, yielding further benefits. It is within those parameters that people must negotiate. I entirely understand, because of the two stages and the different figures being bandied about, why people ask whether it will be this percentage or that percentage, but, with the greatest respect, the basic point is that they must negotiate on the basis of Bain. Why? Because if they want more than the 4 per cent., it must be paid for by modernisation. The rest should be left to the negotiators to negotiate, but they need to do so within those parameters.
David Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister stop referring to 40 per cent., because I understand that 16 per cent. was agreed by both sides on Thursday? We were already a good way towards a negotiated settlement. Does he understand the anger and frustration of many people in my area who are offended by many of the remarks made here about firefighters? Lothian and Borders fire brigade is already committed to producing 50 per cent. of what Bain has projected. The fire service is different things to different people in different parts of the country, and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: It may well be true that the firefighters have come off the original 40 per cent. claim,
28
but that was the basis on which they first took strike action. We cannot have negotiations between the employers and the trade union through the night that materially change what is on offer, and then simply hand the bill to the Government and say, "Pay it—and if you don't pay it, what's more, within the next hour or two we're going on strike."
I am sorry, but if we are to get to a negotiated settlement, some reason has to be employed. The reason, surely, is that there is an existing pay formula. Many people across the public sector have a formula, including the firefighters. Two years ago, I think, the Fire Brigades Union leadership said that the firefighters' formula had to be maintained, because it was the basis of fairness for them. If they now want to change it, fair enough, we are all agreed, let us change it, but it has to be changed as part of a deliberative process whereby we work out a new formula reasonably, and not on the basis of eight-day strike action.
Mr. Roger Gale: At his pre-parliamentary scrutiny conference this morning, the Prime Minister said—he repeated it this afternoon—that full-time firemen were not prepared to work with retained firemen. They are in my constituency. Who gave him that information? He also said that the Chief of Defence Staff was satisfied that our commitments, including a war, could be met irrespective of the number of troops being used to fight fires. Would he care to place that on the record in the House of Commons and confirm that that is what the Chief of Defence Staff thinks?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I think that I did that last week at Prime Minister's questions, in an answer to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. What the Chief of Defence Staff said was perfectly obvious. Obviously, soldiers would prefer not to be doing firefighting duties, and if 19,000 people are employed on those duties they are clearly not available for other duties. That is a statement of the obvious. However, he went on to say that we would have full operational cover for any requirement that might be placed on us, and that is the case.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the point is simply that at present there is a general ban on full-time firefighters working alongside the part-timers. If the FBU wants to agree the changes in the Bain report, let it do so—and frankly, I would hope that he would agree with us on that.
Llew Smith: Will the Prime Minister explain how we can afford to fund a war against Iraq but cannot find the necessary money to meet the just demand of the firefighters for a living wage?
The Prime Minister: Because it is important that we play our full part in meeting our responsibilities in the fight against terrorism and against weapons of mass destruction—it would do enormous damage to this country if those evils were not confronted and defeated—but it is also important that we take a proper view of public money and how it is used. I heard some of the comments from union leaders at lunchtime about firefighters being a special case. With the greatest respect, everybody always argues that they are a special

29
case in such circumstances. However, I have not yet had an answer to how I could agree such a pay claim for the firefighters but tell a nurse, soldier or teacher that they were not entitled to the same. Until that answer can he given in a way consistent with running the economy and with low inflation, mortgate rates and unemployment. I am afraid that the Government's position will have to remain as it is.
Mr. Alan Duncan: How exactly, apart from laying off people, would the modernisation proposals contained in the Bain report lead immediately to the hard cash needed to fund any increase in firefighters' pay?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman goes through the Bain report, he will see that Sir George Bain describes how those savings could be achieved. For example, if firefighters are able to manage the shift system more effectively, changes and savings could of course be made. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will give him a couple of examples showing how the military are already running the cover in the dispute. First, they have taken account of the fact that it is better to have joint control rooms with the other emergency services, which is producing greater efficiency. Secondly, they have already worked out that 75 per cent. of calls are made during the day and that there is therefore not the same requirement for people to be on duty during the night. All these factors can save money.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Consequent upon the question put by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Government financial support for an unrealistic, irresponsibly negotiated pay deal would spell catastrophe for every trade unionist in this country as well as for the country as a whole?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. If we yield to this pay claim, it will have consequences right across the economy. It would result in the huge benefits that we have seen over the past few years—the lowest inflation and unemployment for decades and the lowest mortgage rates for almost 40 years—being put at risk. That is why the Government cannot responsibly agree to this claim.
Bob Russell: We accept that firefighters have the right to withdraw their labour and that they are entitled to have picket lines, but will the Prime Minister clarify the legal position—for example, insurance matters and safety at work—if striking firefighters continue to occupy fire stations and use all their facilities?
The Prime Minister: Firefighters are, of course. entitled to mount their picket lines. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an odd situation when fire stations are used to put across the case in this dispute. The way in which fire services are managed must be considered during the course of the dispute.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does the Prime Minister accept that most people consider that dual controls, modernisation proposals such as carrying
30
defibrillators and paramedic training are simply commonsense measures that they want to be implemented to improve the service that they receive? However, they do not understand why an Opposition party that basically agrees with that position is being so opportunistic as to attack the Government.
The Prime Minister: The Opposition position was described on Sky News just a short time ago by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who said something like, "We basically agree with the Government's position." However, that does not stop them making the remarks that they have made today. If I may give them some advice, I do not think that it is very wise opposition.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that although he was clearly right to reject a 16 per cent. pay settlement, none the less the Government are much to be blamed for their failure to speak with one voice and to ensure that the local employers' negotiating body fully understood the limitations on its negotiating position?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, I reject both points. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, any additional pay must be funded out of modernisation. That has been the case from the beginning; it has been repeated every time the Government have been asked and it is repeated again now.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, the local government employers have always known, because we have said so from the outset, that additional pay must be paid for by modernisation.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh!
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may find it a boring thing to say, but that suggests that we have been repeating it a lot. With any luck, the penny will finally drop, even for the Conservatives.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: As the Prime Minister may know, there was a huge fire in a factory in my constituency on Friday. Will he join me in paying tribute to the armed forces who worked so magnificently to put out that fire and in recognising that FBU members attended to ascertain whether there was danger to life? Above all, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no repeat of the situation that arose on Friday morning and that the employers are under no illusion that they can come to a settlement and pass the bill to the Government?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right: it is clearly understood that there can be no question of doing that.
On the first point, I pay tribute to the armed forces and to the way in which they fought the fire in my hon. Friend's constituency. I also pay tribute to those firefighters who have come off their strike action to try to provide protection for people's lives. It is fair to say that they have made an agreement about emergency

31
cover in a gold command situation. That is sensible and right, and I hope that the sense that prevails in that aspect will prevail across the whole of the dispute.
Andrew Selous: What proportion of any pay offer will be funded directly by the Government, and what proportion by local authorities and hence council tax payers?
The Prime Minister: I shall explain again. The 4 per cent. is already agreed and local authorities can pay that from their existing settlement. Over and above that, the money has to come from modernization—from changes in working practice: precisely how much is a matter for negotiation between the two sides. I can do no more than repeat that the basic parameter is that if the amount is above 4 per cent. it has to be paid for by changes in working practices.
Jane Griffiths: This morning, firefighters on the picket line in my constituency told me that they want talks. They want to talk about modernisation. The ideas and suggestions that they put to me were highly positive and flexible. What would my right hon. Friend say in response to them?
The Prime Minister: There must be firefighters who are concerned about the action that has been taken and also about how to get themselves out of the dispute. There will be firefighters who have many reasonable points to make, and the way to do so is to sit down at the negotiating table, not to call a series of eight-day strikes that cannot really help the situation. I come back to the Bain report. It has been disparaged by parts of the FBU, but Sir George Bain has been known to the trade union movement for a long period. He did a magnificent job over the minimum wage. His two wing men were the person from the Local Government Association, who was also a former employer, and Tony Young, the president of the TUC last year. Those people can hardly be described as a biased committee. I hope that if firefighters look at the changes proposed in the report, they will see that they can get above-inflation pay increases, but paid for and funded in the way that I have described.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that the Army was warned at the end of July that it would need to prepare for such a strike; given that a considerable number of red fire engines are held in reserve and not behind picket lines; and given that Conservative Members estimate that it would take two weeks to train people to use those fire engines, whereas Labour Members estimate that it would take 12 weeks, why has not the Army been undergoing training since the end of July to use those available fire engines without having to cross picket lines?
The Prime Minister: Preparations to provide cover began in August. The military will be provided with whatever they need but, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we prefer to take their advice rather than his.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to meet the leaders of the
32
FBU, bearing in mind the fact that, as most people know, if these disputes go on for any length of time they usually end up in bitterness and recrimination? Today, I noticed that, through the media, the leaders of the FBU offered to meet him. Can he give an answer about that?
The Prime Minister: There have been many meetings with the Fire Brigades Union. The Deputy Prime Minister has constantly met the union and explained the position to it. It is only right to say that, at every stage of the dispute, he has attempted to resolve it and to prevent it from happening. The plain fact is that the meetings can go on for ever, but they must be based on certain clear understandings, and the beginning of understanding how all this has come about is the existing pay formula. Only when that pay formula is changed by agreement can we get a proper negotiation. Of course Ministers will continue to meet the FBU, or anybody else, but this will be resolved only if people realise that it must be resolved on the basis of reason.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate his official spokesman, who said last Friday that firefighters were not living in the real world? Does he accept that their world is a damn sight more real than that of most politicians? Will he tell the House what the extra costs to date have been in police overtime, local authority extra expenditure and Army expenditure? Will he try to address this question once again: is pump-priming available for a long-term settlement based on modernisation, or not?
The Prime Minister: Whatever the costs of fighting the dispute, they are less in our judgment than the costs of yielding to a claim that would trigger other claims right across the public sector, which there is no way the Government could afford. After all, as a result partly of the way that the economy has been managed, we are making the largest public spending investment in our public services that this country has seen since the second world war. We cannot go outside and breach those limits. Frankly, it is all a question of realising that, in the end, there is a reasonable way to approach this. We have tried to be reasonable, and if people do not want the reasonable way, we have, I am afraid, to stand firm and say that the interests of the country as a whole come first.
John McDonnell: The Prime Minister has said that any settlement has to be fully costed and linked to modernisation. Is he aware that the leader of the employers' side negotiators said at the weekend that the deal last Thursday was costed and that the information was available—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I am quoting directly from Mr. Ransford. The agreement said that any additional payment above 4 per cent. would be linked to modernisation and verified by a panel including the Audit Commission. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to go back to No. 10 and invite the union and the employers to meet him?
The Prime Minister: The difficulty is this: I have obviously studied the agreement—I have read it—that was entered into or may have been reached early on Friday morning, and if my hon. Friend looks at

33
paragraph 6 of that document, he will see that it makes it quite clear that there are, I think it says, significant costs over and above those that can be paid for by modernisation. What is more, there were no costings attached to that at all. Even more than that, we were then told, in effect, that we had to agree to that document and that the strike action would go ahead in any event.
I urge my hon. Friend, if he has any influence with the FBU, to go back to it and simply say that if it produces an agreement with costs attached, it is not really reasonable to say to the Government, "You have to sign the cheque for it, but we can't actually tell you what the
34
costs will be and, what's more, if you do not do it in the next couple of hours, we are all on strike for eight days." The Government cannot operate like that, so if my hon. Friend is saying to me on behalf of those in the FBU that they are prepared to talk about modernisation reasonably and to work out the costing involved in that, he should get them to sit back down with the employers and work it out, arid we will help in any way we can, but we cannot fund it outside of the modernisation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be another statement tomorrow.

NATO Summit (Prague)
4.4 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Prague on 20 to 22 November. With my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, I represented the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Council, at the special meeting of the North Atlantic Council, with the seven new countries invited to become new members, and at the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council. At the outset, I pay tribute to President Havel and our Czech hosts, and to the skilful chairmanship of the NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson, who has been widely and rightly praised for his leadership in that role.
The summit reflected the extraordinary changes in the global security environment in which all nations now operate. NATO itself has changed. We decided on seven new members: I congratulate Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia on their invitations; they are well deserved, and they reflect the progress in reform that all seven countries have made since the end of the cold war. All are on course to be in the alliance by the next summit in 18 months' time, and to be contributors to European security. That enlargement will strengthen NATO and make the whole continent of Europe more secure. Those invitations will not be the last. The United Kingdom will help those who want to join, and who meet the criteria, to succeed in future.
Secondly, NATO continues to build new relationships outside its formal membership. Most importantly, the relationship with Russia has been transformed in the last year. We now work with Russia as an equal partner, co-operating in a whole range of areas. A good example is the Balkans, where NATO and Russia are together making an immense contribution towards our goal of a peaceful and stable Balkans playing a full part in the European family.
One of NATO's greatest benefits has been the forum it has provided for its European and transatlantic members to deal with security challenges together. My great hope is that we are now beginning to include the new Russia as a real partner in meeting the new threats we face. There was a useful meeting in Prague of the NATO-Russia council at Foreign Minister level. NATO is also pursuing its practical co-operation with Ukraine and strengthening its wider partnerships with the Mediterranean, central Asia and the Caucasus.
NATO is also building a close and effective relationship with the European Union on crisis management, for example, in the Balkans. At Prague, we decided to maintain a NATO presence in Macedonia for a further limited period. Once the EU-NATO links are in place, I am keen to see a European security and defence policy operation in Macedonia, to show that Europe can play its part in bringing security and stability to that part of our continent.
Thirdly, NATO needs to develop new capabilities. The cold war is over, and there are new missions and new threats. The key is flexibility of response, adaptability of military forces, and modernisation of defence capabilities. The Prague summit agreed on these new instruments to help to meet those new challenges: a
new NATO response force will provide NATO with effective forces available at short notice; all allies have committed to improve their capabilities in specific ways to support and equip forces that are flexible and deployable; and we agreed on a revised, reduced and refocused command structure.
Above all, the summit was a profound demonstration of unity in the face of the new threats that confront us. Every nation spoke of the menace of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We all recognised that there is no place to hide from them. The terrorists do not distinguish between the "soft" or "hard" nations on terrorism. Every European country knows that it is under threat, whether it is known as a strong supporter of US policy or not. Every nation talked of cells of the al-Qaeda terrorist network or related groups ready to strike at innocent people.
This is not a war that we can avoid. There is no appeasing the fanatics. They will not go more lightly on us if we are less outspoken in our condemnation of them. Their enemy is anyone who is not them, and they feel as strongly—sometimes more so—against the moderate Moslem as they do against the Christian or Jew or Hindu.
The NATO summit affirmed that simple truth. It was a remarkable statement of defiance. It linked very clearly—and, I believe, rightly—terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The threat from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue unstable states is not part of some different danger. It, like terrorism, represents savage indifference to human life. It, too, crosses national boundaries without discrimination. It, too, cannot be negotiated with or appeased—simply defeated utterly.
The strength of the NATO summit statement on Iraq was testimony to that belief. There was complete unanimity around the table that the choice for war or peace lies with Saddam, and that if he breaches the will of the United Nations, the United Nations will have to act. There was strong support for multilateralism and for the decision of President Bush to go through the UN, but equally strong insistence that multilateralism and the UN be seen to work.
Some of the most powerful expressions of these sentiments on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction came not from the old but from the new members of the NATO alliance.
President Havel was a prisoner of the old communist regime; he was witness to the dissolution of the Warsaw pact; he has now presided over NATO's largest gathering. The President of Lithuania, who has seen his country raped and destroyed by war and totalitarian oppression and who lived for 50 years in Chicago as an exile from his homeland, is now back as its President. The President of Latvia, for years a Professor in Montreal, spoke in the most moving terms of her country's long dark years of struggle for freedom and of its pride in becoming part of NATO.
Each representative had a story to tell and all with the same theme: they know the value of the fight for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law, the struggle to break free of totalitarian intolerance and fanaticism. They know the meaning of terrorism and of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of brutal and repressive states. They know that extremism has just taken a new

37
form for the 21st century, and they were complete in their determination that these new threats had to be faced, conquered and consigned to history just like the old threats and struggles from the 20th century. They had a lot to tell us about the values we believe in. Sometimes we can be complacent about them, but they were not. They know their worth, and the ultimate message from the NATO summit was far more powerful than discussion of capabilities or formal structures. It was that, if we care about these values of freedom, the rule of law and democracy, we should not flinch from the fight in defending them. I know that this country, Britain, will defend them with courage and certainty.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is right that NATO is the foundation stone of our national security. No other organisation could come close to fulfilling that task, which is why we particularly welcome the Prague statement on Iraq.
The Prime Minister is also right to highlight the threat from terrorists as well as from weapons of mass destruction, particularly those possessed by rogue states. Those who say that the issues are not linked are wrong. They are linked, and they are also linked by their effect in the hands of the wrong people.
The Prague commitment to transform NATO with its new members, new capabilities and new relationships with our partners is a step in the right direction. It is positive for them and it is positive for us. However, there are practical questions. The main question for the Prime Minister is: have the key issues been conclusively resolved? When will European members of NATO start increasing defence spending instead of cutting it?
The Prague statement is long on future capabilities but short on specific spending commitments. How can we be sure that our NATO allies will deliver stronger defence? What assurances has the Prime Minister received? Can he clarify how the Prague statement differs from the previous NATO defence capabilities initiative? What guarantees are there that Prague will deliver where previous initiatives have so far failed?
We also welcome the commitment to the new NATO response force, which is vital to enable NATO nations to contribute effectively to the war against terrorism, which the Prime Minister stressed. The Army, however, now finds itself committed to both the Euro army and to NATO. Can he confirm that NATO commitments, rather than those of the Euro army, will always have priority?
That question underlines the failure of the summit to deal with the relationship between the Euro army and NATO. The Prime Minister promised that this key issue would be resolved four years ago. Last year, he again told the House:
"We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 19.]
Following assurances the Prime Minister gave to President Bush, the President said:
"He also assured me that European defence would in no way undermine NATO&there would be a joint command, that planning would take place within NATO".
Will the Prime Minister answer the following questions? Where is the joint command now? Where is the planning within NATO that he promised? As it stands,
"The EU's Defence Policy cannot be 'within NATO'."
Those are not my words but those of his Secretary of State for Defence in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). How is the statement that the EU's defence policy cannot be within NATO consistent with what the Prime Minister told the House and the President?
The confusion between the EU and NATO is already threatening the coherence of the peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. [Interruption.] Oh yes it is. The Prime Minister says that he would like a Euro army operation in Macedonia once the EU-NATO links are in place. Is he saying, therefore, that no Euro army operation should take place until permanent arrangements between the EU and NATO have been made? Perhaps he could answer that.
The Prime Minister will recall that the Euro army was a French policy that he signed up to at St. Malo. It was a bad decision. It has undermined NATO, confused our allies and threatens to weaken European security.
The Prime Minister: Some European members, such as France, are increasing defence spending. After years of falling defence expenditure—cut by, I think, a third under the Conservatives—Britain is also increasing its defence spending. It is true that we need to do more, however, and we are urging people to do that. The prior capabilities commitments differ from earlier arrangements in that they include specific commitments on individual countries, so that takes things forward.
I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on European defence. It is absolutely correct that it has not been possible as yet to reach agreement between Europe and NATO. That is because there is a disagreement, effectively between Turkey and Greece, over the terms. It is important to overcome that disagreement and I am reasonably optimistic that we will. It is extremely important that we push European defence forward. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his party's position on that. There will be circumstances in which Europe is able to act but NATO is not, perhaps because of American unwillingness to act. If NATO as a whole does not wish to be engaged, it makes perfect sense for European defence to take over.
Incidentally, it is not a matter of creating a Euro army. The armies remain part of the armies of individual countries. It is simply a case of them coming together to do things properly, as they would in a NATO exercise. The operation is important in Macedonia because the Americans have made it clear that they prefer it to be led from Europe. Instead of taking a blanket opposition to any concept to European defence, the right hon. Gentleman should realise that if it can be done on the right terms—if it is fully complementary with NATO; if
it is on the basis that Britain, the Americans and all the Europeans agree; and if we get over the disagreement between Turkey and Greece—we will enhance our ability to undertake defence operations when NATO does not want to be involved. That is an additional string to our bow rather than a drawback.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In welcoming the statement and the success of the summit, it is only fair to echo the tribute paid to George Robertson for the highly principled and successful conduct of his secretary-generalship. For those of us who remember the Monday afternoon years ago when, under the procedures of the House at the time, we were unable to have a meaningful exchange about the cataclysmic events that had taken place with the collapse of the Berlin wall, it is hard to imagine any British Prime Minister making a statement confirming that seven new accession countries, based on the principles of democracy, are joining NATO. That is a great justification for the entire raison d'être of NATO and its success over the years.
Does the Prime Minister share my curiosity? We just heard the argument that greater coherence and integration of NATO—a wider NATO—and, at the same time, greater coherence and integration of the defence realm in Europe are bad ideas, but if that is the case it is puzzling that countries are queuing up to join both organisations. Instead, they see the success and future stability that such membership and co-operation can bring.
Can the Prime Minister say a little more about the comparative funding? The Americans are always unhappy about the European contribution to defence—there is nothing new about that—but does he anticipate that countries that may not have contributed as much per capita as we would like can do more in that direction?
Finally, on the important matter of Iraq, while welcoming the endorsement at the summit of UN resolution 1441, will he confirm that in signing up to that unanimously, all participants at the summit were signing up to the UN having the final categoric judgment if material breaches take place and that the ultimate decision, if military force ever does have to be used, has to be made under the mandate of the United Nations as well?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, that is not what the NATO statement said and it is not what the resolution says either. We have made it clear throughout—this is in the terms of the resolution—that of course there will be further discussion in the Security Council. We have also made it clear, rightly, that in the end, if there is a breach, the UN must act. If it does not act, we are in a serious situation, but I hope and believe that it will in those circumstances. There was a remarkable degree of unanimity around the table that we should go the multilateral route, but it has got to work—there cannot be an unreasonable blockage against it working.
On the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about defence spending, some countries are increasing their defence spending, but others are not. As important as the amount spent is the way in which it is spent. If we look at the amount spent in Europe on defence, frankly there are much better ways in which it could be spent—that is why the Prague capabilities document is important.
On the issue of Europe and NATO, I am forcibly struck by how crazy it would be for this country to turn its back on Europe. The new countries coming into
NATO see their whole future around the membership of NATO and the European Union—it is important to them. The idea that, at a time when Europe expands to 25 and other countries are queuing up to join, we should take ourselves off to the margins of Europe would defeat this country's national interests. I personally do not believe that people will regard the Conservative party as a serious party until it rejects that type of anti-Europeanism completely.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if military action is taken against Iraq by America, or America and Britain, without the express authority of the United Nations it will lack international political legitimacy? Does he agree that that would severely damage not only the United Nations but NATO, an organisation that I strongly support?
The Prime Minister: I simply go back to what I said a moment or two ago. It will all depend on the circumstances. As my hon. Friend knows and as was pointed out at the time of Labour party conference, in Kosovo, for example, we took action outside the UN because there was an unreasonable blockage against action being taken. I do not believe, however, that we will get to that point. The countries that signed up to the deal at the United Nations know that if there is a breach by Saddam we have to act. At the heart of the agreement, and throughout all the negotiations at the United Nations, America, ourselves and some countries agreed to go the multilateral route and others agreed that that route should work. The inspectors are put back in and, if they find that there is a breach, we act. That is a fair and reasonable way to proceed.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Prime Minister has faced up to the challenges confronting NATO and ourselves, but he has not faced up to overstretch in our armed forces, which will have to help to implement those challenges. Will he confirm that at the Downing street press conference, the Chief of Defence Staff did not just say that the 19,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen involved in firefighting duties were not available at present—a very obvious point—but that they are not able to train for the vital war fighting duties that they may face in the next month or two, which, by inference, could put their lives and missions at risk?
The Prime Minister: He did not say that, with respect—the hon. Gentleman himself made all the remaining points. He said that if 19,000 are tied up they are not available for other duties. That is obviously right. However, he went on to say—if necessary, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of what he actually said—that they would have full operational cover for any requirement placed on them, including Iraq. That is the position.
Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the alliance formed through NATO 53 years ago has played a key role in bringing security and in making war between individual nation states unthinkable in the European continent? Does he further agree that when the decisions of the Prague summit are implemented, as they undoubtedly will be

41
under the strong leadership of the NATO Secretary-General, NATO will become an alliance providing security not just in Europe, but across the global stage?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It was a Labour Government Foreign Secretary who played such an enormous part in bringing NATO about all those years ago, and it is the present Foreign Secretary who is engaged in the work of making sure that we expand the NATO membership and, equally important, making sure that we have a new relationship with Russia, in which Russia sees itself as a partner of NATO, and not in a position of hostility to NATO. That is a huge change that has come about in the past year.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Is the Prime Minister aware of increasing reports in Le Figaro and other European newspapers that at the Prague summit France and Germany discussed and signed a four-page document on European security? How does that square with what he has just told the House?
The Prime Minister: Whatever the French and Germans may agree or not agree, anything that is agreed will have to be agreed by all 15 members al the Copenhagen summit. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. Everyone wants to see European defence conducted consistently with NATO. The difficulty has been the disagreement between Turkey and Greece. That has held up progress for a couple of years or more. The only way that we can get over that is by reaching agreement. I saw the leader of the party that won the election in Turkey recently, Mr. Erdogan. I also saw President Cezer of Turkey at the Prague summit. They told me that they thought it would be possible very shortly to reach an agreement on European defence. I very much hope that that is true, as it would push matters forward enormously, not merely for European defence, but for Turkey. We should not be in the least fussed about what the French and the Germans may agree together. I am sure that the agreement will be considered carefully by others at the Prague summit, but we take our own position.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The inclusion of Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia is good news for the stability of the Balkans. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will keep working towards other countries in the Balkans joining NATO and further enhancing stability and security in that region?
The Prime Minister: I certainly will. It is precisely the pull of European Union membership and NATO membership that means that those countries in the Balkans, which, after all, have given us in the rest of Europe the most terrible headache for the past 100 years, are making extraordinary strides and improvements. They are doing so because of the magnet of European Union and NATO membership. The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right.
Mr. David Heath: In the context of the accession of the Baltic states to NATO and, hopefully, their accession to the European Union in future, are all the outstanding issues to do with Kaliningrad now resolved?
The Prime Minister: I think that they are basically resolved. There is still a discussion that needs to take place finally between the European Union, Lithuania and Russia, but I believe that, in principle, that agreement is now there.
Mr. John Smith: I welcome the summit and the expansion of NATO membership. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the key role played by British military advisers in helping those countries qualify? Finally, given the wider membership, does he agree that we need to speed up the reform and the streamlining of the NATO command structure?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that we agreed was to refocus, reduce and streamline the NATO command structure. As my hon. Friend says, that should happen as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that NATO is setting up a rapid reaction force, including the United States, to tackle international terrorism and other wide-ranging threats to our security, why does not the Prime Minister accept that, in practice, the EU rapid reaction force will wither on the vine as the concept of rapid reaction becomes enshrined in the NATO structure, where it should have remained all along?
The Prime Minister: For that very reason—the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on exactly the point that must be confronted. With respect, the United States does not want its forces to be involved in every single bit of peacekeeping or every humanitarian mission. That is simply not the case. We now have an agreement on Macedonia and it is generally considered best that European forces take that on. In circumstances in which NATO decides that it does not want to be involved, it is sensible to have the arrangement in reserve. That is what has been said about European defence and it has been properly done. Incidentally, that is why every other country in NATO is supporting the concept of getting the agreement. The British Conservative party may have set its face against it, but that is not the position of the American Republican party, never mind any other Conservative party in Europe. The agreement is simply that, in circumstances in which NATO does not want to be involved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where does it say that?"] If hon. Members go back and look at every single thing that has been said about the agreement from the beginning, they will see that it has always been the case that if NATO does not want to be involved, those are the circumstances in which European defence comes into play. As I said a moment ago, if hon. Members set their faces against European defence in any set of circumstances, we will not have the opportunity to produce a defence force in circumstances in which NATO does not want to be involved. We will be the only country in Europe not playing our part in the debate about European defence.
Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we should welcome the historic enlargement, many problems remain? For example, last week, I think, the Hungarian Defence Minister made a candid confession that after having been invited to join

43
NATO in 1997 and formally joining in 1999, his country had fulfilled less than one third of the commitments that had been made. Would it not now be prudent for future enlargements—I am glad that the door remains open—to involve a two-stage process, in which invitations are issued, but are contingent on fulfilment of the commitments before formal membership is granted?
The Prime Minister: The point that my right hon. Friend makes is right. It was always anticipated that some countries would have a catch-up period even after they became members of NATO, but in each case a process is in place to try to track what happens and ensure that it is done properly. He will accept that some countries have made enormous changes to get as far as they have.
Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend will know that a large number of members of NATO and the international community regard UN resolution 1441 as carrying no specific mandate for a war against Iraq. Will he give the House an assurance that before he commits any British troops or support to such a war, he will seek, first, a specific mandate for a war through the UN, and secondly, a specific vote in advance from the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal with both those points in the main debate. In the end, it is anticipated that there will be another discussion in the Security Council. All that we have said is that we hope very much that that discussion will be successful. The resolution is certainly predicated on the basis that if there is a breach, there is agreement to act. I believe that that is a sensible position. As for consulting the House, we have done so throughout and always have done on these occasions. In respect of Kosovo and Afghanistan, we did our level best to do that. In the course of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal to anyone's reasonable satisfaction with the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To what effect will the discussion in the Security Council be? Will the Security Council have the final judgment on the weapons inspectors' report?
The Prime Minister: It will be for the weapons inspectors to say whether there is a breach and there will then be discussion about the seriousness of that breach. We have undertaken to take the matter back to the Security Council. All that we have been saying throughout is that the implication is that if there is a significant breach, there must be action. I think that there is international consensus that it is not sensible to tie ourselves down now to every single set of circumstances, that we want to keep some freedom of manoeuvre and that we should keep maximum pressure on Saddam. He has to know that unless he gets rid of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through the weapons inspectors, it will be done by force. There was remarkable unanimity; even countries that were more
44
hesitant about agreeing to the UN resolution accept that the world must act if there is a breach, inspectors are defied and Saddam does not co-operate properly.
President Bush made a principled and difficult decision to go through the United Nations. He was right to do that. We supported him strongly and we are now obliged to ensure that the UN route works. I believe that we can do it in a way that avoids conflict, if at all possible. In any event, Saddam must know that he will be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the accession of Romania to NATO will be a huge boost to peace and prosperity from a nation that suffered under Ceausescu's terror regime?
The Prime Minister: Well, it is remarkable to remember Romania under Ceausescu 15 or 20 years ago, the changes that it has made and its huge struggle to achieve improvements. If people want an antidote to cynicism about politics, they should listen to speeches from those in former communist countries about what membership of NATO and of the European Union mean to them. They know all about freedom because, until recently, they had none.
Ross Cranston: II congratulate my right hon. Friend on his role in such a successful summit. What assessment has he made of the changes necessary in Ukraine so that it can be permanently at the table?
The Prime Minister: A strong message was given to Ukraine at the summit. It is important, if it wants to take its place properly in partnership with other countries, that some specific rules and liberties are maintained and respected. I hope that it received that message as strongly as it was intended.
Harry Cohen: When the Prime Minister met the new leadership of Turkey, did he discuss the statement of former European leaders such as Valery Giscard d'Estaing that there was no place for a Muslim country in the EU? Did my right hon. Friend say that Turkey is an effective partner in NATO, that it could perform that function in the EU, and that the United Kingdom will have no truck with such racism?
The Prime Minister: We have made a strong statement in support of Turkey's membership of the European Union. On the basis of discussions that I held with Mr. Erdogan and the President of Turkey, 1 hope that it will be possible to make a commitment to that country at the European Council in Copenhagen. I hope that we will set a firm date for negotiations, that they will form part of a package to lay to rest some of the outstanding difficulties on European defence and that we shall at least find a proper way forward on Cyprus. The dispute holds us back. It is right to extend the hand of friendship and partnership to Turkey; I hope that it will be reciprocated.
Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that preceded the summit included the welcome presence of the member of that body who had just become Prime Minister of Turkey? In his speech to the

45
Assembly, Abdullah Gul made it clear that Turkey is a Muslim country but a secular state, and that there is a historic opportunity to resolve the Cyprus issue once and for all.
The Prime Minister: I agree with those sentiments. The Prime Minister was right, and Turkey's eventual accession to the European Union would offer tremendous possibilities and opportunities for our future. I therefore hope that the new spirit of progress and engagement works out.
Mr. David Chidgey: Given our recent difficulties in achieving agreement, let alone unanimity, among NATO allies on, for example, the Gulf war, exercises in Kosovo, and the coalition against terrorism, how convinced is the Prime Minister that the rapid reaction force will live up to its name?
The Prime Minister: We have an agreement in principle to establish it, and I hope that it can come about. On the whole, the agreements that we have reached in NATO—for example, over Kosovo and the war against terrorism—have been pretty impressive. Given that there are many different countries with different interests round the table, it is perhaps more impressive than the hon. Gentleman's question implies. Of course, agreeing to the rapid reaction force in principle is not the same as implementing it; we have to make sure that it is followed through.

Point of Order
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will see on today's Order Paper that under our new arrangements for the delivery of ministerial statements to the House, there are five statements down to be made today, and that one of them is to be made by the Minister for the Armed Forces on the defence training review rationalisation programme. I was made aware on Thursday night that that statement was to be made, when a journalist from The Times newspaper telephoned me at 7.30 pm, and I eventually obtained a copy of it on Friday. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the House, especially when the matter involves a great many right hon. and hon. Members? We know that the Ministry of Defence was thrown into complete confusion last week by the honesty of the Chief of the Defence Staff when he blew the whistle on the Government's short-changing of our armed forces. Nevertheless, will you give advice to Ministers that they have a duty to the House to ensure that statements are delivered at the time that they are supposed to be made to the House under the new arrangements designed to help Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: Ministers have a clear duty, and I will look into the hon. Gentleman's complaint. I take it very seriously, and I will report back to him on this matter.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Paul Boateng, Secretary Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to make provision about finance, and other provision, in connection with local and certain other authorities; to provide for changing the dates of local elections in 2004; to amend the Audit Commission Act 1998; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 9].
Orders of the Day

  UN Security Council Resolution 1441
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
  4.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
  That this House supports UNSCR 1441 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all provisions of the Resolution; and agrees that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.
  Before I come to the case for the motion, may I say how sorry I am—and I think that I speak for the whole House—that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, is unable to be with us today. He attracts great respect in the House because of his contribution to its work. I have been able to talk to him, and I know that the prognosis is good. I would like, through you Mr. Speaker, to wish him a very speedy recovery.
  On 7 November, I made a statement to the House about the negotiations on the new United Nations Security Council resolution. I did so not because the negotiations had been concluded, but because that was the last day before the prorogation of Parliament. I said then that I hoped that a large majority of the Security Council would vote in favour of the resolution. I said that as much in hope as in expectation. On the following day, 8 November, Security Council resolution 1441 was adopted 15:0—unanimously. All five permanent members supported it, as did countries as diverse as Mexico, Cameroon, Ireland and Syria. The resolution represents the considered view of the international community that Iraq must end its decade of defiance of the United Nations.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will give way to her later.
  For the United Kingdom. support for the UN has always been a central tenet of our foreign policy. It is the embodiment of our belief in an international order of peace and security. The UN charter is a robust document.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If I may be allowed to make a little progress first, I shall of course give way.
  The UN charter provides in chapter VII for mandatory obligations to be binding on all member states, and it makes it clear that these resolutions may be backed by military action.
  48
  Today. Iraq stands in breach of nine separate chapter VII Security Council resolutions. It has completely ignored 23 distinct obligations out of a total of 27. That plainly cannot be allowed to continue. As President Bush said to the UN General Assembly on 12 September, the UN has either to enforce the writ of its own resolution or risk becoming irrelevant. Happily, the Security Council responded to his challenge.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way and I apologise for intervening so early in his speech, but I do so for a particular reason.
  Over the past two days, there have been media reports that the Secretary of State for Defence is likely to make a statement today on troop deployments or calling up the reserves. If that were to be the case, obviously he would not be able to do so until his speech at the end of the debate. That would be totally unsatisfactory, as the House could not debate those issues. If he is likely to make a statement, will the Foreign Secretary outline what is in it so that it can form part of the debate?
  Mr. Straw: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as the Prime Minister made clear, we have quite properly, because it is our duty, ensured that the House is kept fully informed and, where appropriate, is able to vote on substantive motions on the issue. That will continue. When and if there is an appropriate moment for a statement to be made on calling up reserves, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is in his place next to me, will make it. As it happens, and although I shall speak briefly on the preparedness of our troops, no such statement is currently in prospect.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. As he knows, I receive a large amount of correspondence on this issue, and I have here half my weekend's post on Iraq and the UN resolution. My constituents are concerned that the resolution deliberately makes it difficult and potentially impossible for Iraq to comply, mainly because it requires Iraq to produce within 30 days a full inventory—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but interventions should be a little more spontaneous and certainly fairly brief in the context of the limited time available for the debate.
  Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The concern is that Iraq is being asked to produce within 30 days a full inventory of all activities and all chemical facilities in that country, including non-military areas. Will my right hon. Friend comment so that I can feed back the information to my constituents?
  Mr. Straw: May I say to my hon. Friend, as I say to my other hon. Friends, that I shall deal with that issue and others that I know are of concern to many people in the country? I hope to reassure them. May I also say that nobody who reads the full text of resolution 1441, including paragraph 3, can be in any doubt that it is straightforward for Iraq to comply? It can comply if it wishes.
  Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend refers to the Government's consistent support for the UN. Would it

  49
  not be a good idea at this point to place it on record that paragraph 3 of clause IV of the Labour party constitution also says that we should co-operate with the UN and that that part of the constitution was moved by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn?
  Mr. Straw: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend—as ever, I have to say. It must be one of the few parts of clause IV that was not amended by people such as me, when we had the opportunity to do so and to modernise it in 1994. He is quite right that it is a timeless part of our constitution and I am very glad that we are so committed to it. It has also to be said, as he tempts me down that path, that I am just old enough to remember when Mr. Wedgwood Benn was one of the leading modernisers—
  Mr. George Galloway: That is when you were on the left.
  Mr. Straw: I still am. Some of us still are-unlike my hon. Friend, who will doubtless go through some contortions to explain why he takes his current position on the Security Council resolution.
  Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress now.
  My speech endeavours to deal with key questions that I know are on the minds of many Members on both sides of the House. As I have said, President Bush told the General Assembly on 12 September that the UN must either enforce the writ of its own resolutions or risk becoming irrelevant. Happily, the Security Council responded to that challenge.
  Negotiations on resolution 1441 were long and intensive. It was some eight weeks in gestation, and that period was one of unrelenting high-level diplomatic contacts. The Prime Minister made frequent telephone calls to President Bush, and spoke regularly to other Heads of Government. I had daily, sometimes hourly, contacts with my counterparts. But the success of that diplomatic activity owes much to the expertise and professionalism of many British diplomats and officials in New York, in London and around the world, and I pay tribute to them.
  I want to describe the process of inspection set out in resolution 1441, then to answer four key questions. The questions are these. First, what constitutes a material breach? Secondly, who decides and what happens if there is a material breach? Thirdly, would there be a second Security Council resolution if military action proved necessary? Fourthly, if Her Majesty's Government were to decide that military action was necessary, would the House be able to vote on it, and if so when?
  Resolution 1441 has one central aim: the peaceful removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through an effective inspection regime. Although it is a complex resolution, it is carefully constructed. It sets out in its operative paragraphs the steps that Iraq must now take. At its outset, in paragraph 1, it makes it clear that Iraq
  "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations"
  50
  under existing Security Council resolutions, in particular through its
  "failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA"
  —that is, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Paragraph 2 clearly states that this is Iraq's
  "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".
  Paragraph 9 demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of the passing of the resolution
  "its intention to comply fully with this resolution".
  Iraq has now sent two letters in response to that paragraph, one nine pages long and the second—which arrived over the weekend—13 pages long. Despite their verbosity and their argumentative nature, we are treating them as a yes. I say that in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).
  The next deadline is 8 December. By that time, under paragraph 3, Iraq must have provided the inspectors, UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Security Council with an
  "accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems".
  Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei have already given Iraq advice in regard to that disclosure. The inspectors have already sat down with the Government of Iraq to offer them advice on how to comply—not how not to comply, but how to comply. There are no tripwires or traps in the resolution; it sets out a very clear procedure.
  Aside from indications from intelligence, some set out in the dossier that we published on 24 September, the Government of Iraq will have to account for large stocks of weapons of mass destruction which the previous inspectors' reports—the UNSCOM reports, the last of which was prepared in January 1999—said were unaccounted for. I have the reports here: they set out, in 203 pages, all the material that the inspectors said was unaccounted for when they had to leave in 1998. This has been on the record for at least three and a half years.
  The material included up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of the VX nerve agent, more than 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents, and large quantities of growth media acquired for use in the production of biological weapons—enough to produce over three times the amount of anthrax Iraq had previously admitted to having manufactured.
  Inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA will resume in Iraq by Wednesday 27 November, in just two days' time, four weeks ahead of the Security Council's deadline. Under paragraph 5, the inspectors will be required to update the Security Council on progress by 26 January.
  Paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 deal with non-compliance, which I shall come to in a moment. Paragraph 13 reminds Iraq that it has been repeatedly warned
  "that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
  Llew Smith: As consideration has obviously been given about going to war with Iraq, has similar consideration been given to going to war with Israel,

  51
  because it too has weapons of mass destruction, it too is daily breaking UN resolutions, it too is invading another country and it too has a leader in Sharon who is a state terrorist?
  Mr. Straw: The point that my hon. Friend seeks to make is about the proper and full enforcement of all UN Security Council resolutions. We support the proper and full enforcement of all resolutions, including 242, 338, 1397 and 1402 in respect of the middle east. Those resolutions impose obligations not just on the state of Israel—and we want to see them enforced—but on the Palestinian Authority and on the other Arab states. There is a process for dealing with those. The chapter VII resolutions of which Iraq stands in breach impose particular unilateral obligations on the Government of Iraq. We uphold, support and enhance the authority of the UN not by the relativism that my hon. Friend proposes—I infer from what he said that because there has been inadequate compliance in one area, there should be inadequate compliance in the other area—but by ensuring the fullest possible compliance of the will of the UN in every area.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Following the point that the Foreign Secretary has made about the quantities of materials imported by Iraq that are unaccounted for, if the Government of Iraq respond in the next two or three weeks that they no longer possess any weapons of mass destruction, could that response in itself be taken as sufficient evidence of a breach of the UN resolution, sufficient to trigger the next stages in the process?
  Mr. Straw: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises is what constitutes a material breach. I will deal with that straight away.
  I have already explained that Iraq remains in material breach of previous resolutions but that Security Council resolution 1441 offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution says that a further material breach arises where there are
  "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq … and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution".
  Paragraph 4 therefore defines in general terms what a further material breach will consist of.
  As with any definition of that type, it is never possible to give an exhaustive list of all conceivable behaviours that it covers. That judgment has to be made against the real circumstances that arise, but I reassure the House that material breach means something significant: some behaviour or pattern of behaviour that is serious. Among such breaches could be action by the Government of Iraq seriously to obstruct or to impede the inspectors, to intimidate witnesses, or a pattern of behaviour where any single action appears relatively
  52
  minor but the actions as a whole add up to something deliberate and more significant: something that shows Iraq's intention not to comply.
  Mr. Clarke: With respect, that does not quite answer my question. The Foreign Secretary has defined what a material breach is. Would a statement by Iraq that it no longer possesses any weapons of mass destruction be a material breach in itself?
  Mr. Straw: Operational paragraph 4 makes it clear that a material breach is a failure of disclosure and other failure to comply—there are two parts. Plainly, whether there has been another failure to comply as a result of a failure to disclose depends on the circumstances. I do not anticipate that we will be served up with the usual mantra from the Iraqi Government that they have no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq regime will have a copy of the 203-page UNSCOM report setting out all the weapons of mass destruction and precursor agents that were unaccounted for when the inspectors left. If the Iraqis are serious about complying, which they now say they are, the first thing they have to do is to say what has happened to that material. The inspectors will test whether they are willing to act in good faith and comply with the will of the international community.
  Aside from the particular definition in paragraph 4, a material breach has to be something serious. Nobody, I hope, wants military action against Iraq or any other country to be taken gratuitously. It should happen only as a last resort, and that is the position of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In The Times today, the deputy political editor says:
  "Tony Blair looks set to get strong parliamentary backing today for war with Iraq".
  Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's understanding of the motion is that it offers support for the United Nations and its resolution, not for war? Surely, if Saddam Hussein were to come to the conclusion that war is inevitable, as some have said, that would be a disincentive to his disarming. It is clearly important that our allies understand what this vote means, too.
  Mr. Straw: Distinguished though the deputy political editor of The Times is, he does not speak for the Government.
  Mr. Savidge: She.
  Mr. Straw: She—I am sorry. There you go. What can I say in response to that gender correction without getting into trouble?
  I intend to deal directly with the question of military action. The resolution provides a peaceful solution to Saddam's holding of weapons of mass destruction. It is there to resolve the problem peacefully and to authorise military action only if that is the position into which the Government of Iraq have manoeuvred the international community.
  Paragraph 4 concludes by saying that any further material breach will be reported to the Security Council "for assessment" under paragraphs 11 and 12.

  53
  Paragraph 11 directs the inspectors to report to the Security Council any interference or failure to comply with its disarmament obligations, making it clear that these include all the other relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as 1441.
  Paragraph 12 then has the Security Council
  "convening immediately upon a report under paragraphs 4 and 11 to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council Resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."
  That brings me to the second question: who decides and what happens if there is a further material breach? If there is evidence of a false statement or omission, together with a failure to comply in other respects, it can be reported to the Security Council as a further material breach either by a Security Council member or by the inspectors. The Council will undoubtedly require the opinion of the inspectors, regardless of who makes the initial report.
  There is then a clear requirement for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to make the assessment of which I spoke. Where the breach is flagrant—say, a physical and serious attack on the inspectors—the decision on whether there has been a material breach will effectively have been made by the Iraqis, who will clearly have decided to reject any thought of compliance. In such a case, there will be no decision to be made. The Security Council will undoubtedly then act. It is of course possible, however, that there is credible evidence of a further material breach, but the Security Council is unable to reach a conclusion.
  That brings me to the next question I posed: will there be a second Security Council resolution if military action proves necessary? Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that there has to be a second Security Council resolution to authorise military action in the event of a further material breach by Iraq. The idea that there should be a second Security Council resolution was an alternative discussed informally among members of the P5 of the Security Council and the elected 10 during the weeks of negotiation, but no draft to that effect was ever tabled by any member of Security Council, nor put to the vote. Instead, every member of the Security Council voted for and accepted this text.
  I should make it clear, as I did on 7 November, that the preference of the Government in the event of any material breach is that there should be a second Security Council resolution authorising military action. However, the faith now being placed in the Security Council by all members of the United Nations, including the United States, requires the Council to show a corresponding level of responsibility. So far, it has done so and I believe that it will do so in the future, but we must reserve our position in the event that it does not. In any event, Saddam Hussein needs to be in no doubt of the resolve of the United Nations to require him to comply. That is the reason why the language of "serious consequences" is used in paragraph 13 in the event of his non-compliance. So the discussion that will take place in the Security Council, in the event of material breach, will be on the understanding that action will follow.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to reassure those of us who are uneasy about the morality of war against Iraq. He will go even further to attract us to support the motion if he says that the Government will use their best endeavours to bring forward a motion of authority before the second Security Council resolution, and that they will lay an express motion of authority in this House which we can debate before military action is taken.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am just about to come on to the substantive motion and I hope to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House satisfaction on that. As far as moving a second resolution is concerned, the moment there is any evidence of a material breach—whether it arises because of Iraq's flagrant action and there is no argument about it or in a report from a member of the Security Council or the inspectors—there will be a meeting of the Security Council at which it is, and always has been, open for any member to move any resolution they wish. Our preference is for a Security Council resolution, and I hope that we would move it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: There may be particular circumstances in which we do not judge that to he possible, but my preference is for a Security Council resolution that we are able to move.
  Lynne Jones: As I understand it, the only grounds on which an individual member state could take military action against Iraq would be under the right to self-defence or in taking humanitarian action. I cannot see that such a situation applies to this country. On what basis, therefore, could action be taken without a specific UN Security Council resolution?
  Mr. Straw: The United Nations charter on international law is not that precise. I have already said what our intentions are. As for humanitarian action, exactly this issue arose in 1999 in respect of Kosovo. Could there be military action against Milosevic, whom we now know to have been a brutal dictator, in the absence of a clear United Nations Security Council resolution, and given also that the Russian Federation, a member of the P5, moved an unacceptable resolution that we had to veto? The judgment was that the international community could take action, and that has never been challenged.
  We have placed great faith in the Security Council and so far that has been reciprocated. We must continue to do so, but to sustain the authority of the United Nations, we have to reserve the position—only reserve it, because I do not believe that this will arise—if a consensus within the Security Council is not possible. I say to my hon. Friend and to the Liberal Democrats, whose amendment I shall deal with shortly, that had we not taken that reservation in 1999, no military action against Milosevic would have been possible in respect of Kosovo, and that tyrannical dictator would still be ruining the lives of millions of people in the Balkans.
  Annabelle Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government's preference was for a second resolution. Does he, therefore, disagree with the Leader of the House who, on BBC Radio 4 last Friday, said that a second resolution would be needed to authorise military action if Iraq defaulted? Was the Leader of the House wrong? Does he not represent official UK Government policy?
  Mr. Straw: Attentive though I am to the remarks of my right hon. Friend, unfortunately I missed that interview, although his deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), tells me that the Leader of the House did not say that. I shall send for the record and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to come back to that point.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend not only for giving way but also for his willingness to respond to Members' concerns. My question is about the other side of the coin: if the inspectors report that they are receiving full cooperation and that Iraq is moving towards removal of weapons of mass destruction, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely unlikely that the question of military action would arise and that, at the end of the tunnel, we can offer Iraq some prospect that sanctions will be lifted?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, there is a pathway to peace. One or two of my hon. Friends—although not my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—may entertain the occasional suspicion of the Government—
  Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend should sit down again—he is not one of them.
  Felicitous though all who speak from the Treasury Bench must be with words, the words would not come if Iraq had properly complied with the resolution yet one of us had to come to the House to explain why, notwithstanding that fact, we were going to take military action. The circumstances would not arise. We could not do that. The Cabinet could not do that. The armed forces could not do that. That is the settled view of the international community.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I must make some progress, but I shall give way a couple of times before I finish.
  No decision on military action has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government and I fervently hope that none will be necessary. Resolution 1441 sets out a clear and straightforward pathway to peace for Saddam, if he will only take it. However, we have got this far in terms of Saddam's compliance only because active diplomacy has been backed by the credible threat of force. For that threat to remain credible, it is crucial that we make proper preparations.
  As the UN process moves forward, so should our preparedness for military action in the event that the process fails. In that context, our Ministry of Defence
  56
  has been carefully considering what would be required. It is taking steps to ensure that service men and women are available in the right numbers and that they have the right skills and equipment. The more prepared we are, the greater the likelihood of full compliance by Saddam, without the use of force.
  I shall deal with the fourth question that I raised: if Her Majesty's Government were to decide that military action was necessary, would the House be able to vote on it and, if so, when? If force becomes necessary, any decisions made by Her Majesty's Government will be careful, proportionate and consistent with our obligations in international law.
  Any decision by Her Majesty's Government to take military action will be put before the House as soon as possible after it has been taken. The issue of a substantive resolution was raised with me by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 25 September, and as I told the Committee in evidence, we in the Government have no difficulty about the idea of a substantive motion on military action in respect of Iraq, at the appropriate time.
  As to the appropriate time, I hope that it will be before any military engagement, but as the House has always accepted—and must accept—there are circumstances in which the safety of our forces requires an element of surprise. In those circumstances, it would be utterly irresponsible to come to the House beforehand—[Interruption.] Of course, it would. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members are not suggesting otherwise. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are:] If we can come to the House without placing our troops at risk, we shall do so, but if it would place our troops at risk we shall have to act in the same way as the Conservative Government did in January 1991—when they had the full support of the present Lord Ashdown, then the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, who accepted that the safety of our troops was paramount. The then Government properly came to the House just five days after the decision was taken.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the Foreign Secretary answer a question that a serving member of Her Majesty's armed forces posed to me in my constituency on Saturday? He had been in New York at the time of the attack and had witnessed the vote in Congress, and he asked why the Government has had nine votes on hunting with dogs—important though that may be—since May 1997, but cannot produce a substantive motion now before forces are deployed to gain the support of all sides?
  Mr. Straw: As it happens, the hon. Gentleman asks the wrong person about hunting; I dealt with it when I was Home Secretary—I am happily released from that fate—but it is not something that has ever lathered me up.
  The hon. Gentleman is now tilting at windmills. The House properly and rightly asked for a substantive resolution as soon as we had a Security Council resolution. We have one. We are asking the House—apart from the Liberal Democrats, and I shall come to them—to endorse the Security Council resolution, and what is good enough for the United Nations ought, with respect, to be good enough for the House—except apparently for the Liberal Democrats.

  57
  On military action, I say again—I hope that the hon. Gentleman listens to these words and I look forward to a speech not by him, but by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who is standing in for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—that if we can and it is safe to do so, we will propose a resolution seeking the House's approval of decisions in respect of military action before military action takes place. If, however, it is unsafe to do so because it would place the lives of British servicemen and women at risk, we shall not do so until after the action has taken place. I fail to understand how any serious party that aims to be in government could possibly argue with that position.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have taken many interventions, and I wish to make progress.
  We are not proposing hypothetical resolutions because I very much hope that military action can be avoided; that is the aim of the resolution. So far, Iraq has taken a step to comply with resolution 1441, but we must be realistic; Saddam Hussein's record of deceit, delay and defiance is well established.
  Saddam Hussein now faces a clear choice: he can take the pathway to peace set out in the resolution or, by frustrating the inspectors and defying the international community's will, he can provoke military action. He can choose the path of full co-operation, leading to the suspension of sanctions and the re-admittance of Iraq to the family of nations, or he can expose his people to the serious consequences cited in resolution 1441. The choice is his.
  Alan Simpson: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall continue.
  The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, spoke for the world community as a whole when, as resolution 1441 was passed, he said:
  "I urge the Iraqi leadership—for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world security and world order—to seize this opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people. If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities."
  That position is backed by the European Union. In a statement adopted at the General Affairs Council on 18 November, it urged the Iraqi government
  "to grasp this final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. This is the only way for Iraq to avoid further confrontation."
  Alan Simpson: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I regret not.
  At the NATO summit in Prague last Friday, a similar statement was issued and explicitly endorsed by all 19 members. I should also say that, following resolution 1441, the Arab League made it clear that Iraq should work with the inspectors.
  58
  I come to the Liberal Democrat amendment—
  Mr. Terry Davis: Before that, will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, of course.
  Hon. Members: Ah!
  Mr. Davis: The Foreign Secretary has referred to the informal discussions that took place between the five permanent members of the Security Council before resolution 1441 was passed. He has said also that no member of the Security Council put forward any objection or amendments to the resolution as it was going through the Security Council. But is it not correct to say that during those informal discussions, the British ambassador gave assurances about the interpretation of resolution 1441, and that the Russian ambassador at the Security Council read out a list of those assurances and told the Security Council that it was only on the basis of the assurances from the United Kingdom that he was going to vote for the resolution? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that those assurances still apply?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has asked that question. I did not say that no amendments had been put forward—in fact, after the US and the UK had tabled the resolution, a number of amendments were proposed and we accepted some of them. I will not bore the House by reciting them, but I happen to know almost all of them off by heart—indeed, one night I found myself dreaming about amendments to operational paragraph 4.
  In any vote of that sort, there is what is called an explanation of vote, which is read into the record after the vote has taken place. Sir Jeremy Greenstock offered his explanation of vote, gave undertakings and we stand by the undertakings—
  Mr. Hogg: What were they?
  Mr. Straw: They were couched in terms similar to the ones that I have read out today.
  The point that I was making to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) is a different one. No draft resolution proposing that there could be military action only if there were a further Security Council resolution was either tabled before the Security Council—it could easily have been—or voted on. That gives me a cue to deal with the Liberal Democrats, but first I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who has been trying to intervene.
  Alan Simpson: To return to the element of surprise, it will come as no surprise to the Foreign Secretary that a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to ensure that, if we are willing to take action in furtherance of western democratic values, we practise those values in this Chamber; nor will it come as a surprise that there are large elements within the American Administration who intend to bomb the living daylights out of Iraq, with or without a UN resolution. Will he give a commitment to table at the

  59
  UN a second resolution seeking specific endorsement for a war in the event of a breach, and to have that discussed in advance by the House?
  Mr. Straw: First, I am as signed up to western democratic values as my hon. Friend is. Secondly, any fair observer might say that I have given serious undertakings to the House about the endorsement of any decisions that Her Majesty's Government have to take. In any of the world's Administrations, the initial decision has to be made by Government, but it has to be subject to endorsement. I accept—I did not take a different view in opposition—that the House has rights and that the Government's duty is to meet those rights. That is what I have been trying to do today.
  As for a second Security Council resolution, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) I said that our preference was for a Security Council resolution, full stop. Within that, our preference is to ensure that we are able to table such a resolution. However, I cannot state precisely what the circumstances will be. I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South or anyone else by reading out quotations from those who, six months ago, were demanding that we go to the United Nations, but I will paraphrase. My hon. Friend said that if there was to be action, it had to be dealt with by the UN. That is exactly the route that we are taking. Six months ago, no one believed that we could get a 15:0 decision, but that is what we have done. There is still an air of disbelief as to whether we will maintain our faith in the Security Council. We will do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have given way many times already. I want to deal briefly with the Liberal Democrats' amendment and then make progress.
  I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will recognise that, in so far as any Foreign Secretary could, I have met much of the burden of the amendment-for example, in respect of a substantive motion in the House of Commons, with the caveat that everyone else accepts but which is not in the terms of the amendment. The amendment could not safely be voted on in any event. I say to him seriously that it would place British lives at risk. There is no pointing in his shaking his head. He has had every opportunity to take a different view. One of his hon. Friends sat on the Select Committee when I gave the undertaking on 25 September, and appeared to acknowledge the terms in which I gave it for the reasons that I have spelled out.
  Mr. Michael Moore: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way in a second. The Liberal Democrats still say that there must be a separate resolution in advance of any commitment to military action.
  In addition, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman what the Liberals are doing. I thought of resisting the temptation of saying that this follows a pattern of
  60
  behaviour in which, to pick up a hunting analogy, the Liberals try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. At the same time as they support UN resolution 1441—I hope that they will do when it comes to a vote at 10 o'clock—they want to rewrite it and add to its language terms that no member of the Security Council ever sought formally to include in the resolution.
  Finally, I point out to the Liberal Democrats that—to re-emphasise the Kosovo point—the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats played a very honourable role in exposing what was going on in the Balkans and in ensuring that military action was taken, notwithstanding the fact that a security resolution could not be achieved because of a blockage in the Security Council. It is no good saying, "Oh well, it was all to do with humanitarian purposes." At the time, that was highly questionable. There were people on both sides of the House who said, "Do not take action." There were people saying that we should take action only with a Security Council mandate.
  We do not know the exact circumstances that might arise—God forbid that they do—where military action proved necessary. It could prove necessary on a humanitarian basis as much as anything else. We do not know the circumstances. What the Liberal Democrats are doing through an ill-thought-through, ill-considered amendment is to say that in no circumstances—humanitarian or involving self-defence or anything else—can military action be authorised unless it is authorised by a separate Security Council resolution, even though they know the history of Kosovo, when one member of the Security Council decided to block action that they now accept was justified and justifiable.
  Mr. Moore rose—
  Mr. David Chidgey rose—
  Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to the Liberal Democrats' spokesman, but I ask him to think carefully about withdrawing the amendment. It does not serve the interests of the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Moore: I shall return to many of the points that the Foreign Secretary has made in the past two or three minutes in my speech, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, will he accept the proposition that the fact that people debate a substantive motion in the House does not in itself put the lives of our armed forces at risk? Does he accept that the Liberal Democrats have no desire to be party to anything that puts the lives of our forces at risk?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is speaking to a different amendment. I have always accepted that most Liberal Democrats are full of good intentions; it is just how it turns out in the wash. That is the problem. There are those with good intentions, but those good intentions are not reflected in the words that they have signed up to. Generally speaking, substantive resolutions do not put British lives at risk but, in particular cases, they easily could. It is the "in particular" that I am concerned about.
  Donald Anderson: May I remind my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats of another useful precedent at the time of the Kosovo conflict when the Security Council was unable to act? I refer to the mandate for the renewal of the United Nations force in Macedonia, which was blocked by the People's Republic of China for wholly capricious reasons, namely, the fact that Macedonia had recognised Taiwan. That surely adds strength to my right hon. Friend's wish to retain a certain reserve in this respect.
  Mr. Straw: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. Those two examples show the practical problems we face. Notwithstanding the practical problems, it was a huge achievement by the whole international community to pass resolution 1441. I believe that if military action proves necessary, we will get a second Security Council resolution, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I also know that if we allow those who act capriciously to block the plain obligation of the international community, there will be no chance of resolving the problem peacefully or of ensuring that a decision to take military action lies within the United Nations.
  Mr. Chidgey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
  The real losers of Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship have been the Iraqi people themselves. Their suffering has been immense under a regime that murders, tortures and rapes political opponents and ethnic minorities. It has used poisonous gas to kill thousands of its people and ignores the plight of its sick and hungry. Since 1991, the United Kingdom has given more than £100 million in aid to Iraq bilaterally through the European Union. Later today, we expect the United Nations to adopt a British-drafted Security Council resolution extending the oil-for-food programme for another six months.
  The Iraqi regime and some of its apologists elsewhere have peddled much propaganda about the oil-for-food programme, yet that UN programme is the Iraqi people's lifeline. While Saddam Hussein spreads stories of rising death rates and drug shortages, the latest United Nations report tells a very different story. It shows that acute malnutrition rates in Iraq are half the level they were before the oil-for-food programme began in 1996. Devastating conditions such as polio, diphtheria and diarrhoea in children are less widespread than they were when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait. The programme's delivery of high-tech medical equipment, such as brain scanners, means that ordinary Iraqis have access to advanced medical treatment. Billions of pounds of all types of goods are being delivered under the programme each year.
  Our policy has increased the supply of humanitarian goods to the Iraqi people: Saddam's policies have tried to frustrate the oil-for-food programme, and Iraq is currently failing to spend more than £1.5 billion allocated by the United Nations for humanitarian goods. Hon. Members who are sceptical about that should not take my word for it. Instead, they should pull off the internet the latest report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, dated 12 November
  62
  2002. It spells out in considerable detail exactly the contribution that the United Nations and the oil-for-food programme have made to the people in Iraq. On page after page there is reference to gratuitous obstruction by the Iraqi Government.
  To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), there are those who say that we should do nothing on Iraq because other countries are also subject to Security Council resolutions. As I said, Iraq is the only country that is in such clear and serious violation of a series of UN obligations under chapter VII. We want other resolutions implemented and we work tirelessly to achieve that in Liberia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Libya and, of course, in respect of Israel and Palestine.
  Far too many people on all sides have perished needlessly in the terrible conflict. We mourn them all, but the deaths are always more starkly brought home to us when they are of British citizens. One British citizen, Yoni Jesner, was killed on 19 September in a suicide bombing set by terrorists. Another, Iain Hook, a UN worker under contract from the Department for International Development, was killed on Friday last in Jenin, it seems as a result of fire by a member of the Israeli defence force. As soon as I heard the news, I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, who promised an immediate investigation. We are also seeking an investigation by the United Nations. The House should also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I sent messages of condolence to his family.
  Mr. John Gummer: I thank the Government for their action in the circumstances and for the prompt way in which they helped the family by saying that they would see what they could do. May I add my condolences to the family of my constituent? He acted in a way expected of someone who was such a loyal and long-standing worker for the United Nations. He had been in equal danger in many other places and could easily have lost his life during the past 20 years.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Mr. Hook was one of his constituents, and I shall certainly pass on his thanks to staff, particularly the British Consulate-General in Jerusalem, for their work. That is our duty—the staff rise to their duty on every occasion.
  Mike Gapes rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, I will not give way as I wish to bring my speech to a close.
  Grim as the situation in the occupied territories and Israel is, there are some positive developments that we should not overlook. A process of negotiation is going on under the leadership of the so-called Quartet—the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation—which is making progress towards agreement on how we get to a settlement. Determined moves to break the cycle of violence in the occupied territories continue. Palestinian reform efforts are continuing. There is now international consensus on the need for a settlement based on two states—Palestine

  63
  and Israel—living side by side. We support and are engaged in all of this. I assure the House that wherever we can enhance our support in any way, we shall.
  We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. We want to help them to restore Iraq to its proper place in the community of nations, abiding by its international obligations and free from the burden of sanctions. That can only happen once Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed, in line with a decade of United Nations resolutions. We hope that that can be done by peaceful means, and we shall give the weapons inspectors every support. Ultimately, however, the choice falls to Saddam Hussein alone. Resolution 1441 is his "final opportunity" to take the pathway to peace, but no one should be in any doubt of the world's resolve if he fails to take it.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I rise to support the Government motion, which effectively rehearses the principle of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which we have already welcomed in the House. It emphasises the fact the resolution was carried unanimously by the Security Council, significantly, as the Foreign Secretary pointed out, including the support of Syria. It reiterates the need for full compliance by Iraq. We support resolution 1441, so we shall support the substantive motion tonight.
  May I add to the remarks of the Foreign Secretary about the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)? I, too, would like to send him our best wishes—we hope he makes a speedy recovery. I also join the Foreign Secretary in his remarks about the tragic death of lain Hook in Jenin last Friday. We were all shaken by that incident, and I am glad that there is an inquiry. I hope that we shall have its findings soon and make proper representations as a result.
  Ideally, I should have liked the motion to be more specific and stronger. It should have reiterated the words of the resolution and said that this is the "final opportunity" for Iraq to comply. I should have liked it to stress that continued violation of its obligations will result in Iraq facing serious consequences. Had it done so, it would have sent a clearer message from the House than the more limited wording before us. In the end, however, it is not the words of motions but their meaning that is important—in this case, the overall message that the House will send to the international community in general and Saddam Hussein in particular.
  The purpose of today's debate is, first, to show that the House is every bit as resolved as the United Nations Security Council to see an end, one way or another, to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and, secondly, to dispel the uncertainties which still, despite the Foreign Secretary's best efforts, cloud parts of the issue. We need to understand clearly the nature and extent of the task ahead and the way in which it is likely to develop. Saddam must finally be disabused of the notion that he still has room to manoeuvre. Our understanding and his understanding of the meaning of the resolution must be unequivocal.
  64
  We must be absolutely clear about the objective which, as it always has been, is to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We can be in no doubt that those weapons, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, will, if developed to completion, pose an unacceptable threat to the region and the wider international community.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend endorse what I take to be an assurance from the Foreign Secretary first, that he will return to the House for the authority of a substantive motion in the event that British forces are to be, or have been, deployed and secondly, if at all possible, that there will be an express motion in the Security Council authorising further action?
  Mr. Ancram: I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said in relation to our duty to the House in the event of military action being taken, and I certainly endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said. With regard to a second resolution, I hope that he will allow me to make my points on that in my own time in my remarks.
  The concept of Saddam Hussein in possession of such weapons and such systems is intolerable. As the Foreign Secretary said, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he is prepared to use similar weapons against his neighbours and against his own people. I have heard it sometimes suggested that he would not use weapons of mass destruction. The survivors of Halabja must shake their heads in disbelief when they hear such comments made. Saddam with a nuclear weapon is unthinkable, not least because such a weapon, once established, becomes a deterrent against its own removal.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The House knows that, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbour, Iran, and against his own people. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when he was a member of the then Tory Government, they did not condemn Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction at the time?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman raises that in every debate on the subject. [Interruption.] He must treat the matter seriously. We are speaking about the development in Iraq at this time of weapons of mass destruction which could be used not only internally against Saddam's own people, as we know he can, but more widely than that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would join the Foreign Secretary and me in trying to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not in a position to use such weapons, because they have been eliminated.
  That is why the unanimous vote of the Security Council on resolution 1441 was so important. It has confirmed and underwritten the objective of eliminating those weapons. It makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that this is the end of the road. The resolution is not part of some diplomatic game; it is stark and it is for real. The wording of the resolution is clear: continued violation by Iraq of its obligations will result in serious consequences—no ifs, no buts

  65
  We know, too, what those serious consequences will be. As the Prime Minister rather esoterically told Radio Monte Carlo on 14 November, if Saddam fails to disarm,
  "the consequence is that the weapons will be disarmed by force"—
  not "may be" disarmed, not "could be" disarmed, but "will be" disarmed by force. That clarity is important. If, as we hope, the objective of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction can still be achieved without recourse to arms, there must be no doubt in his mind that if, in the event, armed intervention is required, we have the determination to see it through.
  I know that this is an issue that gives rise to genuinely held and sometimes contrary views, and I have said before that we must respect each others' opinions, but I believe that it is vital that we be totally honest and transparent in what we are debating and what we are voting on. This is no time for fudged positions; it is a time for clarity, because when considering potential British military involvement, the Government owe nothing less to the House and to the British people. Clarity is needed also because if, for one reason or another, the House cannot debate military action before any decision to deploy British armed forces might have to be made—we heard from the Foreign Secretary tonight the circumstances in which that might happen—it is vital that we know what we are voting for tonight.
  The motion is a little bland in that respect. It leaves a number of key questions unanswered. The resolution itself is not entirely clear. I hope that, despite the Foreign Secretary's best efforts, I can still elicit a little more light about some of the key questions which I believe have still not been answered, but which the House will be asked to support and endorse tonight.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that I had hoped to put to the Foreign Secretary. I should like his opinion on the term "material breach". If, for example, an American plane was brought down in one of the no-fly zones, which are not legalised by any UN resolution, would that be a material breach?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, as I intend to deal later with what would amount to a material breach.
  The point is that the Government can no longer shelter behind the shield of not addressing hypothetical situations. The inspectors are now on the ground. There can be no hypothetical situations—only contingencies and options to which the Government must have worked out their responses. Yet there is still some confusion—I say this in all seriousness to the Foreign Secretary—on some of the important questions.
  I must ask the Foreign Secretary again: does he agree with the Prime Minister, without equivocation, that if Saddam does not dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, it will be done for him? Will there be no more prevarication, negotiations or long drawn-out international debates in which Saddam can seek to divide and rule? Is he also clear that, while it is preferable to have a second resolution before action is taken, if action has to be taken, there is no requirement for such a resolution? Does he accept that the "serious
  66
  consequences" to which the resolution refers mean military action and that, with or without a resolution, as set out in paragraph 12, such action will follow continued violation by Saddam of his obligations?
  I want to explore that matter in a little more depth, because it is important. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that resolution 1441, in conjunction with previous resolutions and article 42 in chapter VII of the United Nations charter, is sufficient in the circumstances to legitimise military action? That appeared to be the case on 7 November, when he told the House at column 435 of Hansard that
  "we have always made it clear that within international law we have to reserve our right to take military action, if that is required. within the existing charter and the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions, if, for example, a subsequent resolution were to be vetoed."
  I ask that question, because on the same occasion, he said at column 438:
  "it remains to be seen whether the Security Council or individual members judge that a further resolution is necessary to deal with the material breach that is presented to them. It is complicated, but it is clear."—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 435–38.]
  I have to say to him, with all the generosity that I can muster, that it may be complicated, but it is hardly clear.
  Does the Foreign Secretary agree that article 42 in chapter VII, which, as he rightly reminded us, deals with action in respect of threats to peace, refers in terms to
  "such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security"?
  Does not paragraph 12 of the resolution specifically refer to restoring or securing international peace and security? Will he confirm whether that was the basis on which he reserved
  "our right to take military action",
  to which he referred again today? Is he clear that that precludes a future veto? Does he agree that in the event of non-compliance by Saddam, it would be unthinkable that he could avoid the serious consequences because one permanent member of the Security Council, possibly for their own political or commercial reasons, decided to veto the decision? Will he assure the House that that situation cannot and will not arise? I understand from his earlier remarks that that is probably the case, but it is vital that we deal in this debate not with what is probably the case, but with what is the case under the terms of the resolution.
  There is a further point of confusion that I would like the Foreign Secretary to tidy up. On 7 November, when the matter was before the House, the words of paragraph 12 and article 42 were identical. They referred to restoring international peace and security, but the late amendments made in the Security Council the next day altered the resolution so that it sought not to "restore", but to "secure" international peace and security. What was the significance of that change? The French seemed very pleased with it and I wondered whether it was a ploy on their part to detach resolution 1441 from article 42 of the charter so that they could subsequently argue that chapter VII did not apply. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head. The matter has never been explained; perhaps he would like to do that now.
  Mr. Straw: The words mean what they say. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, there was a

  67
  process of amendment. However, it is as plain as a pikestaff that the resolution is based on chapter VII. Indeed, the sentence immediately before paragraph 1 reads:
  "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations".
  Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I have a suspicious mind. I used to wake up after dreaming about words, and I know what negotiating such a text is like. However, words matter and replacing "restore" with "secure" must have a significance that has not been explained. Hon. Members deserve an explanation because it may be germane to our debate.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that all hon. Members want weapons of mass destruction to be removed from Iraq, if they are found there, and elsewhere. However, he has spoken at length about confusion and the precursors to United Nations resolutions. Does he know about paragraph 14 of resolution 687, which demands the removal of nuclear weapons throughout the middle east? Israel is the only nation with proven supplies of nuclear weapons; it has perhaps more than 200 nuclear warheads. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a link between the confusion and what is perceived—rightly or wrongly—in the Arab world as a partial attitude towards Iraq when Israel can harbour such weapons with impunity?
  Mr. Ancram: I do not want to get involved in a long debate about Israel. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Israel is a democracy and would not he described as a rogue state in the same sense as Iraq. I have spoken at length about confusion because many arguments may soon turn on it. It is therefore important that we be clear that there is no room for a veto. Of course, we would prefer a second resolution, but we cannot be put in a position whereby one permanent member of the Security Council can veto necessary action against Iraq. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will reaffirm that there can be no veto even if there is a second resolution.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the need for certainty, but he listened as closely as me to the Foreign Secretary's speech. While the right hon. Gentleman conveyed uncertainty, and spoke hypothetically, using phrases such as "would prefer a second resolution", and "would, under certain circumstances, be prepared to move," it was clear from my right hon. Friend's language that, in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes, there will be no second resolution, and that Britain will not move such a resolution. That will happen only if a further resolution that allows military action against Iraq can be obtained on the nod.
  Mr. Ancram: I am in the slightly unusual position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I read out the Prime Minister's statement on Radio Monte Carlo, in which he said,
  "the consequence is that the weapons will be disarmed by force".
  68
  He did not say, "after another resolution has been passed" or "subject to another resolution." It is important to be clear about that point. I should hate to return in four or five weeks to find that hon. Members had voted on a misunderstanding tonight. I therefore ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make matters clear.
  Mr. David Heath: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's researcher drew his attention to the joint statement of China, France and the Russian Federation on their interpretation of resolution 1441. It states that the resolution
  "excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom".
  If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in getting the Foreign Secretary to repudiate the position of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, would that be good for British diplomatic representation at the United Nations?
  Mr. Ancram: It is important to be frank in our discussions tonight. There is no point in a debate on a substantive issue if we do not clarify what is currently unclear. I test the position that the Prime Minister has set out against the Foreign Secretary's statement today. He has genuinely tried to explain the matter, but a lack of clarity remains and it must be tackled.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the precursor paragraphs in resolution 1441. The second line states that a resolution was made on 29 November 1990, that another was made on 2 March 1991, and that there was nothing in between. Yet we were parties—rightly, in my view—to a land war that began on 15 January 1991. It is important not to erect hurdles that were not built on the previous occasion. Although I would support a second resolution, paragraph 13 of resolution 1441 may be sufficient if the circumstances requiring military action arose, even though we all hope that that will not happen.
  Mr. Ancram: That is a constructive contribution, for which I am grateful.
  Let us consider material breach. I was asked what would happen if an aeroplane belonging to one of the allies was shot down. That is an important question because we know that our light planes have been fired upon since the resolution was passed. Paragraph 8 stipulates that
  "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against…any Member States taking action to uphold any Council resolution".
  That answers the question that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked.
  Would any further attacks by surface-to-air missiles on allied planes automatically be perceived as a material breach? The United States appears to regard them in that light. Would there be an automatic response? In those circumstances, would the inspectors, who may not know the details, or the country whose plane was involved, report the material breach? More clarity would be helpful.
  Paragraph 7 stipulates that the inspectors
  "shall have … the right to … unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites".

  69
  It is important to understand what impediment or delay in allowing or facilitating such access will be regarded as a material breach.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made an important point about what happens under paragraph 3 if, on 8 December, Saddam Hussein enters a nil or gratuitously irrelevant return in the required "accurate, full and complete" declaration of his weapons of mass destruction and the associated programmes. What would happen if he claimed that he had no weapons of mass destruction? Given the Government's dossier and repeated assertions by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that they have evidence from September this year that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction, would not such a return be false by definition?
  The dossier stated that
  "Iraq has continued to produce chemical and biological agents."
  It also stated that
  "it has military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons … That it has developed mobile laboratories for military use … That it has illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles",
  and so on. There was much more. Would the Government, whose dossier had been contradicted, perceive a failure to declare those items, which existed in September, as a material breach of Iraq's obligations under operational paragraph 4? When the Foreign Secretary was asked such a question, his reply did not satisfy me that he accepted such failure as a material breach. He went on to discuss what would happen if it constituted a material breach.
  Paragraph 4 states that
  "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach".
  So the false statement or omission to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred would, under this provision, automatically constitute a material breach.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I want to ensure that my right hon. Friend is clear as to which direction I am coming from on this question. I have spoken to two authoritative and influential Americans recently, both of whom thought that a nil return would, in itself, represent a material breach and, therefore, give sufficient authority under resolution 1441 for military action thereafter. I am quite prepared to contemplate military action if there is a material breach of that resolution, but I would hope to see much more material support of the assertion that a nil return constituted a breach, before we went any further. A dossier of imports, without any report from the inspectors or any further opportunity to follow it up, would be a rather reckless basis on which to proceed or to state that there is now international authority for an attack.
  Mr. Ancram: That is why I am pursuing this question. The paragraph to which I have referred makes it clear that
  "false statements and omissions…shall constitute a further material breach".
  70
  It does not say "may constitute"; it says "shall". The only question, therefore, would be whether they were false statements or omissions. The Government have told us that they have evidence, which they produced in their dossier, that these materials exist. If Saddam Hussein said that they did not exist, would that, in the Government's view, constitute an omission or a false statement and, therefore, a further material breach that would have to be pursued in the way described by my right hon. and learned Friend?
  If there were also evidence, as the dossier suggested, that weapons had been actively hidden over the last few months, either within Iraq or outside it, would such evidence amount to a material breach? We need clarification on that point, too.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope that I can be of some assistance to him. At the Prime Minister's press conference this morning, he was specifically asked about the possibility of a nil return from Saddam Hussein—albeit perhaps not using those particular words. The Prime Minister stated categorically that the British Government had evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that, if there were a nil return, it would be a material breach. The consequences of that would, of course, be a different matter.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear, and I think that the Foreign Secretary should have put that on record. That is certainly my interpretation of the resolution. It is better, however, that such statements should be made in the House, before elected Members, rather than to members of the media at a press conference. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary disagrees with the interpretation that the Prime Minister gave this morning.
  Mr. Sir Peter Tapsell: May I pursue the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? It seems to me that we shall get into difficulties if the inspectors are given a free and unfettered right to search for weapons of mass destruction, if that continues without interference, and if they are unable to find any such weapons. Surely we could not, at that point, say that, because we believe that those weapons were there last September, a nil return would justify an attack on Iraq. That would be difficult to explain to the British people.
  Mr. Ancram: To try to meet the realities, I mentioned not only a nil return but what I called a gratuitously irrelevant return. There have been suggestions that Saddam Hussein might fill the document with all sorts of little items such as screwdrivers—which may or may not be used in the making of weapons—and say, "Now I have fulfilled my declaration." We must be clear on this, because this uncertainty—which has been demonstrated on both sides of the House—is more dangerous than anything else.
  Mr. Galloway rose—
  Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way; I must make some progress.

  71
  I want to ask the Foreign Secretary about military preparedness. When I asked him about it earlier, he said that he would deal with the issue, so that it could be a matter for the debate. I do not think that he did so; if he did, he did it so quickly that I must have missed it. It is important, if there is a possibility of a decision being taken before the House can be reconvened to debate it, that we should have a little more information on that at an early stage of this debate rather than hearing it from the Secretary of State for Defence at the end. I would be happy to give way to the Foreign Secretary if he wants to give us any information now. How is the ability of our armed forces to participate affected by the firefighters' strike? What is the preparedness of our armed forces for such involvement, in terms of both manpower and equipment? These are important questions that need to be answered if we are fully to debate this issue.
  I also want to raise an issue that has not been mentioned. The resolution contains a reassertion of the
  "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq".
  I have said in an earlier debate that that is an important element of this resolution, and I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary might tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that, whatever happens, the integrity and sovereignty of the state of Iraq will be maintained as set out in the resolution.
  These are the essential questions that must be answered. The House has a right to know the answers, and so does the country at large. It is clear that we face an evil that cannot be ignored, and we have a duty to act. We have no right to leave the consequences of preventable evil to those who will succeed us. This is the evil of a man who has already shown that he has no scruples about using weapons of mass destruction against his own people, about invading his neighbours, and now, allegedly, about harbouring international terrorists. This is a man who sees state and non-state terrorism as inextricably linked.
  None of us wants war, but to secure peace, it is sometimes necessary to prepare for war. Sometimes, it is even necessary to undertake it to secure peace. The Government are right to stand alongside the United States and the United Nations in supporting the objective that, one way or another, these arms must go. We support the Prime Minister and the Government in this stance. We face a sombre situation, and of course, hon. Members are anxious. We would not be human if we were not. I am reminded, however, of the old saying: "Anxiety does not empty tomorrow of its sorrows, but it can empty today of its strength."
  The Prime Minister and the American President have shown great courage and strength all along. On 8 November, the Security Council was unanimously courageous and strong. Today, it is the turn of the House. We have never in the past lacked courage and strength, and I trust that we shall show those qualities again tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): May I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches? He has also asked me to advise the House that, because so many wish to contribute to the debate, it would be inappropriate for hon. Members to approach the Chair.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I welcome this debate, but I think that Front Benchers could have been a little more considerate and taken a bit less time over their contributions; there is now less time for Back Benchers.
  There is but one question that needs to be answered, both in the House and throughout the world community: will the world be a safer place if we go to war with Iraq? If the answer is no, we should do everything in our power to avoid such a war. We know that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. The United Nations Security Council condemned that occupation and ordered a complete withdrawal, giving a deadline of 15 January. When Iraq failed to comply, the Gulf war began. The allied forces, led by the United States, bombarded Baghdad for six weeks. A ceasefire was announced on 28 February, and the UN terms of the permanent ceasefire were agreed by Iraq in April of that year. Strict conditions were imposed, demanding the disclosure and destruction of all weapons stockpiles.
  The UN-backed economic sanctions were imposed as a tool to enforce the ceasefire. By early 1992, however, it had become apparent that Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons. It was not cooperating with UN arms inspectors in providing accurate information and allowing inspections of sites suspected of hiding and manufacturing weapons. That ended in 1998 with the UN inspectors being withdrawn. Since then, there has been intense international pressure to disarm Iraq.
  In America, there is a newly elected President, although some might disagree that he was elected, and a new Administration who seem to be consumed by a policy of regime change. President Bush and his Administration seem to be determined that military action must be used to disarm Iraq, thinking that only by eliminating Saddam Hussein can the west stop the military threat to his neighbours and that of international terrorism to the wider world.
  Such a policy has found little support among other countries, other than the United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has given some considered, qualified support on the question of regime change. There is a split in the American Administration between those who want to take unilateral action, known as the gung-ho brigade, and those who support the counter-argument from the State Department, where Secretary of State General Colin Powell, who was President Bush senior's chief of armed forces during the Gulf war, wants to legitimise any military action to disarm Iraq through agreement in the UN Security Council.
  General Powell's strongest ally has been the Prime Minister, who is seen as having been influential in persuading the Bush Administration to move nearer to General Powell's position. I do not have to praise our own Prime Minister, save to say that a lot has been said about his involvement and relationship with the American Administration. I recall President Clinton saying at this year's Labour party conference that if the Prime Minister had not been there to pull the American Administration back from gung-ho conflict, who else would have been? Some credit should be taken by our Prime Minister for holding the US within the UN Security Council and achieving the resolution.

  73
  Saddam Hussein's newly declared willingness to let the UN arms inspectors back into Iraq unconditionally muddied the waters for the White House hawks, who want military action as a prerequisite to regime change. There are clear signs of tension in the White House. The Security Council has drawn up a resolution on disarmament that ensures that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be eliminated. Along with other hon. and right hon. Members, I argued that there should be no unilateral action and that the question should go through the Security Council. That being the case, I shall support the Government motion in the Lobby tonight.
  I, too, must comment on the middle east. The reaction of the Arab states and the Muslim world to the threat of military action against Iraq is fierce. The same can be said for the majority of European Union member states that do not support unilateral action, the consequences of which could see an Islamic fundamentalist uprising throughout the region, particularly in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. That could result in a regime change far removed from that envisaged by the American Administration. Neither should we underestimate the folly of the continued laissez faire policy of the United States on Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. The west can no longer ignore Israel's tragic, inexplicable and disproportionate actions against Palestinians.
  The United States and its allies failed to dispose of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war, and although his country remains poor, his popularity remains. That is a thorny issue similar to that of Gaddafi in Libya. Both are tyrants and despots, but their peoples prefer them to what they see as would-be pro-western puppet regimes. That reality puts great pressure on America to explain its end game when it talks of regime change. The surrounding countries—Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—would need to be on side, as would Turkey and Syria, but there is no evidence of such support, other than a questionable press release from the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister. It is unlikely—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: I beg to move, To add at the end of the Question:
  "and believes that any decision that Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441 is for the UN Security Council as a whole to determine and that no military action to enforce Resolution 1441 should be taken against Iraq without a mandate from the UN Security Council; and further believes that no British forces should be committed to any such military action against Iraq without a debate in this House and a substantive motion in favour.".
  I preface my remarks by apologising on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his unavoidable absence. We trust that he will be back in his rightful place on these Benches before too long.
  This is an important debate on perhaps the most significant issue facing the country and the international community at this time. It involves not simply Saddam Hussein's evil regime and the nature of the threat posed
  74
  by it to world peace, but how the world in general and this country in particular deal with the consequences of that threat.
  The House last debated those issues during the September recall of Parliament, when my right hon. and learned Friend set out the clear principles that should underpin our consideration of these matters: no country should ever exclude the use of military force to protect the safety and security of its citizens, but any military action must be consistent with the principles of international law and be considered only as a last resort. Furthermore, any decision to commit British forces to armed conflict should be subject to a debate in the House on a substantive motion.
  The previous debate occurred a few days after Saddam's offer of unconditional and unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors was made. Today's debate takes place as more inspectors arrive in Baghdad, given authority by the unanimous Security Council resolution of 8 November. That represents significant progress, which we on these Benches welcome.
  As resolution 1441 makes clear, the inspectors enjoy the full support of right-thinking people wherever they are in the world. Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply with it. This time, he must not call the international community's bluff. We argued from the beginning that the UN must be at the centre of all efforts to resolve the situation in Iraq. We opposed, and continue to oppose, the threats against Baghdad of unilateral action, which seemed all too possible throughout August.
  Therefore, we should recognise the achievement of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and the UN officials, working with the Security Council members, in producing a resolution that enjoys unanimous support. We should also acknowledge the efforts of the Foreign Secretary and the British UN mission in achieving that unanimity. Ministers have shown that they can exert influence over America to work within the proper constraints of international law. We commend that approach and hope that it continues to be the model for transatlantic relations.
  The resolution forms the basis of the Government motion that we are debating and which we shall support. Nobody contests the need for the Iraqi regime to
  "comply fully with all provisions of the Resolution",
  or the fact
  "that if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet to consider the situation and the need for full compliance",
  or
  "that continued violation of its obligations will result in Iraq facing serious consequences",
  as the proposed Conservative amendment made plain.
  The Liberal Democrat amendment sets out additional matters that we want clarified, specifically the continuing role of the United Nations and the position of the House in determining the nature of any British military or other contribution to that process. In the circumstances, we are glad that our amendment has been selected, and hope that it will receive support throughout the House.
  Resolution 1441 rightly points out that Saddam
  "has been and remains in material breach"

  75
  of successive UN resolutions, and that this is a "final opportunity" for him to comply with his obligations; but it would he foolish to exclude the possibility of further breaches of UN resolutions by the Iraqi dictator. Failure to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution will constitute further "material breach", which the executive chairman of UNMOVIC or the director-general of the IAEA should report to the Council to allow its members to "consider the situation".
  Hugh Bayley: Would not Saddam Hussein's agreement to readmit the UN inspectors have been inconceivable had there not been a credible threat of military action? Is it not now inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will completely and fully disarm, as required by the UN, without the threat of military action? Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman's party give Saddam Hussein breathing space by saying that no military action should be taken until or unless the issue is returned to the UN?
  Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman listens to all of my speech, as I hope he will, he will realise that what I consider important is the fact that the UN, not the threat of war, is driving this process.
  There must be no doubt that the senior inspectors will determine that a breach has occurred, rather than the intelligence agencies of the United States or other countries. When the inspectors report, it must be the whole Council that determines whether the breach is material, and what action must be taken.
  The resolution warns Iraq of the serious consequences of
  "continued violations of its obligations".
  The nature of the Council's response will inevitably depend on the contents and the circumstances of the report from senior UN officials in Baghdad. Liberal Democrats believe that we cannot rule out the possibility of military action, but that it must be the last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. It must also be proportionate to the circumstances. We will listen carefully to the Defence Secretary's comments on any deployment of UK forces.
  We must also keep the situation in the middle east in mind. Throughout the period during which the tension over Iraq has been building up—indeed, long before that—the fragile security situation between Israel and the Palestinians has caused great concern. Let me add my condolences to the family of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) at this time of their loss.
  A war with Iraq would complicate matters immeasurably, not only in Israel but in the wider Arab world. Such considerations cannot be ignored lightly. Nor can we lose sight of the terrible price that would be paid by innocent Iraqis in any war with their country. The complexity of these issues underlines the need for any military action to have a mandate from the Security Council. Ideally, the mandate would be in the form of a new resolution, but Council members may not consider that necessary.
  76
  Given the Government's position on Iraq and the statements of support for the United States, we are only too aware that British forces may be committed to a war in Iraq, even in the face of international opinion and opposition from other Security Council members. We cannot judge the circumstances in advance of their existence. We can, however, set out the way in which we will consider the Government's plans in the event of our military forces being committed to action.
  Sending military personnel to a war is one of the most serious decisions that any Government ever make. We do not underestimate the seriousness with which the Prime Minister and his colleagues treat that responsibility, but we in the House must play our part too. We are sent here by our constituents to make the Government accountable, and to ensure that proper consideration is given to the decisions that Ministers make. We do not believe that in calling for a motion in the House we put our forces' lives at risk. We would not expect the Government to do so.
  Ms Diane Abbott: It was suggested earlier that any reference back to the Security Council would somehow give Saddam Hussein a breathing space. Is not the point that if we are to proceed with military action against Iraq it should take place within the framework of international law, and that only by keeping it firmly within that framework will we allay the problems of instability that such action might pose?
  Mr. Moore: I entirely agree that the framework of international law must govern the whole debate, and the actions of our Government and Governments elsewhere.
  When British lives are to be put at stake—and other lives too—owing to this country's actions, it is only right for the House of Commons to be involved in the process. Not least when there is no new UN resolution and when the circumstances of the UN mandate for military action are in doubt, the House must be allowed to make a judgment and to have a vote—and that must be on the basis of a substantive motion setting out the nature of the commitment of British armed forces to war.
  Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it cannot be right for the Government to be accused of putting British lives at risk when, in a debate here, some of us at least wish to argue that British troops should not be sent to take part in a war in which we should not be engaging? Does he also accept that the motion leaves it open for troops to be deployed with no further endorsement either specifically by the UN or by the House? I am talking about a democratic armlock that we should apply.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Moore: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about some people never wishing to commit British troops in circumstances such as this. That is a position that anyone is entitled to take, and one that we can respect. As I have said, I do not believe that by

  77
  considering these matters in the House we necessarily put lives at risk. I reject what the Foreign Secretary said about that.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in his explanation after the vote, the US ambassador to the UN made it clear that if the US believed it was under some kind of threat from Iraq it would take action anyway, irrespective of any UN resolution?
  Mr. Moore: With respect, I think any country that believed it was under threat would invoke the self-defence provisions of international law. [Interruption" Any material breach of the provision of this resolution must come back to the Security Council—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary need not get so excited. Any such breach must come back to the Security Council on the basis of reports from the UN inspectors. We cannot judge the circumstances before they exist.
  No one here today underestimates the seriousness of the situation in Iraq, or the deadly consequences of any failure to resolve the pressing issues before us. In the face of contempt from Saddam and scepticism in the United States, we have seen that international law. implemented through the United Nations, is the proper way in which to tackle Iraq. That approach requires resolve not just from the Government, but from Parliament. Difficult decisions lie ahead, but the manner of dealing with them is straightforward.
  As we say in our amendment, we must ensure that at all times all Governments act through the United Nations. We in the House must assert ourselves, and ensure that any military action undertaken by British military forces has been properly debated here and enjoys the support of the House of Commons. In this country, we properly assert our superiority to Saddam Hussein and his regime by our commitments to the principles of international law and parliamentary democracy. We must continue to demonstrate those commitments.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, particularly as I may be expressing a minority view in the House. However, it is important that that be heard.
  The Foreign Secretary clearly set out his position and the case for the motion that the Government have asked us to support. I do not underestimate the effort that he and the Government have put in here and at the UN in reaching that position, and I recognise what he said about his future position and what he would like to happen—he would prefer a resolution at the UN and a resolution of the House—but I am still fundamentally opposed to an attack on Iraq.
  I will not vote for the Government motion this evening. I hoped to have the opportunity to vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others, but I will not have that opportunity—the amendment has not been selected. The amendment that has been selected is that of the Liberal Democrats. I shall support that amendment, not because I entirely agree with it but because it is nearest to my view.
  78
  I say to colleagues who are considering how to vote that I suspect they will not have a second chance. Please do not support the Government motion in the belief that, at some point, before any military action, there will be the opportunity to vote on that military action. I do not believe that they will have that opportunity. I ask every hon. Member to think about that before deciding how to vote.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gerrard: 1 have only eight minutes. I must disappoint my hon. Friend.
  A lot of the debate has been about the legality of the situation and about UN resolutions, coupled with the arguments that the UN must act or it will be discredited, and that Iraq is different from other states ignoring UN resolutions because of chapter VII. Much of that debate has taken place as if over the past few months the UN has arrived at resolution 1441 through the freely expressed wishes of all the other states in the UN, and as if enormous pressure has not been exerted by the US, with the threat that it would take unilateral action if the UN did not act. That comes from a country that has routinely chosen to ignore UN resolutions in the past and did not pay its subscriptions for much of that time.
  One of the key problems is that we are being asked in the motion to support the UN, yet at the same time we are being told that the US Government and our Government reserve the right to ignore anything that the UN says, if they do not like what the UN decides when it looks at the weapons inspectors' reports. What would happen if we had a second resolution that explicitly called for military action and there were a veto? Would that prove that the UN had failed? We have been willing to use the veto in the past, as has the US. Are we saying that we will never use the veto again? That seems to be the implication of choosing to reserve our right to ignore a possible veto from another country. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say, "You must support the UN" and at the same time say, "We reserve the right to do whatever we want if we do not like what the UN decides."
  Mr. Straw: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. What he has just described is a parody of the circumstances that I set out. I also made it clear that any decisions that we took in respect of military action would in any event be careful, proportionate and consistent with our obligations under international law, the basis of which is, principally, the UN charter. He must deal with the real circumstance, which has been described not only by me but by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that arose in respect of Kosovo and Macedonia. That is what we are having to take account of and that alone.
  Mr. Gerrard: I understand what my right hon. Friend says, but the argument in respect of Kosovo was that we took action under international law and under the UN charter because humanitarian action was needed. I cannot see at present the humanitarian argument or the self-defence argument applying to Iraq. The situation may change, but I cannot see that at present.
  The argument about chapter VII and Iraq being different—the argument that this situation is different legally from the situation that applies to Israel and the

  79
  way in which Israel ignores resolutions—may sway politicians but it will not cut much ice with the public in most Arab countries.
  Another issue is the political argument. The fact that an action may be legal does not necessarily mean that it is sensible. I can think of situations where legally I could personally use violence but where it would not necessarily be sensible. I have fears about the political consequences of any war on Iraq. I believe that it could have devastating consequences for the whole of the middle east.
  I have not seen one country neighbouring Iraq, the ones that should be feeling most under threat, demand that military action be taken—not one. The nightmare scenario would be an attack on Iraq that provoked the involvement of Israel. That is a real worry.
  I do not for one moment support Saddam Hussein. I do not think any of us does. We all know that he is an evil dictator, but he was an evil dictator when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand and when this country was supplying him with weapons. Anyway, we are told that this is not about regime change.
  There is no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and George Bush would be glad to provide such evidence if it existed. I do not believe that at the moment we are threatened militarily by Iraq. Such a situation would justify us taking some action.
  Who will suffer from an attack? Who are the people who will die? The nature of modern warfare means that it will be innocent civilians who will die. When we vote on whether we should go to war or not, we should remember that. People may argue that that is necessary and for the greater good, but I ask hon. Members not to vote for war without recognising that they would be voting for the death of many innocent people. I am not prepared to have that on my conscience.
  6.37 pm
  Sir Peter Tapsell: We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a wicked man. I first went to Baghdad in 1950 and I have met every leader of Iraq from Nuri Pasha to Saddam Hussein. With the exception of Nuri, who was a great man, they have all been very rough customers whose behaviour would have raised eyebrows even in the Whips Office, so it is not on that that we are concentrating.
  The elder President Arif told me that one of the party tricks of Qassim, the general who overthrew the Hashemite royal family, was to invite friends for a meal and then to have one of his opponents tied by his wrists and ankles to four jeeps that drove off at full speed in opposite directions. Those are the sort of people who have been governing Iraq since 1958. However, the thing that differentiates Saddam Hussein from the appalling Governments who have preceded him is that he clearly is a threat to the rest of the world; the others were not. If he has weapons of mass destruction, clearly, we should take pre-emptive action to disarm him, but we cannot sensibly view Iraq in isolation. It is not only part of a critical region; to some extent at the moment, it is the focus for a world crisis.
  80
  The real problem facing the west is our double standards in dealing with the Arab world. One can see that in two obvious respects, although there are many others. First, we talk about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction without acknowledging that Israel also has such weapons. I heard it on fairly good authority that it has 104 nuclear warheads, both tactical and strategic, and a few minutes ago we heard a figure quoted of more than 200. Of course, no one will ever confirm or deny those figures. There is no doubt that Israel has nuclear weaponry vastly in excess of what it needs to defend itself from its immediate neighbours—more than twice the nuclear capacity of France, I am told. We do nothing whatever about that.
  Secondly, there is the question of Security Council resolutions. I thought that the Foreign Secretary's remarks about our attitude to resolution 242 of 1967 were disingenuous, to say the least. Of course it is true that we would like to impose a settlement of the Palestine problem and that every Foreign Secretary of every party has tried his very best to do it, but we all know why it has not been done: because the Americans have prevented it. The Arabs all know that, and the sense of double standards embitters the entire situation and is one of the reasons why even the most moderate Arabs, who used to hate and fear Saddam Hussein, are beginning to have considerable sympathy for him.
  In the days when I used to visit Vietnam, the Americans were talking a great deal about the battle for hearts and minds. Of course, they did not win that battle and they did not win the war. As far as I can see, since the terrible attack on the twin towers, there has been no serious attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Arab or Islamic worlds, but the battle needs to be fought and won if any progress at all is to be made in the wider war on terror. That will be a much more difficult task for the west than the disarming of Iraq.
  Only about nine months ago, the United States Congress voted $4 billion a year for the next four years to supply armaments to Israel. Everybody in the middle east knows that every tank that they see on CNN, every bomb and missile, every bullet that kills or maims a Palestinian has been paid for by the United States. I have been a lifelong admirer and friend of the United States. I have often regretted that I was not born an American. I would love to have been a US federal Senator. If 1 had been, with my seniority, I would be chairman of the top committee there. I have been there innumerable times since, from Oxford, I debated there with 50 American universities. I was in New York on the morning of 11 September last year, and I was there only a fortnight ago attending the Business Advisory Council of the United Nations, of which I am a member.
  Clearly, I am not remotely anti-American, but the fact is that America has grossly mishandled the Palestine problem for many years, and is beginning to drag Britain into a very dangerous situation. Neither the Romans, nor Byzantium, nor the Ottoman empire, nor the British empire was so universally hated as America is today by the poor people throughout the world, and that is a great tragedy for the most historically generous nation that the world has ever seen.
  We all know Emma Lazarus's famous words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty:
  "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

  81
  For well over a century, the United States superbly lived up to that invocation, but today the sad truth is that the huddled masses of the poor world have turned against the United States. That is sad, and it is dangerous.
  Israel is fully entitled to absolute security within its legal frontiers, and we must ensure it, but we must not continue antagonising a billion members of the Islamic faith, and we must stop dismissing them with the contemptuous word "fundamentalist", because how would we like to be called Christian simpletons, mercenaries or materialists? Many of my Islamic friends are men of immense culture, intelligence and sensitivity.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I do not wish to emulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), for whom eight minutes was just about enough—he was about to have a heart attack. I agree with him absolutely, however, that it is absurd that the United States is not putting pressure on Israel, if only for the purposes of expediency in the weeks and months ahead—although one would hope that it would do it because it is right to put pressure on Israel to achieve a balanced and fair outcome of a dispute in the middle east that is so destructive to the international community, and especially to those who live within firing distance of the various weaponry used by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  This is yet another debate on Iraq. Looking at the inventory of discussions in the Chamber and in Committee and of the meetings between the Prime Minister and the Chairmen of the relevant Committees, I do not get the impression that the Government are ducking or trying to stifle debate.
  In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, I thought that he was reasonably clear about the Government's aspirations and intentions on a second resolution. I have no problem with the views that he expressed and I desperately hope that there will be agreement in the United Nations Security Council should it need to determine whether military action should be taken—but I hope that no such need will arise because Iraq will have complied fully with the terms of resolution 1441.
  Not only do I support the motion, I do so enthusiastically. There are those in the House and outside who fervently believed that the US would act without a UN Security Council resolution. To my relief, it went down the Security Council path, it compromised and it was patient. We should recognise the role played by the Prime Minister, Colin Powell and Members of Congress, along with many other people in the United States, who put pressure on President Bush and the Administration and pushed them down the path that could secure the most support in the international community.
  Some people in the House and outside are opposed to the build-up of US forces in the region, but let me offer a quotation:
  "sometimes diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed."
  That was not Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle—in fact, it was Kofi Annan. The United Nations Security Council has enormous moral authority, but I doubt that a thousand of its resolutions would convince Saddam Hussein of the need to open his
  82
  presidential palaces and all the other sites in Iraq. No, it is the threat—and I hope only the threat—of the use of military force that will ensure that he complies.
  What President Bush has said on regime change is not crystal clear. He was in favour of it initially, but I am encouraged by the view that he will be satisfied—as I hope, most others will be—if Iraq acquiesces in and supports, even if not enthusiastically, the United Nations resolution. Should Iraq disarm, I hope that there will be no need for any military action. I do not want an occupation force such as the United States deployed in the aftermath of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  I shall return to more mundane but very important issues. On the deployment of 10.2 per cent. of the whole of the British armed forces—Army, Air Force and Navy—to Operation Fresco, it does not take a genius to work out that that is a significant number. We must hope that a fair agreement is eventually signed between the Fire Brigades Union and the local authorities, the Government, or both. The firefighters' dispute is clearly having an adverse effect on whatever preparation might be required for our armed forces. Over the weekend I met firefighters from the Royal Regiment of Wales who are serving in my constituency. They did not sign up to be supplementary firemen but, without patronising them, I must say that they are doing a magnificent job.
  I should have said earlier that the members of the Defence Committee send our best wishes to our colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). There are few people in the House with greater authority or who are more popular among colleagues on both sides of the House than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and we desperately hope that his recovery is swift and total. We also send our best wishes to his wife, who must be having a difficult time.
  In conclusion, let me say that I read The Daily Telegraph, and an article today under the description "Countdown to war" had the headline, "Cuts will leave Army struggling in the sand." The Defence Committee has criticised the Ministry of Defence on more than one occasion for underspend and overstretch—indeed, its dissatisfaction with one or two things in the Ministry of Defence is well known. However, this article, not uncharacteristically for The Daily Telegraph, is somewhat over the top. Looking through my notes, I would certainly challenge much that it contains. It says that DROPS, the vehicle for unloading, is ancient. Well, it is 20 years old and still useful. The Bowman saga of radiocommunications goes back many years. The Government were absolutely right to dump it and relaunch the competition. The in-service data will now be from late 2003 onwards. In the meantime, personal role radios, non-secure, are in use—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: I am very pleased that I shall be able to support the Government's motion this evening I would not have been able to support the first proposal put before the United Nations because I believe that we cannot act unless we take the United Nations into consideration as far as is humanly

  83
  possible. I put it very carefully because it cannot be possible that in all circumstances, notwithstanding who wishes to impose a veto and what we feel to be the interests of free people everywhere, we can give a total veto to the Security Council of the United Nations. However, I find it difficult when I hear the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary talk about the principled position of Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, in going to the United Nations. There should be no question of that—it should not be a matter of discussion. It is the feeling that he has done us a favour that I find difficult to take.
  I also find it difficult to take a good deal of the hypocrisy in all these discussions. Our newspapers have, with their usual strong balance, pointed to the hypocrisy in the French and Russian positions, owed so much as they are by Iraq. I note that the moment the polls closed it was possible to come to a compromise, but not one minute before.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I do not have time.
  Mr. Foulkes: What about injury time?
  Mr. Gummer: Very well then.?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he remind the House of whether Mrs. Thatcher went to the United Nations before invading the Falkland islands?
  Mr. Gummer: When one's own territory is invaded and one goes to defend it, one can hardly ask anyone else's permission. If we had not gone, we would not have been deserving of the name of a sovereign state. However, that is not the situation here.
  All the nations involved have mixed motives. However, I want to bring home to the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, to my right hon. and hon. Friends, the necessity of acting within international law if we are not to set this part of the world alight. Behind the situation is an attitude towards the Arabs and Islam, which I believe to have been unacceptable for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) pointed to the continued massive support of one side in the Arab-Israeli battle. I remind the House of my constituent who was killed in the course of the United Nations seeking to make sense of a situation in which one nation is constantly being invaded by its neighbour, which is, in turn, constantly being terrorised by suicide bombers. We are all at risk until the Arab-Israeli conflict is brought to a conclusion.
  I am worried that so often the situation seems to be black and white when it is really extremely complicated. Until Israel is secure behind her legal borders and does not believe it right to build settlements and constantly invade her neighbour, and until she is safe from her neighbour's constant incursion—usually, although not publicly, supported by its Administration—we cannot have peace in that part of the world. We will not get
  84
  there, however, if the United States does not recognise its role in not behaving with even-handedness, which is crucial to the situation.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I warmly commend what my right hon. Friend says—he and I agree entirely on these matters. Does he agree that many of us who support the Government tonight might not support them in future if they were to act without the authority of the UN?
  Mr. Gummer: I was much cheered by the words of the Foreign Secretary. I have had occasion in the past to be critical, so I must be honest in my support of what seemed to be an unequivocal statement that in all the possible circumstances he would seek a return to the UN and would put a motion in front of the UN and in front of this House, provided that the safety of British troops was not thereby imperilled. Of course the Liberals do not understand that. I am not a warlike person until I hear the Liberals—they have an effect on me. If only there was a bit of rationality. They run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Why was the Foreign Secretary surprised? That is the definition of a Liberal Democrat.
  In the world in which we live, it is not right for a nation, however strong and powerful, to decide of its own volition to use force against another, unless there is no alternative. I ask the Foreign Secretary to try to explain to the United States that no war on terrorism can be successful unless there is also a war on inequality and poverty. We cannot have a world in which the effect of American subsidy for its cotton crops is that the state of Mali receives $137 million in aid but has $143 million taken from it.
  The war on terrorism must have a moral and ethical centre or it will not he successful. Those of us with grave doubts about the actions and words in this battle share those doubts with all the patriarchs of all the Christian denominations, led by the Pope, who normally do not speak with a single voice in this part of the world. We cannot choose one part of the equation and try to find justice only in one place while forgetting everything else. We want the British Government to be more clearly supportive of a wider view of how we can deal ethically with terrorism.
  If only I could hear an occasional word from the Government that sounded as though they were prepared publicly to disagree with the United States. I am sure that much is being done behind the scenes, but every now and again, despite all the disadvantages, we have to say "Thank God for President Chirac". He at least made a demand. I hope that the British Government will sound a bit more independent and a bi t more willing to bring home publicly what I am constantly assured they say privately.
  We could be America's very best ally by ensuring that the United States realised that the war on terrorism could not be limited to a chosen enemy, when circumstances were electorally satisfactory, but that it had to reach out in situations that are extremely difficult electorally. I should find the situation much more credible if President Bush took strong, continued, evenhanded and imaginative action to deal with the Arab-Israeli issue. If he could do that, he would win Arab support for what may be a very necessary war.
  7.3 pm
  Mike Gapes: The House should welcome the election of Amram Mitzna as the leader of the Israeli Labour party. At last, there is an opportunity to open up real debate that could put policies such as land for peace back in the mainstream of Israeli politics, as well as compromise and the removal of settlements.
  I am a friend of Israel. I believe that the only hope for peace in the middle east is security for Israel, within recognised borders, vis-à-vis all its Arab neighbours, and that a viable Palestinian state must be committed to living in peace alongside Israel and not act as a base for incursions or terrorist action against it.
  Our only hope is for a change of politics and of Government in Israel, so I welcome the fact that Mr. Mitzna said that he wants, without preconditions, to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. I appreciate all the difficulties in Israeli society at present, so that is a brave political position. Those of us with the interests of the state of Israel at heart realise that it is necessary for the future.
  I want to address my remarks to some of the comments made earlier by my colleagues. There is a clear distinction between resolutions adopted under chapter VI of the UN charter and those adopted under chapter VII. Chapter VI requires both the state of Israel and the Palestinians to meet certain obligations. There is a range of resolutions under chapter VI. However, chapter VII is mandatory and specifies the state of Iraq. If we require full implementation of all the UN resolutions—242, 338 and so on—it is important to realise that they impose obligations on both sides and that, in different ways, both sides have broken the resolutions over a number of years.
  The international community must put pressure on both sides to return to negotiations. As in the case of the tire dispute, the only way to achieve resolution is to go back to the negotiating table.
  We must also realise that whatever conflict exists between Israel and the Palestinians, it can never be used as an excuse for inaction against the brutal fascist regime in Iraq which has systematically oppressed its own people and attacked its neighbours. It is not only that terrible things were done to the Kurds: Scud missiles were fired on Saudi Arabia and Israel, and chemical weapons were used in the invasion of Iran.
  Saddam's record is such that I have deep reservations as to whether he will comply with the terms of the UN resolution. However, if he did so, we could lift sanctions and open up a new chapter in the region. In time, the people of his country would have the confidence to rise up and overthrow the oppressive regime under which they have had to suffer for so many years.
  There are many refugees in my constituency: Iraqi Kurds, Shi'as and Sunnis have visited my surgery recently. A Wahabi man who visited me had to flee from Saddam's regime because of his religious beliefs. Some of my Iraqi Kurd constituents are in wheelchairs because they have been shot. There are people whose relatives died from gassing and people who have been tortured. They all tell me that they do not want a war, but they definitely want to get rid of the terrible regime that has oppressed them.
  Those of us who say that we should do nothing about that or that we should merely pass another Security Council resolution have to answer this question: at what
  86
  point does the international community enforce the decisions that have been taken? My Labour colleagues should remember what we decided at our party conference this year. Composite 5 stated:
  "Conference believes that the authority of the UN will be undermined unless it is enforced, and recognises that in the last resort this could involve military action."
  It is not true, as some people allege, that the policy is an American-inspired plot and that it does not reflect our views. We held that debate at our party conference and the choice was made.
  I did not believe that the Americans would take the UN route. I did not believe that it was possible to achieve a unanimous resolution of the Security Council. I did not believe that the UN could adopt a united position in favour of the implementation of total disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction of the Iraqi regime. I say that as someone who has been an officer of the UN parliamentary group for a number of years and is currently its vice-chairman.
  I believe in the UN; I want the UN to be strong. I do not like a world where there is one superpower, or where Europe is weak and the United States is such a dominant force in the modern world because of its economic, political and military power. I want a strong UN, but the way we get a strong UN is not just by passing resolutions but by implementing them, and this is a great opportunity to achieve that.
  In the very short time left to me in this debate, I wish to say that we have to make it clear that Saddam faces a choice. If there is to be a war, it is not of our making; it is of his making because he can announce tomorrow that he is fully complying and taking the necessary steps to achieve that. I hope that that will be the case, but if there is a material breach in January, February, March or whenever, we have to be ready to follow through the consequences of that action on behalf of the world community, the credibility of the UN and, above all, the long-suffering people of Iraq.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: It is clearly necessary that UN resolutions on Iraq be upheld and that weapons of mass destruction be removed. It is clearly also in the national interest and in that of the whole world that that be done. In a sense, what there is to say about this subject should be almost as simple as that, but not quite. Once again, I wish to raise my Muslim constituents' perspective on resolution 1441 because I believe that their views are worth being held in respect by the House. I want to say at once that I do not agree with every point made by all of them, but their point of view is worth hearing none the less.
  My constituents are extremely sensitive to the signs of the times, and they note the American Government's determination to address Iraq's breach of UN resolutions, but they ask—various hon. Members have raised this already—if UN resolution 1441 and other UN resolutions are to be applied to Iraq, whether it is not also reasonable that UN resolutions should be applied elsewhere with similar force and effort.
  My constituents refer in particular to two conflicts: often to the one in the middle east, which has been so well ventilated today that I do not propose to do so further, and, of course, to the one in Kashmir. Many of

  87
  my constituents originate from Azad Kashmir and have friends or family who originate from there or from behind the line of control. They point out to me that, although UN resolutions on Iraq are mostly relatively recent, some UN resolutions that apply to the conflict in Kashmir have existed for almost 50 years and ask that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to determine their own future, but my constituents see no prospect of those resolutions being implemented. They also point out that, although Saddam invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s and the Iran-Iraq war began in the 1970s, India has illegally occupied part of Kashmir since the late 1940s, and as far as the international—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would now direct his remarks to the amendment and the resolution.
  Mr. Goodman: I shall certainly return to resolution 1441. I was going to say that, although my constituents note that UN resolutions pertain to all those things, they do not see those resolutions being as urgently addressed as resolution 1441 and the other resolutions on Iraq. I find it hard to overestimate 1 he frustration, cynicism and hopelessness that my constituents of Pakistani and Kashmiri origin report to me when they read the signs of the times and when they see so much effort being expended on UN resolution 1441 and the other resolutions that affect Iraq, but so little effort, as they see it, being applied to those that apply to Kashmir.
  I believe, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, that the Government have good reason to take the resolutions that affect Kashmir as seriously as resolution 1441 and the others that affect Iraq because, like Iraq, India and Pakistan also possess weapons of mass destruction, and we know from the events of last May how serious the threat of a conflict involving those weapons is.
  Now that America is the policeman of the world and has a position in the world rather like that exercised by Britain in the 19th century—it has very great power—I ask the Government to ask the Americans not merely to concentrate their attention on matters that affect Iraq, but to understand that if the Muslim world is to be persuaded that it is important to resolve the situation in Iraq, it must also be persuaded that the Americans and the Government take the situation in Kashmir as seriously as they take that in Iraq. That is my plea to the Government this evening on behalf of my constituents.
  7.16 pm
  Donald Anderson: I begin by endorsing wholeheartedly the chorus of good wishes to our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
  I note that we have before us a motion that asks us to endorse a UN Security Council resolution that has been agreed unanimously, even with the participation of Syria—the only member of the Arab League on the Security Council. It is therefore hardly surprising that it is very difficult to oppose the motion. Of course resolution 1441 is clear and, indeed, the language is very strong; it talks of "material breach",
  88
  "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional unrestricted access"
  and "serious consequences", but perhaps its most important element is that it talks of a "final opportunity".
  The UN Security Council is looking back over the history of non-compliance and telling Saddam Hussein and his regime, "You have one more chance. This is the final opportunity. Of course if there is a further Iraqi breach, the matter will return to the Security Council, as is required in paragraph 12. During the two months' negotiation, the concerns of France and the Russian Federation were met on 8 November, when the explanations of the vote were given. US Ambassador Negroponte said that the resolution contains no "hidden trigger" and no "automaticity". He also said:
  "If there is a further Iraqi breach…the matter will return to the Council",
  as the motion states.
  What are the possible outcomes of the resolution? Of course it is possible that Saddam Hussein will wholly comply. It is possible that the United States, with its view of itself as the universal world enforcer, will go off on its own irrespective of any decision of the Security Council. Those outcomes are less likely than the third outcome: Saddam Hussein, as a master of the game of deception, is likely to drag out the process for as long as possible and will seek to divide the international community and to play until the campaign for the US presidential election begins at the end of next year.
  Where do 'we draw the line? Clearly, the international community has a very difficult task ahead. We put enormous responsibility on the weapons inspectors. As Dr. Blix has said very clearly, they are the servants of the Security Council. They do not make decisions; they refer their findings to the Security Council, which interprets whether the breach is trivial or sufficiently substantial to merit the "serious consequences".
  We have to be realistic about what the weapons inspectors can achieve. Those who participated in the Wisconsin project in June this year raised the most powerful doubts, in particular, about the ability of UNMOVIC to receive and use intelligence, and about the experience of the personnel. The experience of previous inspectors is clear: Wyn Bowen told a recent meeting in the House of Commons that UNSCOM never managed to achieve surprise, despite tactics such as splitting the team and revisiting sites. Iraq has had substantial time to move and conceal material. The new team is relatively inexperienced: two thirds of its members are wholly new to Iraq, and it takes time to learn the tradecraft. It is therefore a huge job to cover the 700 or so sites that have been named.
  I ask the Foreign Secretary and the Minister now present, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), whether they are confident that UNMOVIC will have sufficient resources in terms of personnel and translation services. Is the international community prepared to respond positively to any request for further resources? The great danger is not that Saddam Hussein will refuse to answer on 8 December, but that he will flood the UN with such a vast amount of dual-use material and so on that it will make UNMOVIC's task extremely difficult. Colonel Terence Taylor, director of the International

  89
  Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington, said that if there is a formal nil declaration by the Iraqi regime on or before 8 December, it "will not be credible."
  One of the most difficult tasks is to determine what constitutes a material breach—a point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). There is a difference between the UK and US Governments on that point. The US has claimed that breaches of the no-fly zones could constitute a breach, but the UN Secretary-General, who is the interpreter of the resolution, has firmly stated that that would not be a breach. Equally, the US president has said that denial by Iraq of any weapons arsenal could
  "invite the severest of consequences",
  whereas British sources have been far more circumspect.
  A further question is whether we can deal with Saddam Hussein in good faith—can he be trusted? Previous experience and the history of concealment suggest that he cannot be trusted, but that does not mean that he should not be given a fair chance to comply this time. However, there is already some evidence that Iraq is playing games, and we must carefully examine the rather ambiguous letters that Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister, sent on 13 and 23 November.
  In passing, I note that we need to plan for the post-conflict position now, rather than imagining that it will solve itself.
  There will be strains during the coming period, so it is extremely important that the international community remain united and continue in the spirit of the unanimous vote of 8 November. My judgment, having been to Washington with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, is that our Prime Minister has played a crucial role in two respects: first, persuading the president to follow the UN route and, secondly, persuading him that there must be some form of parallel track with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Given the urgency of that crisis, it is not good enough to say that we should wait: the Quartet group, which set out its proposals in September, should not do nothing until the two sets of elections—Palestinian and Israeli—take place in January, because those elections are unlikely to effect any fundamental changes on the ground. When people complain that the Prime Minister is too close to President Bush, I remind them of the criticism of the US by Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac and ask who has had the greater and more positive influence on the US president.
  I come finally to the parliamentary—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is entirely right and proper that so many right hon. and hon. Members have dwelt at length on wider middle east issues. I begin by quoting a leading—possibly the leading—Israeli politician, who said of the middle east peace process:
  "We can see the light but we cannot find the tunnel."
  We all know what he means. In many senses, the same is true of the Iraq question. We can see the light—it is getting Saddam Hussein to disarm and return his country to normality. The question is how—where is the tunnel?
  90
  About two weeks ago, as a member of the all-party United Nations group, I had the great privilege of going to the United Nations with the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). There, we had remarkable access to many of the key players in the United Nations and the Security Council. In my brief remarks, I shall pick up some specific points that I learned during that two-day visit but that have not yet been made in the debate.
  First, it is right to put on record the fact that there is huge confidence at the United Nations in Dr. Hans Blix. There has been some press comment in this country that he might not be up to the job, and some doubts have been expressed about his ability to deal with the inspections process. I agree with the practical points made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and I acknowledge the huge scale of Dr. Blix's task, but I believe that he understands precisely what it is that he needs to do and how best to achieve it. One of the reasons for the confidence in Dr. Blix is that he was one of the key authors of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which defines what a material breach is, so we can safely say that the task is in extremely good hands.
  One name has not so far been mentioned in the debate—Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our permanent representative to the Security Council.
  Mr. George Howarth:: He has been mentioned four times.
  Mr. Luff: I am sorry—I cannot have been concentrating. I pay particular tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, because although we talk about the achievement of politicians on such occasions, it is often to the diplomats that much of the credit must go. I have no doubt that Sir Jeremy's diplomatic skills with both the Americans and the other members of the Security Council have been largely instrumental in bringing about that remarkable achievement, resolution 1441.
  I am not sure that much praise should be given to the Liberal Democrats. Their amendment is regrettable, giving breathing space to Saddam Hussein and having all the disadvantages in relation to our troops that the Foreign Secretary set out so admirably in his speech. I urge the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.(Mr. Moore) to withdraw the amendment rather than press it to a vote, because it is a serious error of judgment.
  One of the things we heard praised in New York is the Iraq programme, for the establishment of which the British Government can take some credit. It is often misleadingly referred to as the oil for food programme—the Foreign Secretary himself used that terminology—but it is so much more ambitious than that. Apologists for Saddam Hussein who sometimes criticise the Iraq programme are levelling their criticism at the wrong target. The problems, such as they are, with the programme are inevitable when the client is a monolithic state such as Iraq, and the programme is administered by a multilateral agency such as the United Nations. However, the main difficulties are caused by Saddam Hussein himself—for example, cutting off the flow of oil for 30 days in solidarity with other, wider, middle eastern questions, and thus removing funding

  91
  for the programme. It is Saddam Hussein and n o one else who inflicts misery and suffering on the people of his country.
  If I have one criticism of the UN it is that it has not done the job of talking about the Iraq programme sufficiently well. The programme is a remarkable achievement, cited by the Foreign Secretary today, and the UN should be far more up front in talking about it and giving credit to its achievements.
  That leads me to my other major concern, which is our humanitarian preparedness in the unfortunate event of a war. If there is a war—every Member of Parliament hopes that there will not be a war; that is common ground between us—it is inevitable that the Iraq programme and that type of humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq will end. We all know how desperately poor the international community's response to the 1990 to 1992 Gulf crisis was: hundreds of thousands of people suffered unnecessarily because we did not think through the humanitarian response to that crisis.
  There is a strong view held with great sincerity by many UN member states that to prepare for a humanitarian crisis is to acknowledge the inevitability of war. I do not accept that argument. To prepare for the worst is not to wish for the worst, and we should prepare for the worst. Indeed, that may have the incidental advantage of reinforcing in Saddam Hussein's mind the seriousness of the international community's purpose. Please let us do more to prepare for the humanitarian consequences of a war that none of us want.
  There is no doubt that the credibility of the United Nations has been greatly enhanced in the past few weeks and months. That is greatly to be welcomed. I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the American Government's attitude towards Israel and about the need for even-handedness. However, I remind the House that—the right hon. Member for Swansea, East made this point—Syria voted for the resolution. That is a remarkable achievement. We had the privilege of meeting a representative of the Syrian Government when we were in New York and it is clear why Syria voted in the way that it did. The Arab states themselves view Saddam Hussein as a very serious threat. Members of the House should not forget the unanimity behind the resolution when they cast their votes on the Liberal amendment or on the main motion.
  Sadly, I fear that war is very likely. Perhaps it will be further off than some people had originally imagined, but I am not optimistic that Saddam Hussein will ultimately comply with the terms of a very tough resolution. However, there is a substantially enhanced chance that any such military action will take place on a multilateral basis. The mood in the United Nations and the Security Council is clear, resolute and firm. They understand what they have signed up to in resolution 1441. That is to be welcomed. There will be disagreements over what is meant by a material breach, and there will be matters of interpretation. However, all the members of the Security Council understand the seriousness of the situation that they now face.
  We know that war is not an attractive or an easy option, and no one should wish for war. I do not think that anyone does. We know all the options open to
  92
  Saddam Hussein in the event of a war. For example, he could effectively take the people of Baghdad hostage as the price for negotiations with the international community. It would be a bloody and awful business.
  I saw a sign on the wall of an office in the United Nations. It did not belong to the current occupant of the office but to a previous one. It read:
  "More than at any other time in human history, humanity faces a crossroads.
  One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction.
  Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
  That rather light-hearted but serious interpretation is relevant now. There are no easy choices in situations such as this. Those who wish that Saddam Hussein would deal with the situation himself or would miraculously disappear seem to believe that there is an easy path out of this tremendously difficult situation. I am afraid that they are whistling in the dark. I hope against hope that there will be no war, but the world must grapple with evil and not avert its gaze or pass by on the other side.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the summer, I expressed serious misgivings about the possibility of military action against Iraq. I was extremely worried that unilateral action would be taken by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom. I was also extremely worried about the consequences for Israel and Palestine, as a result of Saddam trying to involve Israel in any war that might take place. However, it has to be said that the latter worry continues while the former does not.
  Just as I did in 1990–91, I have looked for a Security Council policy. I was not looking for the policy of the British Government—Labour now, Conservative in 1990but for a clear United Nations policy that I could support. That is the only way in which world order can be maintained. Therefore, what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has achieved has changed the position from the summer. We now have a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution.
  The resolution is not a brief expression of opinion, but sets a programme and timetable. It provides trip wires 1 hat make it clear that at the end of the process—if that process is followed through right to the end—is military action. What is important is not so much the fact that it is a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, although that is greatly to be welcomed, but the fact that it has been accepted by the Government of Iraq. If they had rejected the resolution, that would have created an immediate danger of war. However, once they accepted the resolution, they accepted its content and its consequences. That being so, it is impossible for anyone now to say that, should military action take place at the end of the process, that would be somehow springing a trap on the Iraqi Government. The moment on 8 November that the resolution was passed and the moment the following week that the Iraqi Government accepted it, they accepted what would happen if they did not comply with it.
  I disagree with those hon. Members who believe that the position is obscure. It could not be plainer. There is a timetable, and it moves forward by stages, if necessary,

  93
  until the beginning of March. If, by the beginning of March, Saddam Hussein has not complied with the resolution, the United Nations gets a report from the inspectors and the Security Council automatically convenes. We do not have to ask for it to convene; the resolution tells it to do so and to receive a report. If that report is unfavourable, the Security Council resolution talks about the serious consequences that can follow. Those serious consequences will not be a surprise to us in the House or a surprise to those in Baghdad. Baghdad has gone down this road before. It was warned of serious consequences but it believed that they would not be imposed. They were imposed, so nobody can now be in doubt about what would take place if the resolution were defied at any point.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has performed a service not simply to the House, but to world order by the way in which he has influenced the United States President. It is perfectly clear in my mind that this approach was not the preference of the United States President, and it certainly was not the preference of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice—the three witches of this particular confrontation. Toil and trouble is what they are looking for. Powell, who had been sidelined. has been listened to, and I am sure that, to a considerable degree, that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  I go further. When my right hon. Friend spoke on these issues at the Labour party conference, he built into his approach the need to have implementation of Security Council resolutions on Israel and Palestine as well. He talked about action before the end of this year and. even given the fact that the Israelis will have an election in January, that is the next part of the programme that he should follow. It is intolerable that the Israeli Government should refuse to sit down and talk with the Palestinians.
  Of course, the Israelis suffer from utterly grievous terrorist acts, which are to be condemned and which have the most appalling human consequences. However, the fact that they are suffering from such acts is no excuse for them not to participate in talks. Indeed, some terrorist acts, such as the one on the Jewish settlement a few days ago, are a direct consequence of the Israeli Government's policies in maintaining settlements and exposing their soldiers—something that Yitzhak Rabin hated—to being killed to protect people who should not be there.
  I know that the situation is difficult. Not only does Israel have its worst Prime Minister ever, but it has its worst Defence Minister and Foreign Minister ever. That does not mean that we should slacken in our efforts; indeed, it makes it much more important that we continue in them. It is all very well to say that trigger-happy Israeli soldiers are not killing people deliberately, but they are still killing them. We need an overall settlement because the middle east will not settle down unless both Iraq and Israel are forced to comply—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I am always
  94
  concerned when people call for absolute clarity or precision in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, foreign affairs tend to be a messy business. Although there are fixed points in the process, we can have no illusions about the character of the Iraqi regime and there is little doubt that there is either the capacity or the propensity for it to build weapons of mass destruction. I also hope that there is little doubt that the effects of a prolonged and large conflict in that country would be disastrous not only in Iraq but in the region as a whole.
  The circumstances in which the elements come together change as circumstances of the international community change. There is a world of difference between unilateral posturing and a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, and between a material breach as defined by one or two members of the Security Council and an action agreed by all. I was greatly influenced by the visit to the United Nations to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) referred, which gave me the opportunity to talk to some of the representatives of the permanent five and the elected 10 on the Security Council. I concur entirely with the view that Sir Jeremy Greenstock has done an excellent job on behalf of the British Government and the British people in the United Nations. The Foreign Secretary has also played a significant part.
  Members of the Security Council have passed a unanimous resolution, which they believe re-establishes the primacy of international law and the United Nations. That is important. They believe that they have achieved, at least pro tern, an effective containment of Iraq and, in the long term, its disarmament. Let us hope that that is the case. They also believe that they have perhaps thwarted the unilateralists in the United States Administration and put them back in their box while strengthening the position of the State Department and, by extension, Secretary Colin Powell. That is also welcome.
  I intervened on the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to highlight the fact that it is clear that the Security Council supported the resolution on the basis of no automaticity. The understanding was that the issue would return to the Security Council, as the letter from the Chinese, French and Russian permanent representatives makes clear. It is also clear that they received assurances to that effect from the British and the American representatives. It is right that the issue should return to the Security Council. The argument that it is possible to set aside the decision or the future considerations of the United Nations Security Council if someone does not agree with them is the argument of the vigilante through the ages: if the law does not agree with me, I will decide what is the law. I do not accept that argument, nor does my party.
  I strongly formed the view that Hans Blix enjoys the confidence of members of the United Nations. He deserves that confidence. He demonstrated to us his independence, integrity, intelligence and understanding of his role. The same applied to Mohammad el-Baradei, who represented the International Atomic Energy Agency. They have a difficult role to perform. Their position would be strengthened by the addition of more inspectors from the Arab world to the ranks of the UNMOVIC inspectorate. I hope that the British Government press others to provide that.

  95
  The process will be long. It will take time just to baseline—or re-baseline—on nuclear weapons. It is no good the Americans or anyone else getting impatient with the process if it does not provide them with the evidence to which they think they are entitled. It is clear that the process must be: first, to receive reports from the independent inspectors: secondly, to have an assessment by the Security Council; and, thirdly, to make a decision on the correct course of action.
  If I have a concern it is that no genuine post-conflict analysis of what will happen in Iraq if military action takes place has been demonstrated in this country or elsewhere. In terms of contingency planning, I echo what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said. We know that military planning is going ahead apace. That may be necessary to strengthen the position of the United Nations Security Council. I also want humanitarian planning, although I understand the reluctance not to do that openly. If there is a major conflict in Iraq, a massive number of displaced persons will try to find their way to Kuwait and the Gulf states. It is right to plan for that now. The Pentagon may not like it, but I hope that the British Government do and will start to think in those terms. We need to think about maintaining Basra as an available port for humanitarian support and a safe haven for displaced persons in the event of a conflict taking place.
  My conclusion is still that military action is likely to be the wrong option. The war will not be carried out from 50,000 ft. It cannot be subcontracted to the Northern Alliance or anyone else. This time it will mean American troops and, if we join in, British troops on the ground in an unpleasant action. It will have serious consequences for the region. The domino effect could be disastrous. It is literally a matter of last resort for us to act in that way and the decision can be made only by the Security Council, as the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) provides.
  I do not understand some of the points made in criticism of the amendment. We ask for two things: the first is that the matter be referred back to the Security Council, and the Foreign Secretary agrees with that; the second is that the House decide whet her young men and women are sent on behalf of this country to offer their lives in support of the United Nations or the British position. That is a decision for a sovereign Parliament to take. It does not put anyone's life at risk. I hope that even those who have doubts will not take the preposterous position adopted by some and will support us in the Lobby.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: I support UN Security Council resolution 1441. It is important to understand why it is necessary to undertake the inspections and why there might be a need for military action. We know that Iraq started two major wars, one against Iran in the 1980s and the other against Kuwait in 1991. The Iraqi Government face international sanctions and the threat of war. They have chemical and biological weapons, of which the former has been used on tens of thousands of their civilians, both in experiments on them and to
  96
  murder them, and they are close to developing their own nuclear weapons, which they would not hesitate to use if they were allowed to do so.
  The Government's 50-page dossier highlighted various concerns. As I said, Iraq has military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which it has used even against its own population. Saddam is just one or two years away from building a nuclear weapon, and if he managed to obtain weapons-grade material from abroad, chemical and nuclear programmes would be well funded by the illicit earnings of the Iraqi regime.
  Iraq has tried covertly to acquire technology and materials that could be used in the production of nuclear weapons, and it has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, some of which can be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to use them. It retains weapons from pre-Gulf war stocks, and remains capable of producing chemical agents such as mustard gas, tabun, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. It still has a missile programme, producing missiles with ranges of 650 km, and is developing weapons that will go even further. We cannot allow that to continue.
  We are coming to the end of a long and tortuous process. On 28 February 1991, the Gulf war ended, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions. Six and a half years later, in October 1997, the Iraqi Government started to obstruct United States weapons inspectors before allowing UN weapons inspectors to enter a year later in November 1998. A month later, they were ordered out of the country after UNSCOM chief Richard Butler reported that Iraq was not co-operating. A year later, in December 1999, UNSCOM was replaced by UNMOVIC and Iraq again rejected the resolution. Three years later, Iraq has finally accepted resolution 1441–11 years after the Gulf war ended and five years after the first weapons inspectors were rejected.
  What will happen now? I have listened with interest to the arguments by Labour colleagues and Opposition Members. Iraq has until 8 December to declare its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programmes. Inspections, as we know, are just days away and the first progress report will be written within 60 days of their commencement. Let us hope that Iraq co-operates fully and declares everything to the inspectors. The consequences of not doing so, as resolution 1441 euphemistically says, will be "serious". US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:
  "It won't be a world war III as the US military is vastly more powerful than 10 years ago at the time of the Gulf war, while Iraq's capabilities have declined."
  The ground combat in the Gulf war lasted just 100 hours. Mr. Rumsfeld also said:
  "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
  I noted with interest that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs asked what would happen at the end of such a war. Saddam would almost certainly be toppled as the Americans took control of Baghdad. In that scenario, there are two possible outcomes that are not mutually exclusive. The first would involve an occupation plan, with Iraq governed by an American military commander, in the way that Japan was governed after the second world war. In the

  97
  second, the country would disintegrate into three parts, with the Kurds taking control in the north, the Shia Muslims in the south and the Sunni Muslims in the centre. Saddam Hussein must be aware of both possible outcomes—all the more reason why there should be full co-operation with the inspectors and why resolution 1441 is a chance for the Iraqi regime to follow a new path. The UN has shown that it is willing to make itself relevant in the face of threats that confront us in the 21st century. Now the Iraqi regime must prove itself by complying with resolution 1441. If it does not, its future will not be in its own hands.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I congratulate the Government and the United States Administration on once again confounding the critics, many of whom have spoken today and have predicted that they would act recklessly, precipitately, and without the authority of international law. Those critics are wrong—resolution 1441 is proof of that. I am happy, as an Opposition Member, to pay tribute to the work of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in securing the resolution.
  Behind some of today's contributions is an attitude and prejudice towards the United States that simply cannot go unchallenged in the Chamber. First, there is a view, exemplified by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the first Government Back Bencher to contribute to the debate, that the US Administration are a bunch of cowboys who, in the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), cannot wait to bomb the living daylights out of Iraqis— [Interruption.] I see that that view has support from Government Members, but it is a patronising attitude, and was expressed in a milder, slightly more sophisticated way by the Liberal Democrats, who said that only wiser British counsel has cooled the American hotheads. It is a modern version of Harold Wilson's idea that we are Athens to America's Rome, but it is a patronising approach both to one of the most sophisticated foreign policy communities in the world and the US Administration. It is wrong and has not been borne out by events during the past year.
  I remind Members that there was no knee-jerk reaction to the events of 11 September—perhaps the greatest provocation that any western democracy has experienced in the past 50 years—and that the Americans worked with the international community to build a coalition against international terrorism. They were then were supported by other countries' troops in prosecuting action in Afghanistan. There was no precipitate action against Iraq and there has been no unilateral action of the kind that was predicted month after month in the Chamber.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may be right in his analysis of the American defence and intelligence community, but does he accept that reports authored by Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz dating back to 1998, including the report produced by the Project for the New American Century, make it clear that regime change in Iraq has been part of the policy of people who now advise on and set foreign policy for the American Government?
  Mr. Osborne: Regime change was also the policy of the Clinton Administration—I did not hear the hon.
  98
  Gentleman make the same criticisms of that Administration. People like Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and even Richard Perle, who spoke in the House a week ago, are some of the most intelligent and sophisticated people in the international community— [Interruption.] Members may disagree, but that is the case. Those people are extremely sophisticated and intelligent. The idea that they are a bunch of cowboys and rednecks is a misunderstanding of the way in which the US Administration operates, and beggars belief.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Would the hon. Gentleman be referring to the same President who talked about wanting bin Laden dead or alive and an "axis of evil"? Would he be referring to the regime that holds international law in contempt by refusing to sign the convention establishing the International Criminal Court?
  Mr. Osborne: I am talking about the American President who, immediately after 11 September, made a well-judged decision—not to act pre-emptively, as some Members, including probably the hon. Gentleman, predicted, but to work with the international community. He has done more work with the UN than the previous American President ever did, and has not launched strikes against Iraq to get himself out of domestic political problems as his predecessor did. He is trying to build an international coalition. The United States deserves support from the international community. For 50 years, it has, at great cost and risk, defended the freedom of western Europe. In times of enormous provocation, during crises in Berlin in the late 1940s and in 1961, it put its head on the block and defended countries such as Germany. The German Chancellor now says that he wants nothing to do with the United States. For the first time in NATO's history, article 5 has been invoked, and NATO countries have agreed that the attack on 11 September was an attack on all members. When it comes to the crunch, however, there is little support for the US from other European Governments. As a British Member of Parliament I am proud that a British Government, albeit one whom I do not usually support, have put their head above the parapet and supported the United States. I note that other countries, such as Australia, which is not even a member of NATO, have done something similar.
  The second presumption in many contributions today is that it would never be right to take pre-emptive military action against Iraq or any other dictator. That argument takes several forms—for example, "Why now? Why not wait? Iraq is not a threat to us today." That is the argument for appeasement down the ages. It is always a persuasive argument and many Governments have fallen victim to it, including Conservative Governments. However, it always makes matters worse to avoid the threat now in the hope that it will go away.
  There are parallels with the way in which we have dealt with international terrorism during the past 20 or 30 years. A very persuasive book by Alan Dershowitz, one of the United States' leading legal authorities, entitled "Why Terrorism Works", was published this month. He makes a powerful and persuasive case that the root cause of terrorism is not poverty or injustice, as

  99
  there are many people in poverty and many who suffer injustice who do not resort to terrorism. The root cause of terrorism, he argues, and I agree, is that terrorism works for the people who use it. It advances their cause, brings publicity to what they do, achieves their ends and, more often than not, gives them a seat at the negotiating table.
  Ever since the first international terrorist act in 1968, when a plane was hijacked by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the international community has appeased terrorists, bought them off, released them from jail and given them top seats at the negotiating table. We cannot allow the same approach today to international terror. We cannot allow such an approach, whether it applies to international terrorists, al-Qaeda, suicide bombers in Israel or rogue states such as Iraq. The United States, with the support of the Prime Minister, has led the way in strengthening the resolve of the international community. It has done so with my support and the support of the Government, and I hope that the motion is evidence of that. I support it entirely.
  8.1 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Given all the talent in evidence in the Chamber, I am grateful to be called. I was amused by the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Does he recall that the wonderful and sophisticated country that he so admires is the same country which, under a previous Administration, succoured Saddam Hussein as a trusted ally and built him up into the demagogue that he became? The hon. Gentleman should reconsider his analysis.
  I congratulate the Government and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on restraining the sophisticated Government of America, so that the matter was put in the hands of the United Nations, which is where it should be. That gives the entire international community a fresh chance to establish the rule of international law, which has always been a patchy process and has for too much of the time depended on which state or group of states was the most powerful, rather than on the rights of any case. That is why resolution 1441 is a considerable achievement. It is very important that it be honoured.
  The resolution must be honoured on both sides. Although there is a mandatory obligation on Iraq to conform to 1441, there must also be a moral obligation on all Security Council members to take careful account of Iraq's response to 1441. If Iraq is seen by Hans Blix and his team of inspectors to have conformed with 1441 when they make their final report to the Security Council, that has to be the end of the story. That will have done a tremendous amount for the establishment of international law.
  We are all uncomfortably aware that some loud voices have been raised among the sophisticates in Washington who clearly do not believe that Iraq has any intention of confirming to 1441, which is a prescriptive, strict and demanding resolution. We can all think of commentators close to the American President who do not believe that Saddam will conform and who probably do not want Saddam to conform. They will gladly seize
  100
  on any excuse to say that he has substantially breached the resolution and use that as an opportunity for promoting unilateral action. That would be extremely reprehensible. It would be taking a match to the powder keg that is the middle east. Should that happen, Britain must have no part of it.
  If we are to have true international law, it must be seen to be even-handed and to be upheld by all communities. It is a fair criticism, which I am happy to hear made tonight by Opposition Members, that the United States has not been even-handed in its approach to international law. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the middle east. If the United States were as enthusiastic about the implementation of resolution 242 in Israel and Palestine, we would be getting somewhere.
  Earlier this year our Prime Minister promised a fresh impetus to try and restart peace negotiations in the middle east between Israel and Palestine. We should not wait for the hiatus of the coming Israeli general election. The process should be restarted now and the Prime Minister should make it clear to the President that if he is looking for British support anywhere along the line, the political price that he needs to pay is to put some American muscle into the Palestine peace process. As it is, the United States is simply arming Israel with a virtually unlimited supply of weaponry and it is condoning the most incredible illegal acts by the Israeli Government.
  So long as that festering sore exists, there will never be true peace between the world's enormous Islamic community and—for want of a better description—the Christian west. It is hardly surprising that the Christian west is looked on with distrust, which will always lead to unrest throughout the world.
  It is vital that we direct our focus through the United Nations. Although I slightly regret the fact that a Liberal amendment has been selected, so that the Liberal Democrats are seen to take the moral high ground—which is a bit bogus, but never mind—the principles expressed in the amendment are correct and unarguable. The simpler amendments that call for a vote in Parliament would have been adequate because they would have taken account of the first part and left the Foreign Secretary enough room for manoeuvre in the event of blocking action in the Security Council. None the less, the Liberal amendment is right in principle and it is consistent with the main Government motion, so at the end of the day—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I refer hon. Members to the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, which seeks to clarify the situation in much the same way as the Liberal Democrat amendment.
  Despite the complete unacceptability of Saddam Hussein's regime in any right thinking forum, there is no provision in international law to enforce regime change. Indeed, not only is there no provision, but it appears that regime change would be directly in conflict with resolution 637, which confirms
  "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq."

  101
  It would therefore be astonishing if such provision were used as the justification for any impending aggression against Iraq. If the US and the UK acted unilaterally and without UN sanction, they would be acting outside the law. They have said that if resolution 1441 had not been adopted, there might well be a case for unilateral action. The Prime Minister has not ruled that out and on several occasions we have heard remarks similar to what the Foreign Secretary said even on 7 November:
  "we would very much prefer decisions to be taken within the Security Council…we have always made it clear that within international law we have to reserve our right to take military action, if that is required, within the existing charter and the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions, if, for example, a subsequent resolution were to be vetoed."—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 435.]
  That leads us to consider under what rule of international law the use of force against Iraq could be justified. I should like to refer to the opinion given by Rabinder Singh, QC, and Charlotte Kilroy, dated 15 November 2002, a copy of which I was kindly sent by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. In referring to the right within international law to use force, the Foreign Secretary seems to rely on Security Council resolution 1441, the existing body of UN Security Council resolutions and the UN charter and/or customary international law. However, the opinion states:
  "The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:

  (a) Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom's assistance; or

  (b) an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or

  (c) the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms."

  Clearly, that situation has not arisen, and there appears to be a difference of opinion about whether resolution 1441 authorises the use of force. The proponents of military action suggest that it might do so, but in my submission it does not authorise any member state to use force.
  Previous Security Council resolutions, such as resolution 678, have adopted clear and strong language to authorise the use of force. States are authorised to use "all necessary means" or take "all necessary measures". Those are not merely issues of semantics. Undoubtedly, the consideration of such words took a lot of time when resolution 1441 was discussed. It is known that the UK and US sought an express authorisation, but such authorisation is manifestly lacking in the final wording. Security Council permanent members Russia, France and China made their position clear: they did not want the resolution to authorise force.
  Instead, resolution 1441 provides at paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 that, in the event of non-compliance, the matter will be referred to the Security Council, which will convene to consider the need for full compliance and so on. That clearly means that it is for the Security Council to decide on any further action that might be taken against Iraq. Would it not be extraordinary if the UK and the US, having failed to obtain an express authorisation for the use of force, having incorporated minute changes to the final draft whose sole purpose was
  102
  to exclude the possibility of automaticity and hidden triggers and to preserve the role of the Security Council, and having publicly agreed in their explanation of the vote for adopting resolution 1441 that there was no such implied authorisation for the use of force, nevertheless regarded the resolution as providing such authorisation?
  Of course, the UN charter refers to implied authorisation for conflicts. The implied authorisation arguments of the US would permit states to make unilateral decisions on the use of force, but that is exactly what chapter VII and the charter as a whole are designed to avoid. Furthermore, it is only the Security Council that has power under article 39 to determine whether there has been a breach of the peace or a threat to peace, and to decide whether to take action under articles 41 and 42. It is only with an express delegation of that power that a member state may use force against another member state to force it comply with a Security Council resolution. Professor Colin Warbrick, an expert in this matter, stated in a recent opinion:
  "I am particularly sceptical of claims that the failure of diplomacy justifies resort to force 'as a last resort'."
  He develops his argument, but there is no time for me to quote the rest of it. None the less, I commend that opinion to the House.
  Some reports have suggested that Government officials are asserting that resolution 1441 contains no language that explicitly rules out the use of force, so force would be covered and the UK and the US would not be handcuffed in any way. It is unnecessary to insert wording into a resolution expressly requiring member states to obtain an authorisation to use force when the charter makes it clear that the only exception is the inherent right of self-defence, which is dealt with in article 51. On the self-defence argument, the dossier submitted to the House on 24 September will surely be recorded as one of the least persuasive documents in recent political history. Rather than persuade opponents of the necessity of military action, that threadbare document assisted the case against war. Furthermore, it assisted many waverers in this place and the general public in the view that the imminence of a threat was a mere perception and not a reality. In that regard, I pay tribute to CND for its tireless efforts to bring common sense to bear on the issue and for its invaluable briefings.
  I trust that the Government will await referral of the weapons inspectors' reports to the Security Council and not allow themselves to be part of an illegal attack on Iraq, with all the awful repercussions that might ensue.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), in which he extolled the virtues of President Bush, I thought to myself, "Come back, Neil Hamilton, all is forgiven."
  I want to refer to two groups of people in relation to the issue of possible military action against Iraq. The first are those who will suffer most as a result of military action. They are the sort of people whom I saw last May when I visited hospitals in Basra. I saw cancer patients, including a pretty 25-year-old girl, who had a huge tumour around her neck that made her head almost

  103
  double its normal size. A tiny child sat on her bed. She will never see the child grow up; indeed, she is probably already dead. Many others are in the same position. Incidence of cancer has increased by 10 per cent. in the areas where bombs that contained depleted uranium were dropped.
  Our troops have suffered from what we call Gulf war syndrome. The number of children who are born deformed has increased. The photographs have to be seen to be believed. Leukaemia has also increased. That is the reality of war. When people, especially those who have never experienced war and do not, for example, remember the second world war, talk lightly of bombing Iraq, it makes me freeze. They do not understand what war means. I am not a pacifist and I accept that sometimes we have to defend ourselves. We had to do that against Nazi Germany. Saddam Hussein, evil monster though he may be, has not the capability of an Adolf Hitler. It is nonsense to claim that he has.
  The sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq have not weakened Saddam Hussein but they have hurt the people with whom, we claim, we have no argument. How often have I heard Foreign Secretaries say, "We have no argument with the people of that country", when we are about to bomb it? Yet the sort of people I saw are affected. I wish that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister would arrange to see for themselves the reality of war. They have never experienced it, but they should go and see what they are letting people in for.
  The bombing did not stop in 1991. It continued in the so-called no-fly zones, which no UN resolution sanctions. Sometimes people cite resolution 688, but it does not refer to no-fly zones. They are not covered by any UN Security Council resolution.
  Let us consider the second group of people, who will be most pleased if we bomb Iraq. It is a secular state, which is not administered by extreme Islamists, and those who will perceive bombing Iraq as marvellous are therefore the members of al-Qaeda. We should fight the genuine international terrorists. Saddam Hussein does not threaten us through the London Underground or on our street corners, but that applies to al-Qaeda.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I respect my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he understands that I have only a short time in which to speak.
  Al-Qaeda must be gloating. The leaders of Arab countries may support President Bush in his aggressive war, but we can rest assured that, when photographs of civilians being torn to pieces by American bombs are shown in, for example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, the masses of Arab people will stir. The genuine threat to the middle east is not the madman in Baghdad-perhaps he is not so mad, since he wants to survive-but President Bush and the hawks around him. I call them the Cheney gang and I fear them most. Most people in the middle east do not like Saddam Hussein, but they will stand by the civilians who will suffer if Bush and his hawks get their way.
  The hawks are still there. Richard Perle has been in London. Heaven knows how anyone could describe him as sophisticated. If he is sophisticated, the word applies
  104
  to many other people who would not normally register in that category. Genghis Khan was probably sophisticated, but I do not believe that we would want him for an ally.
  The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues should consider carefully before they appease the United States Administration under President Bush. I am against that because, as Nelson Mandela said, that Government are as dangerous as any other Administration in the world. The sooner the decent people of America, of whom there are so many, are able to elect a President who is not a "moron"—as one Canadian Minister has called Bush—who knows where Iraq is, and who has some ideas behind him, the better it will be for all of us and for the people of Iraq.
  8.24 pm
  Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the trenchant views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who brings a refreshing reality to the Chamber in the context of the realities of war. Although I cannot agree with all his views on the American presidency, I am fascinated to hear his insight into what war actually does to people. I am grateful to him for teeing me up for what I am about to say.
  I rise to support UN resolution 1441, and I would like to pay tribute to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who talked about preparation for war. That will be the only way to make deterrence work, and to avoid violence. I believe that we can avoid violence, as long as we are realistic about the dangers that lie ahead.
  I entirely agree with comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about the enemy being not only Iraq but international terrorism. The Government must take a firm grip of the preparations for the attacks that are bound to fall on this country as the path to war becomes more tortuous and peace becomes more difficult to preserve. The Government's cack-handed handling of the recent threats from al-Qaeda illustrate this point well. Since the start of Ramadan, there have been more than 30 attacks world wide, and this weekend saw a pulse of activity across the world in which several people died. Yet, until recently, the Government have been happy, like an ostrich, to keep their head firmly in the sand.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Patrick Mercer: I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  The population is not stupid. I shall quote "superwoman" Nicola Horlick in this morning's Financial Times:
  "The FTSE could easily be 3000. If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow, the market would be at 3000."
  People are expecting this sort of trouble, and these kinds of difficulties. We must, however, be realistic, and the Government must prepare us. An apposite point at the moment is that we live with the possibility of fire every day. Fire is a reality of life, and we prepare for it. Just outside the Chamber there are fire extinguishers; we know what to do in the event of a fire. Furthermore, we have lived with terrorism for 30 years in Northern Ireland, and we have

  105
  come to terms with it. I say to the Government that, if we are to deter Saddam Hussein, and to deter violence, and if peace is to have a chance, we must be effectively prepared for the worst eventuality.
  I want to concentrate on the forces that are available to achieve that deterrence. I disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who talked about the nasty shooting war—I hope he will forgive my paraphrasing him—that is likely to happen in Iraq should war break out. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention at all. I believe that they intend to do what was done in Afghanistan and in Kosovo, which is to fight the opening phases of the war with a small number of special forces, aircraft and submarines, and to avoid a shooting war if at all possible. I believe that they intend to commit British troops only when a shooting war has finished.
  I would like to remind the Government of a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister. He said that he would be willing to pay a "blood price", and that we would be alongside the United States "when the shooting starts". He also said:
  "At moments of crisis"
  the United States
  "does not need to know simply that you are giving general expressions of support and sympathy."
  This comes from a man who has never seen war or heard a shot fired in anger, yet is about to commit young men and young women into harm's way, without understanding the full implications. He does not understand that the "blood price" will not be paid by him. If the Government mean to stand shoulder to shoulder with their ally, and to be there when a shooting war breaks out, they must honour those words and not be hypocritical.
  Like everybody else who has been there, I do not want a war. There could be no better news for this country's soldiers, sailors and airmen than the fact that war will not start, but the sure and certain way to undermine the coalition's credibility is to ensure that British forces are not there when the shooting war starts and that they have nothing but hollow rhetoric to back up those phrases about the blood price.
  In 1939 and 1940, Britain was fighting a phoney war and our enemies took the propaganda advantage of describing the Government as fighting to the last Frenchman. I hope that, this time, Mr. Blair understands what the commitment must be.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that he has to refer to Members not by name, but by constituency.
  Patrick Mercer: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that, this time, the Prime Minister understands that when he says something, he has to back it up and that the coalition must not be undermined by allowing our enemies the opportunity to say that the Prime Minister will fight to the last American.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: The aim of the resolution is perfectly clear and unequivocal, and it gives Saddam Hussein every opportunity for peace and
  106
  to avoid military intervention. It is not about President Bush or the Prime Minister, and the comments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) do the debate a great disservice. By and large, it has been excellently conducted.
  The only obstacle to a peaceful resolution is Saddam Hussein, through obfuscation and deliberately misleading the weapons inspectors. It has taken most of the past 14 months to get to this position—one that many thought we could not reach. It took 11 September to stir the international community into facing the dangers of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
  I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby, (Mr. Wareing), as I do not believe that we face a choice between a hierarchy of dangers—either winning the war against terrorism or dealing with Saddam Hussein. Those are part of the same strategy for security, which, to be successful, requires not unilateral action, but a global coalition against the prospect of catastrophic terror. That is why Iraq is central to the strategy for security and dealing with global terrorism.
  The problem that Saddam Hussein represents is not any form of conventional military threat—by all estimates, he is a great deal weaker than in 1991—but the danger he poses both to his own people and through the laboratories that are working to produce chemical and biological weapons. They are probably working to produce nuclear weapons, if they have any weapons grade plutonium. We know that not only from our own intelligence, but from people who have defected and from what he has done to his own people. We shall soon know from the weapons inspectors more of what they believe.
  We should be confident and optimistic that resolution 1441 represents a huge step forward in the international community's work. It recognises the genuine threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the need to fight that with multilateral, not unilateral, work. Multilateralism has emerged over unilateral action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to the UN's moral authority and he was right to refer to the importance of Saddam being cowed by military threat, but who the military threat is is even more significant. Who provides that military threat against him is most important—more important than even the threat itself.
  The UN today looks much stronger than it did six months ago, when it very nearly resembled a beleaguered League of Nations. As we sit here, most of us feel content with the progress we have made; but there is a terrible irony in this position. It is the irony that if Saddam complies, the UN, through its resolution, may well have become his protector. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South(Mike Gapes) raised some interesting questions in that regard. Saddam's regime will be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction one way or another; the question is, will he continue?
  The Iraqi people, not only witnesses but victims, silenced and butchered by this tyrant, will continue to live in terror indefinitely as helpless prisoners and victims of the tyranny. There is no military power in the Gulf region that can overthrow Saddam, as Vietnam did in ousting Pol Pot. If Saddam remains, complying with the resolution, our victory may be more Pyrrhic than we think.

  107
  We may criticise Bush for turning his attention on Saddam only because of 11 September. We may say that the President always intended to intervene, but has used those events as an excuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made clear, of course the President is no supporter of Saddam. The problem is that no action, of sorts, constitutes support for him. We should also be careful in criticising misguided actions by past western Administrations, including our deliberate dealings with Iraq along with the United States. We should not let those become justification for taking no action. We must distinguish between the faults of liberal democracies, of which we are one, and the incurable evil of tyrants like Saddam.
  The Opposition have asked a number of questions about the resolution. They have asked what would constitute material breaches. I think that that is pretty clear in the resolution. We have critical dates before us. Only if Saddam tells the truth will the regime remain a tyranny unchanged. If he is lying, the material regime will be changed. It will be disarmed, and Saddam may well go too. In truth, who will mourn his departure? The consequences, however, will reveal whether our global coalition acts only out of united self-interest, or works genuinely towards a greater humanitarian goal.
  Military intervention would certainly lead to the disarming of Saddam, but it would also lead to a series of consequences for the people of Iraq, both during and after the intervention. Our last engagement in the Gulf was hardly covered in moral glory, given our hasty withdrawal from the battlefield, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq to endure a continuing axis of despair. There is a huge difference between our motivation now and our motivation then, but the contrast between the despair and poverty that people endure and what they see here contributes to a deep distrust of our actions now. In the huge contrast between those lives reside the roots of a clash of civilisations.
  As President Clinton recently observed, we cannot seriously build the world that we want with a security-only strategy. "Prevent and punish" is not enough. We need a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. As General Marshall said at the end of the second world war,
  "We ought to take a little of this money and make a world with fewer enemies and more friends".
  Let us bear in mind the humanitarian crisis that may follow our actions. Turkey is already saying things that should worry us about what may happen on its borders. The regional governor of south-eastern Turkey said today
  "In case of a massive influx, it would be necessary to take measures to keep them away from our border. We have our own experience of 1991 in mind. We naturally do not want it to be repeated."
  I ask the Foreign Secretary what steps will be taken to prevent refugees from flowing on to the Turkish borders and being deprived of humanitarian aid in the event of military intervention.
  This is a crucial debate. I support the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) because he raises some interesting points, not least that it is difficult to find any way of disagreeing with the motion. Its most notable facet is what it leaves out. I agree with hon. Members' comments that it is rather bland.
  The key point is what happens next. What happens should Iraq fail to comply fully with all the provisions of Security Council resolution 1441? What happens should Iraq be found attempting to conceal weapons of mass destruction? In that context, from evidence that we have seen on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it would be folly to depend on the inspectors who have just entered Iraq to prove the lie of concealment. In the previous inspections programme, the UN inspectors were on the verge—literally within days—of giving Iraq and Saddam Hussein a clean bill of health as free from weapons of mass destruction. One of Saddam Hussein's brothers-in-law defected to the west and produced plans of where the particular sites were.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Chidgey: I shall not give way. When I tried to intervene earlier, it was not picked up, so I shall carry on.
  We were within days of giving Iraq a clean bill of health. Only through other evidence were we able to prove that we were totally misled. We are advised that, even with the latest techniques that the new inspectors have, it is not possible to detect small quantities of chemical and biological weapons components. When we say "small" in that context, we are talking about 20 tonnes.
  Clearly, the strategy of disarming Saddam Hussein is focusing not on the effectiveness of the inspections but on the threat of the scale of the response if Saddam does not reveal all in his catalogue of weapons of mass destruction. To have any credence, that strategy must mean a preparedness for rapid escalation into full-scale military intervention against Saddam Hussein. The Prime Minister said recently in the House and in public that to avoid war we have to be prepared for war, yet all we are debating at the moment is whether
  "the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance."
  It is the duty of the Government and their Ministers to come to the House to debate the consequences of the likelihood of Iraq's failure to comply with resolution 1441. It is the Government's duty to seek the approval of the House before taking this country to war against Iraq or anyone else—not just when they consider it "appropriate" to come here to seek approval.
  It is somewhat disingenuous for the Government to claim that they put our armed forces at risk by giving the House prior notice through debating our intent. I am not a military man but I can work out that for some months we have been building, with our allies the Americans, huge forces on Iraq's boundaries. Saddam Hussein is not stupid. They are not there for no reason. They are there to act and to go to war against him if he fails to comply with the resolution. How much notice does he need of our intentions?

  109
  It is a fact that no other western democracy that is a serious military player allows its leader to launch a war without the prior approval of its Parliament. There is no fear in the United States Senate that prior approval puts US forces at risk. Why are we unique in that matter? Is it because we are so used to the standard answer to a difficult parliamentary question that the information is too difficult to compile? Hon. Members will be familiar with that.
  The consequences of war against Iraq are far-reaching and long-term, and the stability of the region is at risk, through reaction in the Gulf states, which is likely to be dramatic. Many of the Governments there are at best fragile, and the reaction of Arab and Muslim peoples could result in the overthrow of the Saudi, Jordanian or Egyptian Governments, for example, which would create tremendous problems for our foreign policy objectives. At the very least, there could be extreme repression of mass dissent in those countries.
  The problem may not be confined to the Gulf states. There are large Arab and Muslim populations in London, Bradford, Leeds, Paris, Marseille, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. All those people will not take our military action against Iraq casually. Military action is not some quick fix, even if it would remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We need to discuss the worldwide consequences of starting a war, however good the justification for it.
  We should recognise the impact of any such action on the tens of thousands of young men and women in the Gulf states and elsewhere who are well educated but generally jobless and excluded from economic and social advancement. Is it any wonder that so many are attracted to quasi-religious-inspired terrorism? Would not a war against Iraq create millions more willing recruits to al-Qaeda's evil agenda?
  Iraq's failure to comply with 1441 will inevitably mean military action, but that will not be a quick fix. The reactions will challenge global prosperity and security for decades to come. That is why the Government should be debating those issues today, and why it should be for the House to sanction military action against Iraq through a substantive motion.
  8.47 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is obviously welcome and important, and it is good that the role of Parliament and the need for the Prime Minister to seek its approval to take our country into war are at last being discussed. If we took it one stage further, perhaps we could bring the whole operation of the royal prerogative under control, which would indeed be an enormous step forward.
  It is a matter of regret, however, that under our parliamentary system only the Speaker can choose the amendments for debate. Without wanting to criticise the Chair, I deeply regret the fact that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was not selected for debate, because it would have given some of us an opportunity to express a clear view on the war. As it is, I will support the Liberal amendment, as it provides an
  110
  opportunity at least to express part of the view that some of us have in opposition to the putative war against Iraq. We are being asked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the House entrusts the Speaker with that responsibility, and I do not think that it is something that the House as a whole would want to challenge.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I intend no offence whatever to Mr. Speaker. I am merely saying that perhaps the procedures should be re-examined.
  The UN resolution came about after weeks if not months of prevarication, arm twisting and negotiation among the five permanent members of the Security Council—the five declared nuclear weapons states, the five who have a power of veto—while the rest of the world looked on.
  There are some questions to be asked. If one reflects on the influence and power that have been exercised by the United States in obtaining that 15-nil vote, one recalls that when Yemen had the temerity to vote against a UN resolution in 1991 it promptly lost $75 million of US aid, while a lot of Yemeni citizens were expelled from Saudi Arabia and sent back home. The message from the US was, "Don't mess with us; we are more powerful than the rest of the world."
  It might be time to consider the need for changes and improvements and for genuine democracy to be introduced to the United Nations' operations. The 1945 post-second world war settlement is not necessarily the best way to go into the 21st century. The majority of the world's population live not in Europe or north America; they are poor and they live in the southern countries, and they feel that they are spectators at the UN's table.
  Dr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Jeremy Corbyn: No, I will not give way because of the time limit.
  Let us look at what has been done since 11 September last year by a US Administration who, we are told, have practised great restraint and caution in their approach to the world's affairs. I remind the House of the speeches made by the President, particularly the "axis of evil" speech, when he strung together the names of the countries that he could remember quickly and announced that they were all part of an axis of evil. Great fear was felt in those countries and the United States prepared further for war against them.
  Since 11 September last year, the United States has succeeded in obtaining bases in every country that surrounds Russia, the Caspian oil basins and the middle east—all the places where, during the cold war, they could not and would not go. The United States has overwhelming military power: it has more bases around the world than at any other time in its history and it is spending more on weapons of mass destruction and the US military machine. Yet the same regime, led by George Bush, is unable to provide health care for 40 million ordinary, poor American citizens.
  The American regime that we are told is engaging with the rest of the world refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Court. It refuses to sign the

  111
  Kyoto convention and the President refused even to attend the earth summit in Johannesburg. Yet we are told that this is not a war about resources or oil. I beg to differ. This is not a war about human rights, democracy or peace; it is a war about US commercial control in the middle east. If it were anything else, there would be far greater sanctions against Israel for its numerous breaches of UN resolutions. There would be a far more serious approach to the problems in the region and far less of the bellicose, gung-ho approach of George Bush and his close advisers.
  What are we doing here tonight? We have been asked to approve a motion in support of a UN resolution that either does or does not guarantee the right to go to war. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) drew attention to the legal opinion that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has obtained. In summary, it says:
  "Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force by member states of the UN."
  It goes on:
  "The UK would be in breach of international law if it were to use force against Iraq in reliance on Resolution 1441 without a further Security Council Resolution."
  Yet under close questioning, American and British representatives have said that they will go back to the Security Council but will not necessarily seek a resolution from it. Likewise, the US ambassador said in his summary that the US would not necessarily seek a further resolution.
  Mr. Straw: I never said that we would not necessarily seek a further United Nations resolution. Indeed, I said that we would much prefer to seek such a resolution. Aside from self-defence and other issues, the problem within this framework arises only if there is a clear prospect that the right thing to do is likely to be vetoed by other members of the Security Council, as happened over Kosovo in 1998.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am puzzled by that intervention. It seems to be okay for us to go to the United Nations as long as there is no danger of someone disagreeing with us. We have to do better than that.
  On 11 September last year, 3,000 people died in New York. That was appalling, awful and wrong, but since then 8,000 people have died in Afghanistan. None of those deaths could bring back those who died in New York. We are now hell-bent on a new war, yet a new generation has grown up in western Europe, north America and throughout the world that is in favour of peace. Those people realise that peace comes not from military might but from addressing the fundamental causes of war—the thirst for natural resources and the injustices throughout the world.
  The people who are meeting, marching and demonstrating for peace represent the fundamental mood of many people throughout the world. They do not support the bombardment of Iraq and they want a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in that region.
  8.56 pm
  Andrew Selous: I welcome both this opportunity to debate resolution 1441 and the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that the House will he able to debate, on a substantive motion, any future commitment of British forces to possible action in Iraq.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), I believe that the debate is really about the present role and function of the UN and what they could be in the future. We have an exciting opportunity to fashion a genuinely new world order in which the rule of international law, as exemplified by the UN, will be enforced throughout the world to a greater degree than occurred in the second half of the 20th century.
  We do not want the United Nations to go the way of the League of Nations in 1924 during the Abyssinian campaign. Nor do we want a repeat of the situation between 1933 and 1936 when Germany was rearming. If the international community had taken those events more seriously and backed the actions proposed by the League of Nations in respect of Abyssinia, international law could have been enforced.
  We have an opportunity to ensure that the writ of the UN really runs throughout the world. That is an exciting prospect and the House should welcome it.
  The question of double standards has rightly been raised by many Members; for example, as regards UN Security Council resolution 242 in respect of Israel. The issue of double standards is important. If we insist on the enforcement of one Security Council resolution, it is right to state that it is wrong to prioritise some resolutions over others. I look forward to the time when the UN takes seriously all the resolutions of its Security Council.
  We need to understand the importance of that, especially in the Arab world, when UN resolutions on Israel are not enforced. The UN should pay particular attention to that. However, it is not valid to argue that because some Security Council resolutions have not been honoured, we should not enforce resolution 1441. That is like the arguments that I heard when we were making a humanitarian intervention during the crisis in Rwanda. People asked why we were doing that and said that because it was not possible to intervene everywhere, we should not intervene at all. I do not agree. If we can do some good in some part of the world, we should certainly do so.
  I look forward to the day when the UN will have more military forces at its disposal, so that its resolutions can be enforced. It should not have to go cap in hand to the United States, the United Kingdom or any other country to ensure that its resolutions are enforced.
  We need to encourage countries to give troops to the UN voluntarily. It needs to have troops at its disposal so that it has the muscle to enforce its resolutions in times of conflict and uncertainty. If we are to have a new world order in which international law is upheld, we need seriously to consider the UN's resources.
  Our constituents deserve a clearer explanation of why Britain may be involved in supporting resolution 1441. Is it because of the genocide that has occurred within Iraq's borders for a very long time? There would be a respectable moral case if that were the reason. We all know that hundreds of thousands of people have lost

  113
  their lives. Is it because of the need to ensure the safety and security of Iraq's neighbours? We know that a million people were killed in the Iran-Iraq war and that Kuwait was invaded. My brother was taken hostage during that period. Is it because of a direct threat to the United Kingdom? Will missiles be able to reach these shores from Iraq? Will they be fired from a third-party country so that they can reach this country? Or is it because Iraq is backing al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations that could unleash poison gas in the London underground or commit other atrocities in the United Kingdom?
  Any or all of those could be perfectly valid reasons for us to commit British troops in support of UN resolution 1441, but our constituents need to know more clearly. The Government are not afraid and are capable of making a case when they want to, but the British people have not heard the explanation to which they are entitled at a serious time such as this.
  We have heard about the military planning. It is absolutely essential that proper humanitarian planning starts now for the civilian casualties that will be involved if a conflict takes place in Iraq. We are right to prepare militarily, as we hope that the threat of force will avoid war, but it is absolutely right and imperative—there is a strong moral case for this—to ensure that the humanitarian plans are put in place now. That is not war mongering; it is just acting responsibility, and we need to ensure that that happens. Contingency planning in the United Kingdom is also not in the state that it should be, and the Government need seriously to consider that as well.
  9.2 pm
  Ann Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is not in his place, as I should like to answer a point that he made. I did not think that I would have to correct a solicitor, but he said that there is no way to achieve regime change using international law without a war. That is simply not true. I note the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who talked about his brother being taken hostage in Kuwait.
  International law must be a weapon used against the Iraqi regime. Individual countries, or preferably an international criminal court under the auspices of the UN Security Council, should hold Saddam and members of his regime to account for their many crimes by bringing indictments against them. There is a way to achieve regime change—I want to force it into people's minds tonight—by using international law and bringing those people before a tribunal or a court in a country where universal jurisdiction applies. That is not a fanciful notion, because bringing indictments against Milosevic and his associates in the former Yugoslavia was a vital means to de-legitimise that regime inside and outside its borders.
  Let me remind the House that Milosevic was indicted while he was still Head of State, and no one thought that he would appear before the court in The Hague a year later. The setting up of a tribunal by the United Nations in that case also created an impetus to break with the past and allowed a new generation of leaders to come to the fore in that country.
  114
  Evidence against Saddam and his officials is certainly not lacking. I chair an organisation called Indict, which I have spoken about in the House many times. It is funded by the US Congress and has been for the past five years. Ironically, some members of Congress and of the Clinton Administration wanted indictments against members of the Iraqi regime, but there was a policy of containment and they never went after those indictments. However, it was possible, and it is possible now. Organisations such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have damning and disturbing testimony detailing extra-judicial killing, torture, rape, genocide and widespread corruption. It does not prejudice the case against them to say that more than enough evidence exists to charge Saddam, Tariq Aziz, Ali Hassan Al-Majid, the sons of Saddam, and other senior officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity immediately.
  Even now, however, many of Saddam's officials travel to many parts of the world, apparently without hindrance, on official business and for personal reasons. Isolating them within their own country would surely undermine their standing and limit their ability to conduct dealings, including the conclusion of commercial agreements with certain countries and attempts to secure additional weaponry, which help to sustain them in power. As David Scheffer, the former US ambassador on war crimes, has said:
  "We know from the ad hoc…tribunals for the former Yugoslavia…Rwanda and for Sierra Leone that indictments of alleged war criminals who lead tyrannical and genocidal regimes can destroy their political careers, isolate them internationally, end their regimes and even achieve justice."
  That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. It is often forgotten that many of Saddam's many victims were British nationals. At the start of the Gulf war, more than 1,000 British citizens were taken hostage. Some died, some were raped, others were tortured, and all suffered fear and humiliation. By taking concrete action to ensure that British victims obtain justice, the UK Government could show that they will do everything to promote the rule of law and fight impunity for the most serious crimes, and that the UK's support for the International Criminal Court is more than just lip service.
  More generally. Deterrence—especially as regards the conduct of any future Iraqi Government who might follow the current regime—demands justice. It has been said that international law cannot be enforced in Iraq without the use of force—that indictments as well as resolutions are not worth much unless they are underwritten by the world's most powerful armies. Conversely, however, whatever action the international community eventually decides is necessary, the law, and ultimately justice, must underpin such action. The moral case for dealing with the threat posed by Saddam that engages both hearts and minds demands that justice be done for the victims and that the standard by which any future Administration are judged be clearly laid down.
  It would seem that indictments, like military intervention, are a matter of political will. I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose motion I will support tonight, why, if Governments are willing to commit the lives of members of their armed forces, they cannot also commit themselves to law and legal procedure through recourse to the courts.
  9.9 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: It is with some sadness that I rise as only the second woman to speak in the debate. I remind the House and my sisters who are not present that, since the second world war, the overwhelming majority of casualties in conflict have been women and children. Women Members should be here to make our voices clearly heard.
  I have no illusions about Saddam Hussein. Many years ago, a very good friend of mine was imprisoned by him and spent eight years in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The previous Government were not very helpful at that time—it was before the Gulf war and they were somewhat friendly with the Iraqi Administration. They certainly gave the campaigners for that man's release no help whatever. I know from their stories and from those of others what a terrible dictator Saddam Hussein is. We know that he runs an evil regime and that he has damaged his people. That has been the case for decades, so we must ask why we have to take military action now. If there is a good new reason, we must be shown the evidence, and any action must have the full approval of the UN Security Council and the House of Commons.
  In the interests of joined-up government, before we go to war again will the Secretary of State consider the unfinished business that we face all over the world? Do we have the capacity to cope? In Afghanistan, only $1 billion has so far been committed out of the billions that were promised, and 70 per cent. of that has been spent on humanitarian aid. There is no security in Afghanistan outside Kabul. Afghanistan has asked for an extension of the international security assistance force, but where will the extra help come from? Will it come from the United States or from Britain? Where will it come from if we are facing war in Iraq and the middle east? Very little progress has been made in Afghanistan despite the promises of the Prime Minister. It is unfinished business.
  Many Members have rightly referred to the difficult situation in the middle east. It is worse than ever. The Palestinians have no hope and Israel is seen as the United States in the middle east. More unfinished business is sowing the seeds of, and continuing to fuel, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The Government are strangely silent on the middle east—more unfinished business.
  For many people, the Balkans are a distant memory, but it is still a very unstable region. Tens of thousands of people were displaced recently as a result of trouble in Macedonia. This year, only 6 per cent. of the aid promised in the famous Marshall plan for the Balkans has been delivered. That is yet more unfinished business. We are very good at destroying but not so good at rebuilding. I have not even mentioned Africa and, sadly, there is no time to do so. It has the most unfinished business of the lot.
  It is unclear just what the situation is in Iraq. However, we know that the oil-for-food programme has failed in recent years. Saddam Hussein has recently allowed oil imports to drop and negotiations have stalled because of the current crisis. What tiny progress was being made on the programme has been destroyed and will be further destroyed if we go to war. Hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq will suffer. My hon.
  116
  Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out that there had been no mention so far of the humanitarian relief plans to be put in place for Iraq. The problem was bad enough in Kosovo. It was a long time before the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees got its head round dealing with the refugees there. Iraq presents an immensely greater problem, but we do not know what will happen.
  What about the war on terrorism? Where is the connection with Iraq? Where is the proof? How can we afford to start a new war with Iraq when we face all these other problems? Can we risk further inflaming the world of Islam? As I said at the beginning of my speech, I want to see the back of Saddam Hussein as much as anyone else. However, we must ensure that, if we wage war on Iraq, it will help the war on terrorism and not make matters worse. We must wage war only with the authority of the UN Security Council and after a debate and vote in the House.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: As the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations I led a cross-party delegation to the UN prior to the return of Hans Blix's team to Iraq. We met all five representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council, the representatives of the 10 elected members, Hans Blix and Dr. el-Baradei's first deputy. To reassure my neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), we also met those at the UN who were working on humanitarian planning. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we were most impressed by work on the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. The programme is a success and is restricted only by the obstacles put in its path by Saddam Hussein.
  I support the main motion, especially in the light of the assurances and explanations given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I look forward to those being repeated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Ms Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Colman: No, I do not have time.
  In my eight minutes, I want to make two points that demonstrate clearly the use of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which gives the best possible route through immensely difficult terrain and ensures that the UN remains the ultimate linchpin of international law. First, it is important to appreciate that UNMOVIC is superior to its predecessor UNSCOM, which was discredited by accusations of infiltration and bias. Hans Blix made clear to us his determination to keep UNMOVIC independent and operationally objective. Dr. el-Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed similar priorities.
  Independence is also necessary to ensure that common sense prevails in reporting possible obstructions to the inspection team's missions. Clearly, both team leaders are experienced and will not blow up minor incidents into major breaches. Yet at the same time they will be sufficiently thorough to ensure that the

  117
  Security Council receives a full briefing of any problems encountered in-country. In that respect, Hans Blix has been quoted as rightly stating:
  "The question of war and peace remains, first of all in the hands of Iraq".
  If Iraq chooses to create problems for the inspectors, they will report that to the Security Council.
  Hans Blix made it clear to the all-party parliamentary group delegation that the Security Council—not he, UNMOVIC or the IAEA—would decide whether Iraq has committed a material breach. UNMOVIC will report the facts only. In deciding what constitutes a material breach, he also expects the Security Council to refer to the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which he had a hand in writing, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire explained. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, Hans Blix expects weapons inspectors to come from middle eastern countries, but so far only Jordan has offered to participate. He suggested that qualified inspectors could come from Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. It is imperative that the UNMOVIC team is fully representative.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised questions about support for the resolution in the middle east. The Syrian representative on the Security Council explained the wish of the Arab League for Iraq to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It is important in such circumstances for the Arab League to encourage its members to provide qualified experts to train as UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
  My second point is that the Iraqi notional timeline of events runs to March 2003. I very much hope that the Iraqi statement on 8 December will settle the matter in the pathway to peace, as the Foreign Secretary called it. However, if it does not and Hans Blix reports the facts to the Security Council, the second and highly pivotal factor in the motion and of the text of resolution 1441 will come into play. I want to emphasise that no option is given for military action without the matter returning to the Security Council. The lack of automaticity has been talked about already, but it is worth emphasising that that aspect of resolution 1441 has brought real unity to the Security Council—a magnificent achievement in this context. In his explanation of vote, US ambassador John Negroponte, whom the delegation met, stated:
  "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC. the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the council for discussions as required by paragraph 12."
  I should like to pay tribute to the people who lobbied in private to ensure that that matter returned to the United Nations, given that just a few months ago it looked as though the US was ready to act unilaterally, sidelining the UN. A resident of my constituency, the distinguished diplomat Sir Brian Barder, wrote to me arguing that the Prime Minister's visit to Camp David may go down in the history books as equally significant as the visit made by Clement Attlee to Washington to persuade President Truman not to use nuclear weapons in the Korean war.
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should be commended on bringing the United States back to the UN and back to international law. Likewise, credit
  118
  is due to Colin Powell for encouraging the present US Administration to work within the UN-authorised coalition. Sir Brian Barder also highlights the fact that it is imperative that we continue along that route. The UN has demonstrated its strength and we, in return, must show our commitment to its ultimate authority.
  Finally, I am sure that my Putney constituents will be pleased that the motion commits us to return to the Security Council before taking any further action. I know that they will be glad that those events have strengthened the credibility of the UN as the final arbiter of the rule of international law.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I reiterate the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for the Government motion on the Order Paper, which in turn endorses resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council.
  The Government have tabled an uncontentious motion, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will reply to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and others who have spoken in our debate. The Foreign Secretary made clear what the House would be voting for. If there is a serious breach, it is not essential for the UN Security Council to carry another resolution for military action to be taken. Nevertheless, it would be desirable, and I am sure that the House is grateful for the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he would try to obtain one.

  Her Majesty's Opposition cannot support the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I invite hon. Members to vote against it. The amendment states, unlike UN resolution 1441, that
  "it is for the UN Security Council as a whole to determine"
  whether there has been a material breach. The resolution also does not stipulate that an express mandate from the Security Council is required for resolution 1441 to be enforced.
  I listened carefully to the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who argued that any military action, whether carried out or just threatened, must be within international law. That is our position and it is also the commitment that the Government constantly give—we will hold them to that commitment.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Opposition's view, who should determine what is a serious breach? Who defines that?
  Mr. Jenkin: It is perfectly clear from the resolution that that is entirely a matter for the weapons inspection team and Hans Blix. It puts a huge and onerous responsibility on him, and it is incumbent on all of us to give him our absolute trust and backing. He has the trust of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, the United States and our own Government, and we should trust his judgment.
  The Liberal Democrat amendment tempts the House to exercise power over the Government by insisting on a further substantive vote. Again, the House should take

  119
  comfort from the Foreign Secretary, who assured us of his best efforts in that regard, but we should also bear in mind the difficulties that such a stricture could create. The amendment surely raises much wider constitutional issues than the one that we are debating this evening. It is certainly an important issue, which the House should discuss, but such an innovation should not be introduced in the heat of the moment. I invite the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment.
  Mr. Keetch: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the policy was not produced by my party in the heat of the moment. We have argued the same thing in the past. May I ask the hon. Gentleman a specific question? The Foreign Secretary said that our amendment might in some way put British troops in harm's way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not agree with that. If he did, he would have automatically assumed that President Bush and the Senate were putting US troops in harm's way by their constitutional procedure. The amendment sets out a sensible procedure for getting all sides of the House behind such a resolution.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am afraid that I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman is changing the rules of the game half way through the game. If we had a system whereby it was mandatory for the Government to get express backing from the House before military action, I expect that the Government would long ago have come to the House of Commons, in the same way as the President has gone to the United States Congress, and got a blank cheque to take whatever military action was necessary.
  That is not the constitutional position in this country. [interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) say that it ought to be. Let him change the law, rather than trying to rush through an instant change in the heat of the moment. I point out to him that passing a resolution of the House would not alter the Crown prerogative. If he wants to change the Crown prerogative he needs to bring a Bill before the House. I suggest that he does that, so that we can have a proper debate about the issue, which he clearly thinks is important.
  Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not mistrust the Government—[Laughter.]—on the matter. I accept the Foreign Secretary's assurances that he will do his utmost to consult the House on any future military action, and that he would convene the House as soon as possible after any military action if it became necessary to take such military action before the House had been able to meet.
  I move on to the military affairs that arise from the debate. Last week the Secretary of State for Defence—[interruption.] I shall quote the Secretary of State, so he might listen to the point—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he is busy. That is what he is here for—to be busy. He told a now-famous press conference last week:
  "We have had a request for forces from the United States, but no decision has been taken on that and it does seem to me appropriate that I should set out in more detail our thinking on Monday in the parliamentary debate".
  Much of the debate has been about the right of the House to be consulted on the decision to initiate military action. The people of this country have a right to know
  120
  what is being committed in their name, and in his comments last week the Secretary of State seemed to recognise that. So far in the debate the House has not had the slightest indication what kind of military commitment the Government may be contemplating, despite the fact that there have been numerous indications in the press and media that the Government have quite a clear idea.
  Last week, the Washington Post reported:
  "British officials have said they expect at least two British units, the 1st Armoured Division and a light helicopter-borne air assault regiment, to take part in any offensive in Iraq".
  Can the Secretary of State make any formal comment on that announcement? The approaching deadlines contained in UN Security Council resolution 1441 make it all the more extraordinary that the Government have not just failed to make any announcement, but have failed to give any warning orders to the Army units that might be required. All that is in the context of the comments made last week by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Those remarks deserve to go on the official record. When asked about the effect of the fire strikes on the armed forces, he said that he was "extremely concerned" for two reasons.
  With the permission of the House, I shall quote further. The Chief of the Defence Staff said:
  "First I am concerned on the military effectiveness of our armed forces and secondly I am concerned at the impact on our individuals who are helping out in the firefighting situation. Clearly we don't have a box of 19,000 people standing by to be called upon to do firefighting. They must be drawn from operational units … and they have now been standing by since September when we started training for the duties, they are not doing their tasks of training for whatever eventuality may come in the future."
  He went on to say:
  "There is also the problem … of impact on individuals because a lot of people have come straight off deployment from, say, Bosnia or Afghanistan and gone straight on to these duties without the benefit of any home time. That leaves a morale problem to be addressed as well."
  He pointed out that Navy ships are tied up in port, RAF stations are not operating at full efficiency and soldiers are being withdrawn from battalions training in Germany. He explained that
  "we are trying to husband some operational capability, but clearly we can't perform at the fullest end of our operational capability."
  That bears out the warning that he gave to the Select Committee on Defence on 6 November:
  "If there were a medium-sized operation, we would have great difficulty in coping with that."
  That is a savage indictment of Labour's five years in office.
  The strategic defence review, which everyone broadly supported—[Interruption.] Yes, that includes, broadly, the Opposition. The review envisaged that the UK would have the military capacity to sustain at any one time one major military operation, equivalent to the 1991 Gulf war, one minor operation, such as peacekeeping in the Balkans, and continued operations in Northern Ireland, Cyprus and so on. Is it not now abundantly clear that the armed forces do not begin to have the capacity to manage that level of commitment? Are we not now paying the price for a Government who have continued to spend less on defence in every year since the Conservatives left office? [Interruption.]

  121
  The Secretary of State says that that is rubbish. I would bandy figures from the Library with him, but I do not think that the House wants to waste time on that.
  The Government have left Britain totally unprepared for the unexpected. Despite the indications given by the Secretary of State last week, given the state of our armed forces, I doubt whether he is in a position to say much tonight that will add anything to the sum total of our knowledge. What military commitment has the US asked for and what are we likely to agree? If he cannot tell the House now, when will he be able to tell us? How long will it take to get our military commitment deployed and ready for carrying out military operations against Iraqi forces? Given that it takes eight to 12 weeks to get from the issuing of a warning order to deployment to move an armoured brigade into position, do not the Government intend to take very little risk at the outset of military action, because the main British force simply will not be there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out?
  Given the cuts in stocks and spares in the Ministry of Defence, what measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that UK military action will be sustainable for anything more than a few weeks? When will reservists be called up, how many will he call up and what warning will they get? What protection will British forces have against chemical and biological weapons, and particularly the VX nerve agent, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his opening remarks? What preparations are the Government taking to deal with the humanitarian crisis that would be likely to follow military action if it becomes necessary—a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)?
  We are supporting the Government's motion, but that should not stifle our criticism of their defence policy. The nation is braced for the possibility of terrorist attack.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am just finishing; the right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity.
  At the same time, the Prime Minister is saying that we must be prepared to pay what he rather chillingly calls the "blood price" of military action against Saddam. As the firemen start their strikes, we finally have it confirmed—the armed forces have been running on empty. There is nothing left in reserve.
  The Government have taken on far more military commitments than they are prepared to fund. Overstretch has become a byword for the Government's defence policy. Our armed forces remain a benchmark of excellence; they are the finest in the world. The Government have let them down.
  9.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I regret the fact that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is not prepared to give way during a speech that criticises Her Majesty's armed forces and their consistent success. He cannot give a single example of failure by the armed forces in the five years since the
  122
  Government took office. In a fairly typical contribution, the hon. Gentleman simply criticised and carped. He did not give any inkling of the official Opposition's policy, and he did not advocate an approach different from that of the Government. If he wants to criticise the way in which the armed forces operate, he should set out alternatives. He singularly failed to do that. Everyone, especially members of the armed forces, will note the Opposition's lack of a constructive contribution.
  History should have taught us the dangers of not dealing effectively with ruthless dictators. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. but Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction must be destroyed to restore Iraq to its proper place in the international community. Today's debate has reinforced a straightforward position and demonstrated why the Government's approach to Iraq is right.
  We have heard a great deal about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the international community and about his appalling human rights record. There will always be a range of sincerely held opinions on any international political issue. However, hon. Members are united on the necessity for Saddam Hussein to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) made clear. The Government are fully committed to that goal, as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. With the United States and other members of the Security Council, we devoted many weeks of diplomatic effort to its negotiation. That is the answer to the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made. The unanimous adoption of the resolution is a significant diplomatic achievement. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) will reflect on the fact that Syria voted for it. It is crucial to ensure that the resolution is implemented in full.
  Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State mentioned history. Does not history show that although it is possible to kill individuals in a movement, that often serves to reinforce the group? The right hon. Gentleman implies that global terrorism and Saddam Hussein are connected. What is his response to those who believe that war could exacerbate the terrorist threat?
  Mr. Hoon: As I shall explain shortly, the point of securing the unanimous Security Council resolution is to give the Iraqi regime a last opportunity to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council agreed unanimously on that, and it is consistent with the main Liberal Democrat proposition. However, if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) believes that there are no circumstances in which the Security Council resolution should be supported through resort to force, he should say that more clearly.
  Mr. George Howarth: It has been argued that the Government's approach could result in destabilising the middle east. How did that bypass the Syrians' calculations?
  Mr. Hoon: I pointed out that Syria voted for the resolution. The recent history of the middle east is also relevant. Attacks on Iran and the invasion of Kuwait

  123
  were hardly conducive to stabilisation in the middle east, but that is the sort of regime with which we must deal.
  I emphasise that our approach is based on Iraq's disarmament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) underlined. Neither Britain nor the United States is looking for a pretext for military action, which is always a grave step, and which will certainly be a last resort. No member of the Government will risk British lives unnecessarily.
  Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: In 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian land. In that same year, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242 unanimously, demanding that Israel withdraw its armed forces from the occupied territories. Any proposal to implement that resolution was vetoed by the United States of America. Israel has defied 32 United Nations resolutions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, without bringing peaceful resolution to the middle east conflict, there can be no peace?
  Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with those issues at some length in his opening speech, and I do not intend to repeat all that he said. I want to make it clear, however, that the Government want to see the implementation of United Nations resolutions. We are not discriminating between different resolutions. Those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) refers should indeed be enforced. We want to see them enforced—involving, as they do, obligations on a number of different states.
  We expect Saddam Hussein to have the survival instinct, at any rate, to co-operate with UNMOVIC and to comply with resolution 1441, but we cannot exclude the possibility that he will fail to do so. Let us not delude ourselves. All our experience shows that Saddam Hussein has only ever complied with the will of the international community when diplomacy has been backed by a credible threat of force,. That point was made extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
  Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend is rightly outlining the Saddam paradox, in which the more unambiguous the international community becomes in threatening the use of force, the less likely that might be to have to take place. The Foreign Secretary also mentioned that. May I put to my right hon. Friend what I might call the Rumsfeld paradox? That is that the more unambiguous the international community becomes, the greater will be the danger of creating an ambiguity about how far the United Nations should be part of the process. Will he tell the House how that paradox can be resolved?
  Mr. Hoon: Like a good lawyer, I am tempted to ask for further and better particulars on that question. The whole point of our approach is to give Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime one last opportunity to accept the
  124
  will of the international community, as unanimously expressed in the Security Council resolution. That will be far more effective if it is backed up by the use of force.
  Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: I really need to make progress. I cannot take interventions on my replies to interventions at this stage. I will, however, give way to my hon. Friend in a second.
  Our only responsible course is to continue with the prudent preparations and planning necessary for military action. This does not mean a commitment to undertake such action in any circumstances, but it does mean that we will continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces are ready, and that they have the training, equipment and support that they need to be able to undertake military action, should it prove necessary. Large numbers of troops are, of course, currently engaged in providing emergency fire cover, and that represents a considerable commitment for our armed forces. They have responded with their customary professionalism and flexibility, but we all hope that the firefighters' dispute will be quickly resolved.
  I visited troops providing emergency fire cover on Saturday morning, and I was struck by their enthusiasm for taking part and helping the British people here at home. Having routinely served Britain overseas, they were clearly delighted to play their part in the United Kingdom. But, to deal with one of the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is important to put this commitment in context. There are 19,000 service men and women, out of a total of some 190,000, committed to firefighting duties. Around 6,000 of their colleagues are currently on overseas deployments, such as those in Afghanistan and the Balkans, and 13,500 are in Northern Ireland. In June 1999, at the height of the Kosovo campaign, 44 per cent. of the Army was committed to operations. In October this year, it was 27 per cent. Now that we are committed to providing firefighting cover, the figure has risen to 35 per cent. I do not underestimate the extent of our commitments at home and world wide. The armed forces are certainly very busy, but they have been busier. I can give the House this assurance: our troops are ready to undertake any task that their country may ask of them.
  Mr. John Smith: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and he has indeed moved on a little. Does he agree that resolution 1441 gives the Iraqis every opportunity, not least because the time that they have to disclose the existence of weapons of mass destruction has been doubled compared with that provided for in any previous UN resolution?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a number of Members have said, this is a thorough resolution unanimously agreed by the Security Council, and it gives Iraq and the regime there every opportunity to accept the international community's terms.
  Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State referred to troops whom he visited on Saturday.

  125
  Were they troops whose exercise has been cancelled, such as the Scots Guards who should be out in Kenya training on an exercise for which they have been preparing for over 12 months? Were those troops supposed to be elsewhere on duties that they are trained to perform, or were they simply waiting to perform the duties of the fire service?
  Mr. Hoon: No one has ever sought to disguise the fact that those 19,000 members of the armed forces should be doing something other than providing emergency fire cover. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has asked a devastating question in pointing that out. It has been clearly stated by Ministers and, of course, by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Those troops should be exercising or training. Many—let us make it clear—should be on leave, but they are providing the cover that the country needs.
  One disappointment about the speech made from the Conservative Front Bench is that it failed to recognise that as an issue which the Opposition, just as much as the Government, must grapple with. Responsible political parties have to think through such issues and not simply set out a series of criticisms. We are dealing with those issues and setting out the course that a responsible Government have to take. Frankly, the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman coming to the House with such a cynical view does not, I am afraid, say a great deal about how they are preparing themselves.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No, I will not.
  The Opposition are preparing themselves for opposition; there is no sign whatever of them preparing for government.
  A number of Members raised the issue of what would constitute a material breach of the UN Security Council resolution and how that might lead to military action.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hoon: Sit down.
  Others have linked that issue to the position of coalition patrols of the Iraqi no-fly zones. The coalition patrols in the no-fly zones are in support of UN Security Council resolution 688. As participants in the coalition, our aircrew face daily attacks from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. I pay tribute to the service men and women who are and who have been deployed in the region, carrying out that difficult and dangerous humanitarian task.
  Coalition patrols are justified under international law. As Members will recall, they were set up in response to an overwhelming humanitarian necessity. Let me be clear about this: Iraqi action against our aircraft is contrary to international law, but the focus of resolution 1441 is disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and UNMOV1C provides a mechanism to take that forward. It is for UNMOVIC to verify the accuracy and completeness of Iraq's declaration.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) raised the question of a nil or trivial declaration from Iraq. It would clearly not be difficult for UNMOVIC to disprove such a declaration and
  126
  report it to the Security Council. It is clear that the first step on receipt of such a report or a report of Iraqi non-co-operation would be for the Security Council to meet. Equally, I draw Members' attention to the final part of paragraph 3 of the UN Security Council resolution, which refers to the fact that
  "as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes"
  Iraq has an obligation to include
  "any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material".
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) asked how well prepared UNMOVIC is. There are two important points to make. First, UNMOVIC is backed by a tougher inspection regime, as set out in resolution 1441, than was its predecessor, UNSCOM. For example, the so-called presidential and other sensitive sites no longer provide Saddam with havens for his weapons of mass destruction.
  Secondly, the international community is more determined than ever to support UNMOVIC and see an end to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Her Majesty's Government are fully committed to the provision of the necessary support to UNMOVIC and we are in direct discussions with the UN on how best we can assist if it finds that it needs further help.
  Let me now deal with the request for support by the United States. As Members will know, the United States has approached a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, seeking support in the event that military action proves necessary. Although no decision has been made to commit UK forces to military action, discussions with the US will continue so that an appropriate British contribution can be identified should it prove necessary.
  It is important to put the request in its proper context. There is no inevitability about military action. The US is clear about the fact that the issue is Iraqi disarmament—a process that will benefit the whole international community, including the Iraqi people themselves, not simply the United States. As President Bush said at the Prague summit last week,
  "Our first choice is not to use the military option. Our first choice is for Saddam Hussein to disarm".
  Those who have accused the US of unilateralism should consider carefully. The US Government have followed an impeccably multilateral approach, first in building unanimous Security Council support for resolution 1441 and now in seeking to build broad-based support for military action should it be required. Achieving the resolution's aims is our goal, but we must recognise that the process will break down if Iraq fails to co-operate. None of us can predict whether, how or when that might happen; but within the limits imposed by these uncertainties, we have been considering the contribution we might be able to make if military action ultimately becomes necessary.
  At this stage it would be inappropriate to go into details of the size and shape of forces that might be involved, for two specific reasons. First, as events unfold and time passes, plans will inevitably evolve. It would be misleading to describe specific force packages today as if they had some permanent and definitive status. I am sure that even the hon. Member for North Essex

  127
  (Mr. Jenkin) is able to understand that. Secondly, as I am sure the House appreciates, I have no intention of assisting Saddam Hussein's contingency planning.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way—although my sitting down five minutes early gave him a good deal of extra time.
  It is fair to ask what the right hon. Gentleman intends to have ready. He will presumably have to tell the forces concerned what he will have ready. The fact that he has nothing ready yet suggests that we will not be in the theatre of potential conflict until long after many of the UN deadlines have passed.
  Mr. Hoon: I am willing to arrange for the hon. Gentleman to be given a comprehensive briefing in the Ministry of Defence on the kinds of forces that the UK routinely has ready. It is, in fact, a question of readiness. As I have said, I will not describe the full range of equipment and personnel that could be made available. As I have also said, we cannot assist Saddam Hussein's contingency planning by giving information such as that for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. If he thought about it for a few more minutes, he would probably realise that giving such information would not be sensible.
  The same answer can be given to the various points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale. I am sorry; I cannot remember the rest of his constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale".] Yes, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore).
  It is not possible to give that kind of detail. I think the hon. Gentleman's speech left many Labour Members rather puzzled. Having put his name to an amendment that is to be voted on, he barely addressed the reasons for that amendment—which, I am afraid, left many believing that this might be an example of the sort of opportunism about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister complained earlier today. It was surprising that the hon. Gentleman devoted much of his speech to anything other than the Liberal Democrat amendment.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes asked for details of military preparations. I know that the House will understand my reasons—which I have given—for not wishing to be drawn on all the details of our contingency planning, but it may be helpful if I say a word about reserve forces—about which a number of Members have asked questions in recent weeks—and military equipment.
  Let me make it clear that we have not called out any reservists for possible military action against Iraq, and have no immediate plans to do so. As the House is well aware, however, any substantial military operation would require a contribution from the reserves. As part of our contingency planning, therefore, we are clarifying the requirement for such a contribution in support of any military operations in Iraq. We will be doing exploratory work initially, within the chain of command and more widely with other Departments. In due course, however, it may become necessary, on an informal basis,
  128
  to sound out members of reservist formed units or individual reservists, and their employers, as to their circumstances and hence their availability for operations, in advance of a formal call-out. That will not involve reservists entering into any formal commitments. I have no doubt that, as soon as we begin such soundings, that will be misinterpreted and misrepresented as mobilisation by stealth, but I emphasise that at this stage I have only authorised planning activity.
  I can also assure the House that when we judge that we need to call out reservists in preparation for potential military action, there will be a formal call-out order under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and any decision to make such a call-out will, of course, be announced first to the House; but the House should be clear: we are not yet at that point. Nor do we need to be at that point.
  Similarly, as part of the planning and preparation processes, we have been considering potential additional military equipment capability requirements. The Government are committed to equipping the armed forces for a range of contingencies, but specific operational environments and scenarios often require special priority to be given to particular capabilities. That is why we have been taking action to meet certain capability requirements as quickly as possible. In many cases, that involves accelerating existing programmes; in other cases, it involves new procurements against short time scales.
  For example, we are bringing forward the purchase of further temporary deployable accommodation, and we are enhancing our medical support through improved hygiene facilities in deployed field hospitals and improvements to our ambulances. We will further improve the ability of our forces to handle and to exploit secure communications.
  Mr. George Osborne: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to deal with the shortcomings identified by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office in the desert warfare capability of the Army as shown in the Saif Sareea exercise in Oman?
  Mr. Hoon: A number of lessons have been identified based on equipment performance in Exercise Saif Sareea 2, particularly with regard to the performance of the Challenger 2 tank, the AS 90 and desert clothing and boots. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, problems with Challenger 2 were mainly related to the ingestion of large quantities of sand. The filters were dealing with in the order of 25 kg of dust each hour. The AS 90 performed reliably for much of Saif Sareea 2 but suffered certain difficulties owing to extreme operating temperatures.
  Those matters have been addressed. The MOD is working to ensure that the necessary modifications are made to improve the performance of Challenger 2 and the AS 90 in desert conditions. I can assure the House that United Kingdom forces will be fully prepared in good time for any future operations. I doubt that the House would expect me to go into precise detail as to all

  129
  the modifications, but I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the equipment will perform as necessary in those particular conditions.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: When will that be?
  Mr. Hoon: The contract, for example, for Challenger 2 has now been let, and the work will be proceeding in order to ensure that those lessons are learned. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] There is no point in hon. Members shouting out "When?", because the answer to that question—[Interruption.] Again, Opposition Members should think about it calmly and sensibly. I am not going to give the answer because that would give away a significant aspect of what we are preparing for. Any sort of careful thought on the matter would give Opposition Members the opportunity to realise that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 452.

  Division No. 006]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Keetch, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Baker, Norman

  Barrett, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Best, Harold

  Lamb, Norman

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Breed, Colin

  Lepper, David

  Burnett, John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Burstow, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  McCafferty, Chris

  Carmichael, Alistair

  McDonnell, John

  Chidgey, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cohen, Harry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Moore, Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cousins, Jim

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Doughty, Sue

  Rendel, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fisher, Mark

  Salmond, Alex

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Singh, Marsha

  Gidley, Sandra

  Skinner, Dennis

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

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

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Holmes, Paul

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Thurso, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  130

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Weir, Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

  Wishart, Pete

  Mr. David Heath

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ainger, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Collins, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Colman, Tony

  Barker, Gregory

  Connarty, Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Conway, Derek

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Jean

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Bell, Stuart

  Crausby, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cruddas, Jon

  Benn, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blair, rh Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Curry, rh David

  Blunkett, rh David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Boswell, Tim

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, rh John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bryant, Chris

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Burnham, Andy

  Doran, Frank

  Burns, Simon

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burt, Alistair

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Butterfill, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Cairns, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Cameron, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Evans, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Fabricant, Michael

  Cash, William

  Fallon, Michael

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Chaytor, David

  131

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Flight, Howard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Flint, Caroline

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Flook, Adrian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Hutton, rh John

  Foster, rh Derek

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Illsley, Eric

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Foulkes, rh George

  Jack, rh Michael

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Francois, Mark

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Goggins Paul

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Goodman, Paul

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Gray James (N Wilts)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Grayling, Chris

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Greenway, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Kidney, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Grogan, John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Gummer, rh John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Hague, rh William

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lammy, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Hanson, David

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Leigh, Edward

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Healey, John

  Lidington, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Linton, Martin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Loughton, Tim

  Hendrick, Mark

  Love, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Heppell, John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Hermon, Lady

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hesford, Stephen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McCabe, Stephen

  Heyes, David

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hodge, Margaret

  MacDougall, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  McFall, John

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  McGuire, Miss Anne

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  McKechin, Ann

  Howard, rh Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  McNulty, Tony

  MacShane, Denis

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  McWilliam, John

  132

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Mallaber Judy

  Mandelson, rh Petesr

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Rooney, Terry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ruane, Chris

  Maude, rh Francis

  Ruffley, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Mercer, Patrick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Merron, Gillian

  Selous, Andrew

  Michael, rh Alun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Miliband, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Miller, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Simmonds, Mark

  Moran, Margaret

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Norman, Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Olner, Bill

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spring, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Squire, Rachel

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Page, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Picking, Anne

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Pickles, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pollard, Kerry

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Streeter, Gary

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Syms, Robert

  Prescott, rh John

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Redwood, rh John

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  133

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wilshire, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ward, Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Waterson, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Watkinson, Angela

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wiggin, Bill

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports UNSCR 1441 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all provisions of the Resolution; and agrees that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.

  UN Security Council Resolution 1441
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Derek Twigg].
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 4 and 5.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
      That the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) (Revocation) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 2691), dated 28th October, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

      PRISONS
      That the draft Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Amendment of Requisite Period) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 29th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      DEREGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

    REGULATORY REFORM
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in Partnerships etc.) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    ENLARGEMENT AND REPORTS ON PROGRESS BY APPLICANT COUNTRIES
    That this House takes note of European Union document No. 12839/02, the Commission Strategy Paper and Report on progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries with Addenda 1 to 13, the 2002 Regular Reports on progress by individual candidate countries; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to European Union enlargement; and supports the Government's aim that the European Union complete negotiations with 10 candidates by the end of this year, so that they can participate in the European Parliament elections in 2004 As Member States.—[Derek Twigg.]
    Question agreed to.

  Gibraltar
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I am delighted to have been granted this debate today, for it is Parliament's first opportunity to reflect on the momentous referendum held in Gibraltar on 7 November. As official observers of that referendum, I and 10 other colleagues from the House were able to witness at first hand the open, fair and democratic manner in which the Government of Gibraltar conducted the entire exercise. From the preparations in the weeks leading up to polling day and the conduct and organisation of the polling stations to the speedy delivery of the result in the early hours of Friday 8 November, the referendum was one that any democratic society could be proud of.
  Of course, as we all know, the referendum was not the first of its kind to be held in British territory during the past few years. On 11 September 1997, the people of Scotland voted democratically to establish their own Parliament, with 74 per cent. of them in support. On 18 September of that year, the people of Wales decided democratically to create an Assembly for the Principality, even though by a much closer margin of just over 50 per cent. On 7 May 1998, the people of London voted democratically for a Mayor and an Assembly, with 72 per cent. support. On 22 May 1998, the people of Northern Ireland also chose democratically to create their own Assembly, with 71 per cent. of the vote.
  Now, the British people of Gibraltar have conducted their own democratic referendum on a constitutional question: the principle of sharing sovereignty with the Kingdom of Spain. With 99 per cent. of Gibraltarians voting against joint sovereignty, it was by far the most convincing of all the referendums so far.
  I am sure that I speak for most Members of Parliament, and for most citizens of this country, in welcoming the Gibraltarians' overwhelming vote to remain British. On an 87 per cent. turnout, 99 per cent. of the vote in favour rejecting joint sovereignty with a foreign power is probably more than one could expect from any town within the United Kingdom—with the possible exception of the patriotic market town of Romford.
  Before continuing, I would like to take this opportunity to warmly welcome the Minister to his new portfolio. It is with genuine relief that I and many other hon. Members here today greet that change on the Treasury Bench. In Gibraltar, there is great hope that the Minister will prove to be a true friend to the people of the rock.
  In the past year, Gibraltarians have, understandably, felt bruised, let down and betrayed, but now, with a clear result in the referendum and a new Minister in office, I sincerely hope that a line can be drawn under a sad episode in relations between the Government of the United Kingdom and the people of Gibraltar. I urge the Minister to examine the issue carefully especially as we move into a new era of the debate. We must now enter a period of reflection to determine how the policy on Gibraltar will progress.
  136
  I hope that in view of the near unanimous vote, the Minister will acknowledge that the referendum result has, once and for all, exploded any claim that Gibraltar's situation resembles that of a divided society. Northern Ireland is a wholly false comparison. I hope also that he will agree that the referendum reflects the freely expressed will of a united community to retain its sovereignty and identity, and that, just like the referendums held in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland, the wishes of the Gibraltarian people should be respected, accepted and upheld.
  I call on all Members of Parliament to recognise that now, in the light of the referendum result, Gibraltar's sovereignty, like the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, must be regarded as a settled matter. In particular, the Brussels process should be abandoned immediately and the issue of sovereignty firmly removed from that or any other Anglo-Spanish agenda.
  Some argue that it does no harm to keep Gibraltar's sovereignty on the agenda in a merely nominal fashion—the Spanish could raise the issue, but we British would have nothing to say on the subject. I utterly reject that dangerous argument. Retaining sovereignty as an agenda item, however nominal, offers hope to Madrid that one day, a British Government will give way. "Sit tight and wait for more favourable circumstances," our opposite numbers in Madrid will think. Their hope will be that one day, whether on the 50th or 250th time of asking, a British Foreign Secretary will give way.
  Allowing claimants against British interests to foster the hope of securing their prize has been a bane of our foreign policy for nearly a century. While the device has, no doubt, helped relations in the short term, it has stored up trouble in the longer term. The trouble comes when we must either dash the nurtured hopes of a claimant state such as Argentina, or concede under the weight of their expectations.
  If retaining sovereignty as a nominal agenda item is mistaken, locking the issue into a so-called process is doubly mistaken. Locked into a process, the issue is passed down from Government to Government—some more steadfast than others—until one day, almost inevitably, one Government, probably under pressure from the European Union, decide to concede Gibraltar's sovereignty. The people of Gibraltar deserve better treatment than to live under this permanent cloud of uncertainty.
  However, on one point, I must congratulate Her Majesty's Government—on now honouring their pledge to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar in time for the European parliamentary elections in 2004. That is not before time. I understand that the Electoral Commission will be looking into which constituency Gibraltar will join. The incorporation of Gibraltar in a United Kingdom constituency for the European Parliament is a welcome development.
  I express the hope that the Government will now also examine the case for another form of integration and allow Gibraltar to elect a Member to this Parliament. It is intolerable that the people of Gibraltar still have no elected voice on a whole range of issues that directly affect them. Why should they not be treated more directly as British subjects by having a place in our sovereign Parliament? I refer not just to foreign affairs

  137
  and to defence matters, which remain the responsibility of the British Government, but to health care, higher education and many other vital services for which Gibraltarians must come to the United Kingdom. The Minister will be aware that a precedent exists for parliamentary constituencies with small populations—the Western Isles, for example. Granting the people of Gibraltar their own Member of Parliament would not only bridge the democratic deficit that I have outlined, but would send out the unambiguous message that Gibraltar is and will remain British.
  The Minister will also be aware that every other European country has long since incorporated its overseas territories. We, however, retain our overseas territories in colonial limbo, a status that has been given a limited shelf life by the United Nations, that disadvantages those who live under it and encourages the hope among claimant states that they will eventually inherit after decolonisation. Of course, only the people of Gibraltar must decide their future constitutional status, but it is my sincerely held belief that devolved integration offers a remedy to all those defects and more. One thing that it would certainly do is slam the door firmly shut in the face of claimant states. Such action, although resented in the short term, prevents the far more awkward problems that I referred to earlier over nurtured expectations.
  Integration also allows territories varying degrees of autonomy to suit the culture and the circumstances of themselves and their mother country. Although the French overseas territories are administered largely from Paris, the Dutch Antilles and Aruba, for example, have considerably more autonomy yet remain part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Equally, the Faroe Islands and Greenland have their own elected Governments while sending Members of Parliament to the Danish Folketing in Copenhagen. European membership and tax status are also no barriers to integration. Spain's Moroccan enclaves, the sovereignty of which she wisely refuses to discuss, both levy no VAT yet remain integral to Spain and inside the European Union. As the Minister must acknowledge, even within the United Kingdom, varying constitutional arrangements are present and are being extended, so why not apply the same logic to Gibraltar?
  Never again must the Gibraltarians be forced to hold a referendum to tell their own UK Government what most Britons take for granted—that they want both themselves and their territory to remain British. They want it to remain British not just for this Parliament, not just until a future UK Government decide to reheat the Brussels process and not just until the Spanish Government decide to put pressure on British Ministers in the course of EU negotiations. They want a Gibraltar that is British in its entirety and in perpetuity.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to his new position.
  The hon. Member for Romford is right. It is important that we calmly reflect on what has happened. No one can forget the 98 per cent. "No" vote in Gibraltar. That was listened to in London and it must he listened to in Madrid; the Spanish Government have to reflect on the vote.
  138
  It is right to pay tribute to the people of Gibraltar. They used their democratic vote to express their democratic wish. It was good to see the Government and Opposition in Gibraltar coming together, along with Albert Poggio, Gibraltar's representative in London, who played an integral part in ensuring a fair and democratic vote. They and all the people of Gibraltar deserve our congratulations.
  Surely we are at a new beginning. The vote should mark the end of the Brussels agreement. We need new discussions with Spain on border queues and the rights and security of air travel for the people of Europe and Gibraltar. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the mantle and rise to the challenge. It lies with him to ensure that the aspirations of the people of Gibraltar are realised so that they get proper representation and an end to the wrongs done against them.
  It is important that a clear message go out to Europe and Madrid: let us stop the bully-boy tactics. Surely Madrid realises that people do not expect to be hit with a stick. What people will say is, "No, we don't want more of this", and they will stand up for themselves. What better way of ensuring that the small population of Gibraltar—it has 30,000 people—has its agenda known throughout the world than by those people fighting for their democratic rights? We must ensure that the House respects that, as I am sure hon. Members will, and we must move on to a better Gibraltar.
  The people of Gibraltar should have the right to consider integrating with the United Kingdom or having a new constitution so that they can move away from the old colonial governor with the feathers who walks up and down Main street. There is a new hope and a new challenge, and the people of Gibraltar deserve that. It is a new beginning for them. We should ensure that the House listens to and respects their voice.
  We need to move on. I know that the Minister will take up the new challenge. The hopes of many people rest on his shoulders and he will not shy away from that responsibility. I am sure that he will rightly say that he will meet the Government of Gibraltar as soon as possible and listen to their views, which are important. The sooner the meeting takes place, the better it will be. It is important that we put the people of Gibraltar first, and we look to the Minister to give them comfort.
  10.34 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been the most remarkable Adjournment debate that I have experienced at this time of night in my short life as an MP and my even shorter life as a Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on his powerful speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on his contribution. I hope that, at the end of this debate, hon. Members will agree that I am a friend of Gibraltar—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Who speaks slowly.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip told me to choose my words with care and said,

  139
  "It's Denis against 40 Conservative MPs"—[HON. MEMBERS: "And some Labour MPs."] Indeed, but they are all my friends—we are at one on this issue.
  There are not quite as many people in the Chamber as the 18,000 who voted in the referendum in Gibraltar a couple of weeks ago, but there are remarkably more Conservative Back Benchers present now than there were for the debate on Iraq. I had prepared part of my speech on the assumption that in the six days of debate on the Queen's Speech Opposition Front Benchers would call a debate on foreign policy, and would raise their deep concerns about Gibraltar. Instead, the subject has been put before the House late at night in an Adjournment debate. That is certainly a tribute to the hon. Member for Romford, but whether it provides a true analysis of the interest that Conservative Front Benchers take in the issue I leave to the judgment of the people of Gibraltar.
  The presence in the Chamber of hon. Members from nearly all parties is a clear sign of their genuine concern for the people of Gibraltar and their future. We all share the concern that there should be a better future for the people of Gibraltar. It is precisely that desire—[Laughter.] The Opposition are laughing with me. I can take them when they are laughing at me; I can take them when they are jeering or shouting me down. However, I ask the assembled ranks of the Opposition to calm down and let me make my own speech—
  Mr. Keith Simpson: In my own time.
  Mr. MacShane: Indeed. The desire to secure a stable and prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar continues to drive the Government's policy, but the current situation, with the continuation of the 300-yearold dispute, does not yet offer hope of that better future. The hon. Member for Romford, in his powerful and eloquent speech, said that the Gibraltarians were British in perpetuity. If he reads the treaty of Utrecht, whether in the original Latin or Spanish, he will find that the Spanish ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity to the British Crown, so that is not an issue. We want to see what the House can do to try to improve the quality of life for all Gibraltarians—the people who voted in the referendum—who deserve a future free of the worries that they have had throughout my lifetime about border delays, restrictions on air services, telecommunications and so on. The assumption that the House can at a stroke remove those problems may not be justified. We need to shape an opportunity that will promote better economic development for Gibraltar and the surrounding region to enable Gibraltar fully to realise its potential. With that process in mind, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary decided to relaunch the Brussels process talks in July last year.
  I am very happy so far in my new job as Minister for Europe. I should like to stay in it. I want to do right by the people of Gibraltar. I seek no promotion to the Cabinet.
  In taking their decision to relaunch the Brussels talks in July last year, my right hon. Friends were recognising, as Margaret Thatcher did almost 18 years ago to this day, that the only way to secure a more prosperous
  140
  future for Gibraltar was through a negotiated resolution of the dispute with Spain on all issues, including sovereignty. That was the position of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. The hon. Member for Romford seemed to think that we should bury the former Prime Minister and drive a stake through the Brussels process, which was her initiative. I am not confident enough, and I do not have the mandate at the Dispatch Box, to be so cruel or unkind to the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher.
  From the start, we have been absolutely clear that this Government would stick by the pledge given by the Labour Government of Harold Wilson in 1969—that there would be no change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Let me say it again: no change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Hence, if we could reach agreement with Spain—please notice the two conditionals, "if" and "could"—on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package would he put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they would decide. That is a cast-iron assurance to the people of Gibraltar, and I do not know how I can make it any plainer to my hon. Friends or to the hon. Gentleman.
  We were also clear from the start that we wanted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, to be involved in the process so that the Gibraltarians could help shape it. That invitation remains open. As hon. Members are aware, three Brussels process meetings took place—in July 2001, November 2001 and February 2002—and were fully reported to the House. A further meeting was due to take place in July this year, but, due to Cabinet changes in Spain, it did not take place. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, conscious of his undertaking to keep Members informed of progress at every stage, therefore made a statement to the House on 12 July in which he reported on where we had got to in the talks and on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Gibraltar.
  As hon. Members will, I hope, recall, that statement set out a number of principles that we believe should underpin a lasting settlement, on which we had reached broad agreement with Spain. Those included the principle of joint sovereignty, which has been the focus of so much attention since, as this debate has shown. Other principles were included, too—that Gibraltar should have more internal self-government; that it should retain its British traditions, its customs and its way of life; that Gibraltarians should retain their right to British nationality; that Gibraltar should be free to retain its institutions; and that Gibraltar could—again, the conditional—choose to participate fully in the EU single market and other arrangements.
  The statement also set out some important "red lines" on the need for a permanent settlement, and on the need for current arrangements for the British military facilities to continue. It made clear again that any agreement must be acceptable to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. It was absolutely clear throughout the statement that no agreement had actually been reached, and that there would be no such agreement unless Spain met the conditions—the "red lines", as we would call them—in full. There were therefore no proposals to put to the people of Gibraltar, and that remains the position. That statement is a matter of public record.

  141
  The hon. Member for Romford attended the Gibraltar referendum on 7 November and saw it at first hand. He made a powerful speech about it, but I want to tackle the suggestion that we sought to dismiss the idea of the referendum out of hand or ignore it. I do not ignore any expression of the people's will, whether it is made in a Countryside Alliance march or any other mass mobilisation, demonstration or referendum.
  The principle of the consent of the people of Gibraltar is central to our approach. Our commitment is firm that if we reach agreement on a comprehensive settlement the whole package will be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they will decide on it. I again give that cast-iron pledge from the Dispatch Box. No proposals were on the table on 7 November and even the most pro-Gibraltarian Member would agree that the result of the referendum was what we expected.
  142
  However, we are not deaf or stupid, and we have listened to the views expressed by Gibraltarians on 7 November and in the run-up to the referendum, just as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary listened when he visited the Rock in May. We shall also reflect on the report published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has not been mentioned. I hope that before long those on the Opposition Front Bench will table a substantive motion or give up a whole Opposition day to foreign affairs policy, so that the whole House can debate this issue and the other great issues that divide it.
  On Gibraltar, my cast-iron assurance is there: there will be no change in sovereignty without a referendum of the people of Gibraltar.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what internal inquiries have been held into accidents involving Ministry of Defence property or equipment since 1997; what insurance policies the Ministry of Defence has in place to insure against accidents involving Ministry of Defence property or equipment; and if he will make a statement. [82126]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information concerning numbers of inquiries into accidents involving Ministry of Defence property or equipment is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Current departmental policy requires the relevant operating authority to convene a Board of Inquiry or a Unit, Ship or Station Inquiry in the case of accidents, resulting in significant damage to buildings or equipment, or affecting operational capability. Less significant accidents are likely to be investigated at local level.

  Accidents involving MOD property or equipment may also be the subject of Boards of Inquiry convened to investigate serious injuries and fatalities.

  Treasury guidelines generally discourage public bodies from insuring risks unless it can be shown that the potential cost of claims paid, together with the cost of handling such claims, will exceed the cost of purchasing insurance. As the cost of premiums compared to the amounts paid in compensation would normally favour insurance companies, the MOD self-insures its core activities, and funds claims for compensation and the repair or replacement of lost or damaged property or equipment from its current expenditure.

  Brigade Reorganisation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many extra deployable troops will result from his reorganisation of(a) 52 (Lowland) Brigade and (b) Headquarters 2 (South East) Brigade. [25100]

  Mr. Ingram
  The two light infantry brigade headquarters (52 Lowland) Brigade and 2 (South East) Brigade are being re-roled from regional brigade headquarters to provide better command and control arrangements for the light infantry role battalions, all of which are currently deployable. Thus the reorganisation of the two brigades will not result in an increase in the number of deployable troops. The change will bring greater coherence to the way that these units prepare for operations, through improved co-ordination of training.
  2W

  Chatham Dockyard
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nuclear laundry facility at the former Chatham Dockyard, with particular reference to(a) physical and functional description and (b) outflow and drainage functioning. [82501]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Health Physics Laundry within the nuclear complex at the former Chatham Dockyard was equipped with washing machines and dryers. The floor of the laundry was finished with an epoxy resin to facilitate decontamination if required.

  Laundering was restricted to protective clothing with low or zero levels of radioactive contamination to enable its re-use. Clothing with higher levels of contamination was disposed of as radioactive waste.

  The laundry effluent was discharged untreated to the ordinary sewer as permitted by the (then) Department of Environment's Radiochemical Inspectorate. It was subject to regular sampling, to demonstrate that the levels of activity discharged to the sewer were insignificant.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) physical and (b) functional characteristics of the washdown facility for radiation workers at the former Chatham Dockyard. [82503]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Washdown Area within the nuclear complex at the former Chatham Dockyard was a purpose-built facility primarily for the decontamination of components from the submarine reactor and any associated tools and equipment that had become radioactively contaminated. Separate washing facilities were provided for personnel leaving radioactively contaminated areas.

  The Washdown Facility had a stainless steel floor and stainless steel dividers and barriers. Large components were lowered and raised through roof hatches using an electric crane. Tented enclosures within the facility were used for some decontamination and close inspection work. Smaller equipments and tools were cleaned in stainless steel open vats using a solution of special detergents or demineralised water as required. The vats were positioned in an annexe to the Washdown Area with a continuous stainless steel floor, behind a stainless steel barrier, so enabling the containment and ready cleaning of any spillages. Water from the Washdown Area was directed via specific-to-purpose stainless steel drains into holding tanks in the adjacent Effluent Treatment Plant.

  Decontamination facilities for personnel leaving radioactively contaminated areas consisted of hand wash facilities and associated monitoring equipment, to meet the requirements of the Ionising Radiations (Unsealed Radioactive Substances) Regulations 1968. In addition, there were showers for use in the extremely rare occurrences of bodily contamination.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long each of the outstanding claims for former Chatham Dockyard workers seeking compensation under the no fault scheme has been
  3W
  awaiting decision; how many compensation claims have been awarded in full to former workers or their families; and how many claims are being processed. [82504]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is one outstanding case involving an ex-Chatham Dockyard radiation worker that has been assessed by the British Nuclear Fuels Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases as eligible for compensation. The level of compensation due has been assessed and an offer in full and final settlement was made on 16 September 2002. A formal response to the offer is awaited.

  There have been no full (100 per cent.) awards made to former workers or their families by the Scheme. Two claims have been assessed as eligible for compensation at a lower level. One has settled and the other is as detailed above.

  There are no other claims currently being processed by the Scheme which relate to Chatham Dockyard workers.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the radiation safety procedures were when workers were performing tasks in the dock at the former Chatham dockyard. [82524]

  Dr. Moonie
  Safety procedures for work in the dock at the former Chatham Dockyard were governed by the requirements of the Factories Act 1961 and subsequently the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, and subordinate legislation. The type of work being undertaken in the dock would have determined which safety procedures applied.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces are operationally ready for service in the event of a(a) nuclear, (b) biological and (c) chemical attack on the United Kingdom. [82156]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The decision to form 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces (CCRFs) from existing Volunteer Reserve personnel was announced on 31 October 2002. None of the CCRFs is yet operational.

  Civil Contingencies Reaction Force
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the extra men training days that have been granted for the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force will be spent on(a) bringing each service man and woman to a common standard of basic training and (b) CBRN training. [82209]

  Mr. Ingram
  The training plans for the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces are still being developed. They will be aligned with existing Volunteer Reserve training and, in due course, with the requirements of specific regional contingency plans as these are developed in conjunction with local authorities and emergency services.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force will be fully effective. [82211]
  4W
  Mr. Ingram
  We expect that the 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces will be fully effective by the end of 2003, once they are fully recruited and have undergone an annual training cycle, and once the new regional liaison, planning, command and control arrangements are in place.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81843]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]All civil servants are responsible for meeting the cost of their travel between home and normal place of work. The introduction of a Central London Road User Charge will not affect this basic condition of service. Accordingly, the Ministry of Defence has no plans for reimbursing the cost of the Road User Charge where it is incurred as part of normal commuting. However, civil servants travelling on detached duty to other establishments are entitled to claim the cost of the resultant travel. Where road user charges— whether these be urban congestion charges or road/bridge tolls— are incurred on such journeys, these costs can be claimed.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultants have been hired to advise on computer systems for the Defence Logistics Organisation; and how much has been paid in fees to them. [80971]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Defence Logistics Organisation was fully formed in April 2000 a number of consultants have been hired across the organisation to advise on computer systems. These are: Alenia Marconi, Belgravia Consultancy, British Telecom, Capital ASI, Cookie Ltd, Cornwell Affiliates Pic, Cap Gemini and Ernst and Young, Dbi, CTPi Logistics, Digital Think, Eurostep Ltd, EDS Ltd, Exe Technologies Ltd, Hancocks, Hays Personnel Services, IBM, KPMG, LSC Group Ltd, Methods Applications Ltd, Northgate Information Systems, Parity Solutions, Recital Corporation Ltd, Scientific Generics and Systems Consultant Services. These companies have assisted with advice on the support for current logistics systems as well as development work on new systems.

  The total amount paid to the above consultants is 52,572,875.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the seven key areas for improvement as identified by the Defence Logistics Organisation and what progress has been made in each. [80974]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the launch of the Defence Logistics Organisation on 3 April 2000, the organisation has focused on seven key areas in support of its corporate plan, to enable the delivery of agreed outputs to its customers at greatly reduced costs. The seven areas are people; inventory; industry; capital asset management; engineering support; e-business and convergence. Good progress has been made in all of these areas.
  5W

  Drug Use (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force tested positive for the use of controlled substances in the most recent testing programme; and if he will list those personnel discharged, broken down by military rank. [82121]

  Dr. Moonie
  The armed forces conduct a rolling Compulsory Drugs Testing programme. For the period 1 January and 30 June 2002 the numbers are as follows:

  Service

  Number of tests

  Positive results

  Discharges

  The Naval Service

  7,793

  29

  Lt Cdr x 1 CPOx l Pox 2 Leading Hand x 3 Able Rate x 20

  Army

  44,625

  255

  Cplx 2 L/Cpl x 16 Ptex l65

  RAF

  5,038

  3

  Jnr Tech x 1

  A number of personnel are awaiting a decision on discharge, therefore the discharge rate is likely to increase.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence-related issues were decided at the EU General Affairs Council on Tuesday 19 November; and if he will make a statement. [82555]

  Mr. Hoon
  EU Defence Ministers focused primarily on EU military capabilities and the European Capability Action Plan (ECAP). Ministers welcomed the progress made on ECAP, and agreed how to take the process forward to the second phase, the implementation of the solutions identified by the ECAP panels. Ministers also approved an update of the Helsinki Headline Catalogue and agreed that work should continue on developing the procedures and concepts for the rapid response elements of the Headline Goal. The full conclusions of the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council relating to the European Security and Defence Policy have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are being trained to operate modern fire engines. [82154]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]I refer the hon Member to the answer I gave on 21 November 2002 Official Report, column 220W to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).

  Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the Hawk advanced jet trainer project; and what assessment he has made of the Hawk AlT8's potential for fulfilling the AJT criteria. [80497]
  6W
  Dr. Moonie
  We are working closely with BAE SYSTEMS to determine whether Hawk 128 will best meet our need for an advanced jet trainer. We also need to determine whether the aircraft would represent good value for money for the taxpayer. We have made useful progress but our work with the company, including our assessment of the aircraft's capability, is not yet complete. We are seeking to make a decision as soon as practicable.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he estimates repairs to HMS Nottingham will cost; and if he will make a statement. [82125]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 143W, tothehon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and on 4 November 2002, Official Report, column 62W, to my hon. Friend for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). While we expect Nottingham's future to be determined before her arrival in the United Kingdom in December, the decision has not yet been taken. In addition, the competition to inform that decision is still under way and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to speculate on the potential cost of any repair work.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal assistance is available to members of the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement. [82120]

  Mr. Ingram
  Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to the same legal assistance as other members of the public. The assistance available through Service procedures is intended to mirror as closely as possible the arrangements in the civil justice system.

  In addition the Ministry of Defence will consider paying for the defence of an individual charged with a criminal offence where the offence arose as a result of actions undertaken in the course of employment and where certain strict criteria are met.

  Low Frequency Sonar Systems
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent discussions he has had with the US Navy on low frequency active sonar; and if he will make a statement; [82139]

  (2) what (a) representations and (b) advice his Department has received about the legality of operating low frequency active sonar systems; and if he will make a statement. [82117]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence and its Agencies regularly engage in discussion with the United States on a range of issues. Low frequency active sonar is such an issue. We have received no formal representations as to the legality of operating low frequency sonar. A global Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been prepared for the United Kingdom's low frequency sonar (Sonar 2087) which is currently under development and an EIA will also be undertaken for each development trial that is specific to the area concerned. Legal advice is part of each EIA. In addition, the global EIA was
  7W
  subject to independent legal review. We remain committed to meeting the requirements of UK law and of conventions to which the UK. is signatory.

  Lynx
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the new Lynx entering service with the Royal Navy. [80701]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 458W to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr Jones).

  Medical Care
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts exist between his Department and(a) national health service bodies and (b) private medical bodies to provide fast-track medical care for members of Her Majesty's forces. [80795]

  Dr. Moonie
  Currently, the Ministry of Defence has two contracts for fast-track medical care for Service personnel. These are between the Royal Navy and two private health care companies.

  Military Documents
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many documents personnel from(a) the Army, (b) the Naval Service and (c) the Royal Air Force would normally be asked to sign (i) during the first year of service, (ii) during each subsequent year and (iii) before being sent on a deployment; and what the figures were in each of the past 15 years. [82127]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available shows for example that some 1.35 million applications for leave were made by Service Personnel during 2000–01 and that some 102,000 Personnel were posted to new appointments which were acknowledged by written signature. Work is underway within the Ministry of Defence to examine the scope for streamlining such administrative procedures.

  MOD Contracts
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to ensure that smaller firms are not deterred from applying for Ministry of Defence contracts. [81693]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of smaller firms in driving innovation and contributing to the delivery of defence capability. The Defence Industry Policy paper published in October 2002 recognised the need to invest in early technology de-risking to stimulate continued improvement and innovation across the defence supply chain.

  Defence contract opportunities are advertised through publications such as the MOD Defence Contracts Bulletin and the official journal of the European Community (OJEC). MOD's Defence
  8W
  Suppliers Service (DSS) and Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) provide information and assistance to smaller firms interested in becoming defence suppliers.

  The MOD also works with the Department of Trade and Industry and its Small Business Service (SBS) to maintain awareness of initiatives aimed at harnessing innovation. In autumn 2001 a joint MOD/Industry Code of Best Practice was published covering relationships at all levels within the supply chain including those with smaller firms.

  NATO Summit (Prague)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what issues will be discussed at the NATO Summit on 21 and 22 November 2002. [82558]

  Mr. Hoon
  Against the backdrop of the rapidly changing strategic setting, the NATO Summit in Prague on 21 and 22 November 2002 discussed the transformation of the Alliance, including: enlargement, with invitations to seven countries to commence accession negotiations; a new capabilities initiative (the 'Prague Capabilities Commitment'); reform of NATO's command structure; the new NATO Response Force; reinvigorated Partnership programmes, including building on the success of the NATO-Russia Council; and modernisation of NATO's internal structures and processes.

  Private Stuart McMaster
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the recorded time of death of Private Stuart James McMaster of the 1st Royal Irish regiment on 15th June on Beiseker in Calgary, Canada; what action was taken to secure evidence at the scene of the death; at what time the Canadian police were notified of the death and what the conclusions were of their investigation; what the conclusions were of military police investigators; at what time the family of the deceased were notified; and what arrangements he has made for(a) the return of the deceased to the UK, (b) an inquest and (c) a Board of Inquire. [80646]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ranger (Rgr) Stuart James McMaster died at 15.25 hours Saturday 15 June 2002 during a privately paid for parachute jump at the Skydive Ranch, Beiseker, Alberta. He was deployed to Canada for adventure training, which had recently concluded. Within minutes of the accident, civilian paramedics attended the scene (the STARS (Calgary heli-born medics) and EMF Airdrie (Canadian civilian paramedics)) and pronounced Rgr McMaster dead. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were called to the scene at 15.35 hours and retained primacy of the investigation for the first 48 hours following the death; they concluded that there was nothing suspicious about the death. Jurisdiction was subsequently passed to the Royal Military Police (RMP) detachment at the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS). An investigator from the Land Accident Investigation Team, working for the RMP, concluded that the accident occurred as a result of Rgr McMaster being unstable after exiting the aircraft.
  9W
  The casualty visiting officer informed Rgr McMaster's next of kin and additional next of kin of his death at 00.45 hours Sunday 16 June. The deceased was returned to the United Kingdom at public expense from Canada to Ireland via London departing on 19 June and arriving in Northern Ireland on 20 June. A coroner's inquest was not held since the deceased did not die in Northern Ireland; however, Rgr McMaster's family were entitled to request an inquest be held.

  A determination on whether to hold a board of inquiry is yet to be made.

  Puma Helicopters (South Africa)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies who were consulted during the evaluation of options for refurbishment of the six ex-Republic of South Africa Puma helicopters, when he expects the(a) first aircraft to be available for service and (b) the final aircraft to be available for service; and if the evaluation included assessment of the costs of awarding the contract to Eurocopter compared with UK-based companies. [81663]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]During the evaluation of options, we consulted Eurocopter, the prime Design Authority (DA) for the main structural conversion, and Westland Helicopters Ltd., Yeovil, the designated DA for the United Kingdom-specific equipment fits and installation of United Kingdom-specific modifications.

  The timescale for the delivery of the aircraft into service is the subject of contractual negotiations with Eurocopter and Westland Helicopters Ltd. and is commercially sensitive. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  I can confirm that during the evaluation process, full consideration was given to a wide range of issues including cost.

  Rapid Reaction Light Infantry Brigades
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to re-designate 2 and 52 Infantry Brigades as Rapid Reaction Light Infantry Brigades. [82123]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to re-designate 2 and 52 Infantry Brigades as Rapid Reaction Light Infantry Brigades.

  Company

  Role

  Duration1

  BAE Systems

  Business Development

  6

  Addleshaw, Booth & Co.

  Legal Adviser

  12

  BAE Systems

  Acquisition Training

  12

  BAE Systems

  Avionics

  8

  AXA plc

  Claims Manager

  8

  QinetiQ

  Director of Marketing

  36

  BAE Systems

  Air Systems Technology Manager

  24

  BAE Systems

  Commercial Support

  6

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Commercial Adviser

  12

  Babtie Group

  Commercial Support

  9

  BAE Systems

  Warship Support

  36

  URS Ltd.

  Risk Manager

  5

  BAE Systems

  Support Chain Adviser

  31

  Ernst & Young

  Commercial Adviser

  12

  Rolls Royce

  Propulsion Project Engineer

  24

  QinetiQ

  Future Business Group

  32

  10W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 567W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the two brigades have been re-roled from regional brigade headquarters to provide better command and control arrangements for light infantry role battalions, all of which are currently deployable. The change will bring greater coherence to the way that these units prepare for operations through improved co-ordination of training.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency powers are available to enable the mobilisation of reserve forces in the event of terrorist attack on the United Kingdom. [82909]

  Dr. Moonie
  If it was deemed necessary to call-out Reservists in the event of a terrorist attack on the United Kingdom, they would be brought into permanent service using the powers of call-out contained in the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96).

  Retired Officer Scheme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retired officer billets are empty. [82813]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are presently 237 retired officer posts unfilled. Individuals have been appointed into 36 of these, but are yet to take up post.

  Secondments
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the staff seconded to his Department from the private sector since April 2000, stating in each case the secondee's name, company, position within his Department and the duration of placement. [82345]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is our practice to respect the privacy of our personnel, including those on secondment, and to withhold the names of individuals in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, except where the seniority of the individual or the nature of the post warrants a formal announcement.

  Alan Garwood's appointment as Head of Defence Export Services (Serial 26) was announced on 16 September 2002.
  11W

  Company

  Role

  Duration1

  QinetiQ

  Customer Support Manager

  24

  Burges Salmon

  Legal Adviser

  8

  BAE Systems

  Support Chain Adviser

  24

  MASS Consultants

  Electronic Warfare Technical Support

  48

  Hagglunds Vehicle AB

  Engineering Advice and Support

  22

  Wragg & Co

  Legal Adviser

  10

  BAE Systems

  Logistics Capability Development

  24

  Rolls Royce

  Maritime Team Leader

  36

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Public Private Partnering Adviser

  12

  BAE Systems

  Head Defence Export Services

  36

  BAE Systems

  Air Logistics Support

  12

  BAE Systems

  Ship Systems Project Leader

  24

  BAE Systems

  Graduate Trainee (acquisition assessment)

  6

  1 Month

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the senior staff from his Department who have been seconded to the defence industry since April 2000, stating in each case the secondee's name, position, company and duration of placement and whether the person concerned is still employed by his Department. [82388]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is our practice to respect the privacy of our personnel, including those on secondment, and to withhold the names of individuals in accordance with

  Position

  Company

  Duration

  Current MOD Employee

  Director

  Thomson-CSF/Thales Defence Ltd.

  24 months

  No

  Strategy Director

  Electronic Data Systems

  24 months

  Yes

  Senior Project Manager

  Rolls Royce plc

  24 months

  Yes

  Manager Operational Development

  BAE SYSTEMS

  24 months

  Yes

  Deputy Technical Director

  Thales Defence Ltd.

  24 months

  Yes

  Research & Technology Liaison Officer

  BAE SYSTEMS

  6 months

  Yes

  Submarines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it has cost to make the submarines sold to Canada fit to put to sea; and if he will make a statement. [82143]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of the refurbishment of the Upholder Class submarines is commercially sensitive and I am withholding the details in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the modifications of the next generation of Tactical Tomahawk missiles. [80700]

  Dr. Moonie
  An equally funded United Kingdom-United States programme is in progress to develop and test a version of the Tactical Tomahawk Block IV missile capable of being fired from submarine torpedo tubes. The first test firing is expected to take place next year.

  VX Nerve Agent
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from the 12W
  Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information except where the seniority of the individual or the nature of the post warrants a formal announcement.

  The secondment of John Howe as a Director at Thomson-CSF/Thales Defence Ltd. was announced in May 2000; the secondment was for two years. Mr Howe is no longer a Ministry of Defence employee.

  US Government about Iraq's possession of the dusty form of VX nerve agent; and if he will make a statement. [82566]

  Mr. Hoon
  Intelligence communications between the United Kingdom and foreign governments are confidential and I am therefore withholding the information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Government's assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was published on 24 September.

  Whittington Barracks
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the investigation of allegations of(a) rape and (b) bullying at the Army Training Regiment in Whittington Barracks near Lichfield; and what steps he is taking to reassure relations of soldiers at the barracks of their safety. [81166]

  Dr. Moonie
  The allegations made recently refer to events that are said to have occurred in 1997 and earlier. In respect of the rape allegation, no formal complaint has been made to the Ministry of Defence and there is no specific investigation ongoing. Naturally, should the allegation be made formally, then the department will instigate a full and proper investigation. I can confirm that claims have been brought against the Ministry of Defence in respect of bullying which took place at
  13W
  Whittington Barracks in 1991–92. As the claims are the subject of litigation I cannot comment further. Bullying and harassment of any kind will not be tolerated in the Army and any such allegations will always be thoroughly investigated. If such allegations are proven, appropriate action will be taken against the perpetrators.

WALES

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82188]

  Peter Hain
  My Department does not fund any grants for individual members of the public and organisations.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the remit of his spokesperson on the Welsh language. [83010]

  Peter Hain
  Wales Office policy on the Welsh language is a matter for Wales Office Ministers; I have not appointed anyone else to speak for us on these matters.

  As part of my strong commitment to it, I regard it as important that Government policy is presented in the Welsh language. The hon. Member for Ynys Mon, (Albert Owen), has kindly agreed to assist in this.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioners
  15. Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the need for pension reform. [81283]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have come a long way in our ambition to combat poverty and promote security and independence in retirement. State Second Pension and the groundbreaking Pension Credit, which is being introduced in October 2003, will mainly benefit women and those, on low incomes. But we still have further to go.

  The Government's proposals will be published in a Green Paper shortly.

  New Deal
  22. Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact the New Deal for 25 plus has had on levels of unemployment. [81291]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, long-term unemployment has been cut by around three quarters, to its lowest level for more than 25 years. New Deal 25 14W
  plus has played an important part in this success, so far helping over 112,000 people into work (90 in my hon. Friend's constituency).

  In April 2001 New Deal 25 plus was re-engineered, to provide a flexible, more individually-tailored service to help more people get jobs and remain in them. The enhanced programme is performing well, increasing the rate at which participants enter jobs.

  We are building on this success and enhancing and extending New Deal 25 plus even further. Next April we will be piloting more intensive help during the Gateway period and extending eligibility to all jobseekers who have been unemployed for 18 months out of the previous three years.

  Benefit Fraud
  24. Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his targets are for the reduction of benefit fraud. [81293]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have recently announced a target of a 25 per cent, reduction in fraud and error in Housing Benefit for working age customers by 2006. This is in addition to the targets we have already set to reduce fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance for working age customers, which aim for a 33 per cent, reduction by 2004 and a 50 per cent, reduction by 2006. Latest figures show that we are on course to achieve more than double our March 2002 target of a 10 per cent, reduction.

  Poverty
  27. Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to reduce household poverty. [81296]

  35. Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to reduce the number of households in poverty. [81305]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recently published Opportunity for all—Fourth Annual Report 2002 (Cm 5598), which provides a detailed account of our strategy, measurement indicators and what more we need to do. The report shows that we have achieved a great deal and that our approach is working and we will continue to deliver on this challenge over the years to come.

  Incapacity Benefit
  28. Mr. McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact on passported benefits the move from severe disablement allowance to incapacity benefit has had on the standard of living of young disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [81297]

  Maria Eagle
  We have reformed Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance in order to provide more support to young people disabled early in life who have never had the opportunity to work. We estimate that around 175,000 young people will benefit from the change over time.
  15W
  Depending on their circumstances, young disabled people receiving incapacity benefit will still be able to qualify for help with NHS charges or other passported benefits on the grounds of low income.

  We recognise that some young people will no longer have automatic entitlement to this help. But many of them will already be considerably better off as a result of the changes we have introduced. It would be unfair to treat these people differently to other incapacity benefit recipients.

  Air Base Job Losses
  29.Mr. Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence to discuss the loss of jobs following the announcement in July of the proposed closure of several experimental air bases; and if he will make a statement. [81298]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have not had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about possible job losses resulting from the proposed closure of experimental air bases. Officials from Jobcentre Plus have contacted Qineteq Ltd, the company in my hon. Friend's constituency affected by these proposals, to offer advice and assistance with any redundancies. Although their help is not needed at this time, Jobcentre Plus will maintain contact with the company in case any help is needed in the future.

  Jobcentre Staff (IT)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to enhance IT expertise for Jobcentre staff. [81299]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus managers identify individual training needs with their members of staff. Each member of staff has a personal development plan that includes training to ensure they have the IT expertise required for their job. National training plans are developed side by side with the development of new IT systems to ensure that staff are equipped to use the new systems when they come online. Jobcentre Plus is also carrying out a study into the practicalities of using computer-based learning to ensure that best practice is followed in IT training across such a large organisation.

  Through the timely identification of learning needs and provision of suitable training, Jobcentre Plus are enhancing the IT skills, knowledge and confidence of staff so that they can deliver a high quality service to the public.

  Unemployment (Workington)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the change in the level of unemployment in the Workington constituency has been since 1997. [81300]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. In my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has halved since 1997 and long-term unemployment has fallen by nearly 80 per cent.
  16W

  Final Salary Pension Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the protection awarded to final salary scheme pensioners when companies are wound up. [81301]

  Mr. McCartney
  When a company and its final salary pension scheme are wound up, pensioners are protected by the 1995 Pensions Act and regulations. A statutory priority order ensures that, after additional voluntary contributions, pensions in payment are secured ahead of other benefits, so that those already in retirement continue to receive a pension.

  The employer debt provisions place a debt on an insolvent company's estate that is calculated, in part, to bring a wound up scheme's assets up to a level sufficient to meet the notional costs of buying annuities for pensioners.

  The independent trustee provisions require insolvency practitioners to make sure that schemes that are winding up have one trustee who is independent. Trustees are required to report their progress regularly to Opra.

  Universal Bank Account
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of the universal bank account scheme on pensioners living in rural communities. [81303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The introduction of universal banking services (which consists of two elements: access to basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account) will help ensure that all customers, including pensioners living in rural areas, can continue to access their benefits in cash at the Post Office. It will also provide customers with a wider range of accounts that they can choose to have their benefit or pension paid into. Universal banking services is an innovative idea that will also help to broaden the Post Office's customer base and open up new sources of income.

  Action for Jobs
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Action for Jobs programme. [81306]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The 63 Action Teams for Jobs are having a positive impact on the lives of disadvantaged people in the most economically deprived areas of the country.

  By the end of September this year they had helped over 50,000 jobless people into work. An evaluation study of the first year of the initiative found that 80 per cent, of people who found jobs through Action Teams moved into sustained jobs.

  The Action Team which operates in my hon. Friend's constituency has been very successful, helping almost 1,000 people move into jobs.

  We are building on Action Teams' success. Earlier this year we introduced the Employment Projects and Transport Projects Funds, worth £2 million and

  17W
  £5 million a year respectively. Teams can bid for additional money from these funds to support initiatives that will benefit their local communities.

  Construction Industry (Fatalities)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the number of fatalities in the construction industry in the last year for which figures are available. [81307]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of fatal injuries to construction workers dropped to 79 in the period from April 2001 to March 2002 from 105 in the previous year, a 25 per cent, reduction.

  Ageism
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to end age discrimination in employers' recruitment practices. [81308]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have made a pledge to tackle age discrimination and we are committed to introducing age legislation covering employment, vocational training and guidance by 2006.

  We are already encouraging employers to adopt non-ageist employment practices through our Age Positive Campaign. The campaign raises employers' awareness of the business benefits of an age diverse workforce and encourages a flexible approach to retirement to open up choice and opportunity for individuals to stay in work longer.

  In 1999 we published the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment which sets out the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. The code was developed with leading organisations including the CBI, TUC, the Employers Forum on Age and Age Concern. Evaluation shows that from 1999 to 2001 the number of companies using age in recruitment had already fallen from 27 per cent, to 13 per cent, and the number of companies having a policy against employing older workers had dropped from 14 per cent, to 7 per cent.

  Older workers have a wealth of skills and experience that can benefit individual businesses and the economy as a whole. Our policies will help to improve further the employment rate of people over 50, which has risen considerably since 1997.

  Pension Plans
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government are taking to encourage each individual to plan for independence in retirement. [81273]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are providing pension information and advice, including the pension guide and pension forecasts, to help people make informed choices in planning for their retirement.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets the Government have set for increasing the proportion of pensioners' incomes that come from the state. [81278]
  18W
  Maria Eagle
  The Government are committed to combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement and we have a range of targets to support these objectives. As a result of our policies no pensioner need live on less than £98.15 a week, and for couples £149.80.

  Travel-to-Work Costs
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people with travel-to-work arrangements. [81284]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise that the lack of affordable transport can be a significant barrier to work for jobless people, and have a number of measures in place to help them overcome these difficulties.

  Earlier this month we announced the extension of half price rail fares to 125,000 more people on the New Deal programme, making it easier for them to get to job interviews and easier to get to work in the first few months of employment.

  Unemployment (Kettering)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the change has been in the level of unemployment in the Kettering constituency since May 1997. [81290]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our policies have created a strong economy geared to delivering stability, low inflation and sound public finances. Alongside this, our labour market policies promote attachment to the job market, whatever the stage of the business cycle. In my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has fallen by 40 per cent, since 1997 and long term unemployment has fallen by over 80 per cent.

  Unemployment Figures
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of recent unemployment statistics for the United Kingdom in comparison with other EU countries. [81292]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government's policies have created a strong economy geared to delivering stability, low inflation and sound public finances. Alongside this, our labour market policies promote attachment to the jobs market, whatever the stage of the business cycle.

  As a result the number of people in work is at record levels and unemployment has fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s and has remained at these low levels for over a year.

  We have the lowest unemployment rate of the G7 major industrialised countries and UK unemployment is below the average level in the EU and lower than the other major EU economies.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of user reaction to Jobcentre Plus. [81295]
  19W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The first 66 integrated Jobcentre Plus offices are now open and we will extend that network to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years. First reactions from both individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive.

  Jobcentre Plus will also be undertaking a National Customer Satisfaction Survey at the end of this year and will be publishing the findings in the spring of 2003.

  Unemployment (Anniesland)
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the change is in the level of unemployment in the Glasgow, Anniesland constituency since May 1997. [81304]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government's active labour market programmes, building on the foundation of a stable economy, are helping more and more people move from a life of benefits into work. In my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has fallen by a third since 1997, and long-term unemployment has fallen by 55 per cent.

  As well as the New Deals, we have Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones operating in areas with persistently high levels of unemployment. The Glasgow Employment Zone, which includes my hon. Friend's constituency, has already helped over 3,000 people find work.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted, and what the average sentence was from that conviction, for the criminal offence of non-co operation with the Child Support Agency. [82572]

  Malcolm Wicks
  24 cases have been referred to the courts. Of these, 10 have been dealt with and have resulted in the average sentence being a six month conditional discharge. The remaining 14 cases suitable for court action are at various stages such as awaiting a court date, awaiting the laying of information or awaiting service of a summons.

  Civil Service Pensioners
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review pensions given to civil service employees who started their employment prior to 1949 and who receive half pensions for that period. [82048]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to change the basis upon which service before 1949 is taken into account for the purposes of a civil service pension.

  Housing Benefit Fraud and Error
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will announce the baseline figure for assessing progress in meeting his target of reducing fraud and error in housing benefit by 25 per cent, by 2006, as set out on page 119 of the 2002 Spending Review. [83209]
  20W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Housing Benefit Review, which is under way, will enable us to establish a baseline level of fraud and error for the financial year 2002–03. The results of this review should be available in autumn 2003.

  Pension Schemes
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how Article 8 of the European Directive on Insolvency Rights SO/987/EEC has been enacted in the UK. [82914]

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will implement the obligation in EC Insolvency Directive 8 as it affects pensions schemes. [82973]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government meet their obligations under Article 8 of the Insolvency Directive. For example, the Pension Schemes Act 1993 in GB (which consolidated provisions originally in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978) provides that certain unpaid pension scheme contributions can be claimed from the National Insurance Fund, through the Redundancy Payments Service, if an employer becomes insolvent. If a claim is successful funds are paid to the trustees of the scheme being wound up. In addition, the Pensions Act 1995 requires salary-related schemes to meet the Minimum Funding Requirement, and provides for a statutory priority order for the distribution of a scheme's assets if a scheme that is required to meet the MFR winds up.

  Unemployment (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in Wirral, South since May 1997. [81285]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. In my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has halved since 1997 and long-term unemployment has fallen by over 75 per cent.

  As well as the New Deals, we have Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones operating in areas with persistently high levels of unemployment. Up to October this year, the Wirral Action Team had engaged with 1,344 jobless people and found work for 676 of them.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has had a reply to the letter he sent to Chancellor SchrÖder concerning Catherine Meyer. [81499]

  The Prime Minister
  As my hon. Friend is aware, this case is an on-going matter between the British and German Governments.
  21W

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the undertakings given by successive Prime Ministers on surveillance of hon. Members with special reference to Mr. David Nellist. [82594]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 367W

  Lord Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the countries visited by Lord Levy since the last General Election, giving in each case the dates and purposes of the visits. [80847]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 30 October 2002,Official Report, column 856W and on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 143W. Lord Levy made other visits between 23 October 2001 and 11 March 2002. These were:
  Israel/Palestinian Authority— 31 October 2001, 17–19 December 2001, 5–7 February 2002
  Germany— 29 January 2002
  France— 30 January 2002
  Egypt— 4–5 February 2002
  Jordan— stopover on 5 February 2002

  Lord Levy undertook all these visits in his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, to exchange views on the middle east peace process

  Mexico
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Fox of Mexico regarding British support for Plan Puebla Panama. [82233]

  The Prime Minister
  President Fox briefed me on Plan Puebla Panama during my visit to Mexico in August 2001. Other Government Ministers have discussed the plan with the Mexican Government, and Central American Governments, on a number of occasions since then

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the evidential basis for Lord Macdonald's statement of 12 February,Official Report, column 1995, in respect of paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code; [83394]

  (2) what recent amendments have been made to paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code. [82891]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 18W

  NATO Summit
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the objectives of Her Majesty's Government at the NATO summit in Prague. [82467]
  22W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave in the House today.

  Turkey (EU Accession)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister what his stance will be on Turkey's accession to the European Union at the EU summit at Copenhagen. [83024]

  The Prime Minister
  We believe Turkish membership of the European Union would be a good thing for Turkey, for Europe and for the wider world. We would like to see Turkey start negotiations as soon as possible, by meeting the conditions which apply to all candidates. We want the Copenhagen European Council to signal a decisive step forward in Turkey's candidature

  Turkish Leaders
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to meet the Turkish leaders on their present tour to European capitals. [82342]

  The Prime Minister
  I met Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party, and Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, on 20 November.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People (Home Adaptations)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the waiting time is for the processing of applications for adaptations to homes for disabled people; and what is being done to speed up the process. [82026]

  Mr. Browne
  The time scale for having applications completed varies depending on the nature and scale of the work required. For Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties 50 per cent, of urgent heating cases are completed within 17 weeks while in non urgent cases 96 per cent, are completed in 52 weeks. In private sector cases it issues schedules of work in 82 per cent, of cases within 12 weeks of inspection and approves 97 per cent, of cases within six months of receipt of a completed formal application form. The times scales are influenced by factors such as having plans drawn up and approved as well as the need to have an assessment carried out to determine the needs of the disabled person.

  For its own properties the Housing Executive and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have jointly carried out a review of the adaptation service. Significant progress has been made in reducing the requirement for assessment by the occupational therapy service through increased use of fast tracking and waiting times are expected to be reduced by the recruitment of additional Occupational Therapists (17 have been recruited). For private sector cases, the Housing Executive is setting up a working group to examine ways of improving the applications process and in the longer term, the new housing legislation will allow for fast tracking on agreement with the Occupational Therapy Service.
  23W

  Households Below Average Income
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to produce(a) statistics on households below average income and (b) estimates of take-up of income-related benefits comparable with those produced in Great Britain. [82834]

  Mr. Browne
  The family resources survey was extended from Great Britain to Northern Ireland in April 2002. It is intended that from 2002–03, statistics on households below average income and estimates of take-up of income-related benefits will be produced for Northern Ireland in a form exactly comparable to those available for Great Britain, and to a similar timescale

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will bring forward legislation on housing matters which had been subject to the legislative process in the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to suspension of devolution; and if he will make a statement. [82820]

  Mr. Browne
  The Housing Support Services Order was laid before Parliament on 15 November 2002 and it is proposed that the provisions included in the Northern Ireland Housing Bill will be laid before Parliament early in the new year.

  The housing support services provisions need to be in place by April 2003 to cover a new method for funding the costs associated with providing housing support services for vulnerable people in supported accommodation. The provisions contained in the Northern Ireland Housing Bill, which will also become an Order in Council, cover a wide range of measures including provision for a discretionary grants scheme, caravan sites for travellers, a registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation; anti-social behaviour, and a variety of miscellaneous matters.

  Knowledge-based Economy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's long term spending plans for creating a knowledge-based economy in Northern Ireland. [82029]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Executive's Draft Budget for 2003–04 to 2005–06 was announced in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 24 September 2002. We are currently considering the responses to the Draft Budget consultation exercise which ended on 15 November 2002 and will be announcing Revised Budget spending plans for the Northern Ireland departments in December.

  These plans will set out the allocations which are to be provided to promote the development of a knowledge-based economy in Northern Ireland.

  Larne to Whitehead Railway Line
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to(a) decommission and (b) preserve the Larne to Whitehead railway line. [82681]
  24W
  Angela Smith
  There are no plans to decommission or mothball the railway line from Whitehead to Larne. As specified in the regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland 2002–12, the railways services north of Whitehead, and those north and north-west of Ballymena will be considered once the results from the introduction of new trains and improved infrastructure in the rest of the network are assessed in the early stage of implementing the ten year strategy.

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of people diagnosed with lung cancer have been treated by surgery in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [82070]

  Mr. Browne
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The Northern Ireland Cancer Registry estimate that the number of persons diagnosed with lung cancer in Northern Ireland every year is approximately 875. The total number of persons in Northern Ireland with lung cancer is estimated to be around 3,400.

  The number of admissions to hospital in Northern Ireland with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer who received treatment by surgery is detailed in the following table.

  Admissions to hospital in Northern Ireland with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer

  Number of admissions

  Number of admissions which had surgery

  Percentage of admissions which had surgery

  2001–02

  2,403

  1,712

  71

  2000–01

  2,605

  1,746

  67

  1999–2000

  2,097

  1,284

  61

  Pension Provision
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans he has to make pension provision for part-time members of the police reserved in Northern Ireland. [80673]

  Jane Kennedy
  In September 2001 a contract was agreed with Standard Life to provide a stakeholder pension facility from 8 October 2001 for the police service of Northern Ireland reserve (part-time).

  This ensured that the employer's obligation, under the Welfare Reform and Pensions (NI) Order 1999, was met, offering employees access to a stakeholder pension scheme by designating a scheme that employees can join if they wish.

  Pensioners (Personal Care)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce free personal care for pensioners in Northern Ireland. [83120]
  25W
  Mr. Browne
  The Inter-Departmental Group's Report on Free Personal Care was forwarded to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on Thursday 8 August 2002. Following discussion at the Executive on 12 August 2002, Ministers asked for further work to be undertaken. That work has not yet been completed. In any event, it is not possible at this stage to give any indication about plans to introduce free personal care here, since this is a matter that should be determined by the Executive.

  Pre-School Funding
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children in their immediate pre-school year places in Northern Ireland have not received departmental funding. [82678]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Pre-school Education Expansion Programme aims to provide a place for every child whose parents wish it by March 2003. This school year we are providing places for more than 90 per cent, of the total estimated cohort of children in their pre-school year. Given that participation in pre-school education is voluntary rather than compulsory, we expect this level of provision to be adequate to meet demand across the region as a whole. At present my Department is working closely with each Education and Library Board's Pre-School Education Advisory Group in order to ensure that the most effective allocation of funded places has been achieved.

  Social Security Appeals Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional resources will be available to the Social Security Appeals Service to address the backlog in cases awaiting tribunal hearings. [82763]

  Mr. Browne
  Funding of almost £600,000 was made available to the appeals service during 2002–03 to fund the cost of 20 additional staff, overtime working and the payment of fees to 25 newly appointed Tribunal members. As a result of this the number of hearings was increased by 17 per cent and the number of appeals outstanding has reduced by 33 per cent.

  Universities (Research and Development)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much and what percentage of the total budget for Northern Ireland will be directly allocated to research and development in universities in Northern Ireland. [82028]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Executive's Draft Budget for 2003–04 to 2005–06 was presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 24 September 2002. We are currently considering the responses to the Draft Budget consultation exercise which ended on 15 Novermber 2002 and will be announcing revised Budget spending plans for the Northern Ireland departments for 2003–04 to 2005–06 in early December.
  26W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPENT

  Access to Medicines
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the remit is of the UK's Working Group on Access to Medicines; who the members of the group are; who it has consulted; and when it expects to report its conclusions to Parliament. [71008]

  Clare Short
  The High Level Working Group on Access to Medicines has been focusing on improving access to medicines through encouraging appropriate donations, facilitating differential pricing arrangements, and increasing research and development into medicines and vaccines for the three main diseases prevalent in developing countries: HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. The third and final meeting this Thursday will be focusing on tiered (differential) pricing of drugs. I will send a report and recommendations to the Prime Minister in early September and report to Parliament at the start of the new session. We are looking to take the recommendations forward with some urgency within international fora over the coming year.

  The Working Group comprises:

  Department for International Development

  Department of Health

  Department of Trade and Industry

  H M Treasury

  Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry

  AstraZeneca

  GlaxoSmithKline

  World Health Organisation

  World Trade Organisation

  European Commission

  Rockefeller Foundation

  Wellcome Trust

  Uganda High Commission London

  University of Cambridge.

  The Working Group has also consulted with Non-Govermental Organisations (NGOs) and the generic-based pharmaceutical industry.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government are doing to equip hospitals in Afghanistan. [80560]

  Clare Short
  We are directing the majority of our funds through UN agencies, major NGOs and the World Bank Trust Fund. We have provided £2 million to the World Health Organisation; in addition to this some of the funds directed through NGOs have been specifically for the area of healthcare, including the provision of primary healthcare, and the emergency restoration of healthcare facilities.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being provided to hospitals in Afghanistan to ensure they have regular supplies of electricity. [80570]
  27W
  Clare Short
  A number of major donors, including the World Bank and the EC are providing support for urban infrastructure. The German Government are also supporting power supply rehabilitation. In order to avoid replication of work we are not working in this sector although we have provided over £2 million for healthcare needs through the World Health Organisation and NGOs.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has given to the Government of Afghanistan to pay the salaries of public servants. [80571]

  Clare Short
  We have contributed £10 million ($15 million) into the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), out of an estimated total for 2002–03 of $140 million; of this, some 90 per cent, will help meet Afghanistan's recurrent costs. The Afghanistan budget is $460 million, of which an estimated 80 per cent, will be for salaries. The UK funding for the ARTF is untied and unearmarked.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the money her Department pledged to Afghanistan for this year has been disbursed; and when she expects to disburse the remainder 100 per cent, of the money. [80573]

  Clare Short
  At Tokyo in January we pledged £200 million to Afghanistan over five years, of this we have allocated £65 million for the current financial year. So far this year we have disbursed just over £37 million (57 per cent.). We expect to disburse a further £12.5 million to address Afghanistan's arrears with International Financial Institutions by the end of November. The remainder of the £65 million will be disbursed by the end of the financial year.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what Britain's contribution is to international funding for the reconstruction of Afghanistan; how much Britain has agreed to contribute in each of the next three years; and how much has already been committed. [80719]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 18 November]At the meeting on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, held in Tokyo in January this year the UK pledged 200 million to Afghanistan over the next five years. For the current financial year we have allocated 65 million for both reconstruction and humanitarian needs. In addition to

  Recipient

  Financial Year

  Cost

  Description

  Sierra Leone

  2001–02

  £5.27 million

  Personal equipment, light weapons, ammunition, communications equipment and vehicles for the Sierra Leone armed forces

  Kenya

  2001–02

  £14,000

  Thirty-five (35) mine detectors for Kenyan armed forces deploying as part of the UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea

  All of the above equipment was provided by the Ministry of Defence. The equipment for Sierra Leone was provided as part of the UK programme of support for the Sierra Leone Government. The purpose was to assist in training and equipping the armed forces and was announced in Parliament at the time.
  28W
  this there is 1.8 million available from the mine action programme for specific work to address the problem of land mines in Afghanistan and a further 18 million in the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. We are currently considering resources for future financial years in our Resource Allocation Round process.

  African Action Plan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the African Action Plan highlighted in the Queen's Speech will be implemented; and whether this will result in her Department increasing the amount of aid from the UK recently announced for NEPAD. [82075]

  Clare Short
  We have published an Implementation Plan setting out how we will take forward the G8 Africa Action Plan. This sets out key milestones and objectives to be achieved in the run up to the next G8 Summit in Evian. My Department is responsible for coordinating UK implementation of the G8 Africa Action Plan in close co-operation with other Government Departments. Baroness Amos is continuing to pursue the UK agenda within the G8 in her role as the Prime Minister's Africa Personal Representative. A progress report on the Africa Action Plan will be presented by Africa Personal Representatives at the next Summit. The Prime Minister has committed the UK to a £1 billion bilateral programme in Africa by 2006

  Arms Sales
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what military equipment has been purchased with funds from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool in each year since the programme's inception, indicating in each case the amount spent and the end uses. [82240]

  Clare Short
  The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool became operational in FY 2001–02. The aim of the Pool is to improve the effectiveness of the UK's contribution to conflict prevention, reduction and peacekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. The Pool covers the direct conflict prevention activities of the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, where a joint approach adds value.

  Details of military equipment purchased with Pool funding, since the inception of the Pool, are as follows:

  The equipment to Kenya was provided in March 2002 along with demining training for the Kenyan armed forces prior to their deployment to UNMEE.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what initiatives are being
  29W
  pursued by her Department to provide targeted support and protection for local producers of developing countries in order for them to benefit from international trade; and if she will make a statement; [82521]

  (2) what initiatives are being pursued by her Department to provide targeted support and protection for local producers in developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [82522]

  Clare Short
  Poor country producers can best be helped through a combination of supportive policies and programmes in country and significant trade liberalisation in areas of importance to them. Through the Doha Development Agenda agreed at the fourth WTO ministerial in November 2001, the UK is arguing for significant reductions in trade distorting policies and greater access for developing country products to OECD markets, particularly for agricultural goods and light manufactures.

  Specifically, the UK Government support the Integrated Framework, which aims to mainstream trade issues into a country's growth and poverty reduction strategies. This ensures that the right sort of complementary policies i.e. rural roads, access to credit or skill training, can be developed to reduce the impact on poor people of changes in their livelihoods and enable small producers to take advantage of new trading opportunities.

  My Department provides support designed to meet the different circumstances and needs of a broad range of producers throughout the developing world. These include interventions designed to improve food security as well as to support the delivery of improved rural services. We also provide support to international agencies and works to enhance the impact of interventions made by these institutions. Details of our initiatives can be found in the 2002 Departmental Report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) the European Union's and (b) her Department's response has been to the drought and food shortages in Ethiopia. [80576]

  Clare Short
  So far we have made food and non-food humanitarian commitments of some £12.3 million in calendar year 2002. The EC has committed euro 23 million for 97,000 metric tonnes of food aid to cover food needs until the end of 2002. In addition to the food aid provision the EC has approved a euro 4 million programme of humanitarian aid for the victims of drought, which includes providing water and sanitation, supporting health services and providing targeted supplementary and therapeutic feeding. DFID provides funding for nearly 20 percent, of EC assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how(a) the UK Government and (b) the European Union is responding to the most recent appeal from the World Food Programme for food for Ethiopia. [80602]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme considers current pledges of food aid to be sufficient to meet needs until mid-January 2003, but they remain concerned 30W
  about prospects for February and March, when needs are expected to be high. In terms of physical stocks the Ethiopian Food Security Reserve is expected on current estimates to have sufficient food available until April. The European Commission has informed us that they have made available euro 23 million, of which the DFID share is nearly euro 4.6 million, which is equivalent to 97,000 metric tonnes of food aid, to cover food needs until the end of 2002. This total includes euro 5 million, which is equivalent to 13,000 metric tonnes of food aid, to be provided through the World Food Programme. The Commission is also looking at the best ways to provide timely and effective assistance to address the emerging food crisis in 2003.

  We are taking careful note of the WFP and Government of Ethiopia reports and appeals and keeping the situation under continuous review. As always we remain committed to playing our part in the international response to humanitarian need.

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the rate of spread of HIV/ AIDS in(a) India, (b) Bangladesh, (c) Thailand and (d) Indonesia. [82239]

  Clare Short
  DFID is working closely with the Governments of both India and Bangladesh to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. India has a significant HIV epidemic, with prevalence in some states at around 2 per cent. The number of people with HIV/AIDS is estimated at 3.9 million. In Bangladesh, although HIV prevalence is less than 1 per cent., even in high risk groups, we recognise as a priority the prevention of its further spread.

  We are currently considering what role there may be for DFID in working on HIV/AIDS in Indonesia, where evidence suggests that prevalence in certain places and in certain groups has risen quickly. Thailand is often held up as one of the world's success stories in combating HIV/AIDS, having reduced the number of new infections from 143,000 in 1991 to 29,000 in 2001. DFID has no bilateral programme there, but we do continue to monitor carefully the status of the epidemi.

  Overseas Aid
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to announce the timetable for the UK meeting the UN on 0.7 GNI aid commitment following the announced aid increase to its ODA in the Queen's Speech; and whether aid increase is additional to that announced during the Comprehensive Spending Review. [82074]

  Clare Short
  It was announced at the recent Comprehensive Spending Review that UK ODA/GNI will be 0.4 per cent, in FY 2006–07. Subsequent changes will be decided infuture spending reviews. The UK remains firmly committed to the 0.7 per cent, target.

  The Queen's Speech referred to the increase already announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  31W

  Plan Puebla Panama
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) her counterparts within the EU and (b) the World bank regarding the Plan Puebla Panama in Mexico. [82229]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Sierra Leone
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in improving the judicial system in Sierra Leone. [82658]

  Clare Short
  The Sierra Leone judiciary has been in a state of decline for at least the last 30 years. Its operational independence has been deeply undermined. Low pay is a cause of poor morale and contributes to all round ineffectiveness. Investment in training and infrastructure has been minimal. The perception in Sierra Leone is that it is unresponsive, unaccountable, corrupt and inaccessible. It is neither trusted nor respected.

  Starting from this very low base my Department has been working with the Sierra Leone judiciary to support reform. Assistance to date has concentrated on the restoration of infrastructure, the provision of equipment, court recording systems and procedures and legal drafting.

  We are considering a further programme of assistance that would take an integrated approach to the justice system (police, legal and judicial and penal systems). This will be a joint project with the World Bank. We expect the UN agencies active in Sierra Leone and the Commonwealth Secretariat to take part. We intend the programme to take place over at least five years.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made towards the alleviation of poverty in Sierra Leone. [82661]

  Clare Short
  Sierra Leone agreed an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) with the international financial institutions in September 2001. It outlines a post-conflict transitional phase focused on restoration of security, re-launching the economy, and provision of basic services to the most vulnerable groups. Longer term programmes for poverty reduction will be contained in a full PRSP that the Government of Sierra Leone intend to prepare by late 2003. Agreement of a full PRSP will be the key step for an agreed agenda between the Government of Sierra Leone and the donor community for poverty reduction.

  Peace was declared in Sierra Leone in January this year. Inevitably, the Government's initial focus has been on disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants, and measures to assist the millions of internally displaced persons and returning refugees. After 10 years of conflict, Sierra Leone faces a huge task in developing and implementing policies to address poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals. There are some encouraging developments, for example, in improving primary school enrolment and immunisation rates, but much remains to be done in a country severely damaged by conflict.
  32W
  We are supporting a major programme of support to reform and poverty reduction in Sierra Leone, including direct assistance with the preparation of a full PRSP. Under the Poverty Reduction Framework Arrangement signed with the Government of Sierra Leone this month, we have committed £120 million over the next three years, as part of a 10-year commitment of support. This complements the US$172 million poverty reduction and growth facility agreed by Sierra Leone with the IMF in September 2001, and the US$950 million of debt relief available through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, both of which will assist Sierra Leone to address recovery and poverty reduction.

  Sudan
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken since the seminar on education in Sudan on 29 July held by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [82234]

  Clare Short
  Since the seminar, my Department has given £316,000 to UNICEF for education in the Nuba Mountains cease-fire area. This is proceeding well: 600 school kits have already been delivered and more are on the way; rehabilitation of school buildings has also started. We are also supporting a range of scholarship programmes particularly targeting women and students from conflict-affected areas. My Senior Education Adviser visited north and south Sudan in October to review this work and to discuss plans to rehabilitate the education system in Sudan. We continue to plan for what we hope will be a comprehensive peace in the New Year.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to combat the epidemics of kala azar and guinea worm in southern Sudan. [82238]

  Clare Short
  So far in 2002 we have provided a total of 743,048 to Medecins sans Frontieres for three urgent health care projects in southern Sudan, which include the treatment of people suffering from the recent outbreak of Kala Azar (also known as visceral leishmanaisis).

  We are not presently funding any projects dealing with Guinea Worm in Sudan as this need is being met by other organisations, such as the Carter Centre. However, should the situation worsen, we would consider providing support.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  LPG Stations
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what strategies her Department has adopted to promote the supply of liquefied petroleum gas. [80504]

  Mr. Wilson
  This Department is actively working with colleagues in DTLR and HMT, and with the energy and transport industries to promote wider uptake of alternative fuels in particular liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
  33W
  At the opening of the 1000th LPG filling station in February this year, I announced LPG Boost, a £1 million DTI funded programme over two years to boost the uptake of LPG, as a vehicle fuel. I recently announced further details of this scheme which will introduce grants for converters and seek to raise awareness of LPG, particularly in four targeted rural areas of the country— Highlands and Islands, Mid and North Wales, Cornwall and East Ayrshire.

  University Research (Government Funding)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government funding for investment in university research and development each part of the United Kingdom receives(a) in absolute terms and (b) in proportion to its population [82030]

  Ms Hewitt
  Government funding for investment in university research and development through the Research Councils and Funding Councils (and, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Education and Learning) in the UK is as follows:

  Absolute terms (£million)

  Per head of population (£)

  England

  1,313

  27

  Northern Ireland

  24

  14

  Scotland

  176

  35

  Wales

  62

  21

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to take(a) legal and (b) other action against British-based companies and their subsidiaries which carry out cosmetic testing on animals outside of the EU where such testing is illegal within the EU. [80838]

  (2)what recent assessment she has made of (a)UK and (b) European legislation in relation to cosmetic testing on animals; and if she will make a statement. [80839]

  (3)what legal advice she has (a) commissioned and (b)received to establish whether an EU ban on the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals would be acceptable under the WTO regime. [80851]

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance her Department offers to British companies in respect of the use of animals for cosmetic testing purposes. [81597]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 20 November 2002]A ban on animal testing finished cosmetic products was introduced in the UK in 1997 and a subsequent ban on animal testing cosmetic of ingredients was introduced in the UK in 1998. These bans are to be made Europe-wide following the recently agreed 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive.

  This Amendment will introduce a ban on the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals. It will also introduce a ban on the sale in the EU of cosmetic products or their ingredients which have been tested on animals, once alternative tests are in place. It will also,
  34W
  within 10 years, prohibit the marketing in the EU of cosmetic products which have been tested on animals wherever in the world that testing might have been carried out.

  BAE Systems Contract
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries were made of ECGD by the Jersey authorities regarding the contract which it backed between BAE Systems and the Government of Qatar in 1996. [82351]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD discussed this matter with the Serious Fraud Office which was giving assistance to the Jersey authorities. The nature of this assistance is a matter for the SFO

  Corruption
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures ECGD operates for investigating allegations of corruption made regarding projects it has covered [82349]

  Hewitt
  here there are allegations or suspicions of corrupt practice, ECGD will carry out initial inquiries to seek further information. But ECGD has no investigatory powers and thus passes any substantive information it receives when relevant to the appropriate authorities, for example the police or the serious fraud office

  ECGD Staff
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff from ECGD have gone on to work for companies which have received ECGD support; which companies they went to work for in the last 10 years; and what precautions ECGD takes to prevent conflict of interest. [82347]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since November 1992 13 civil servants have left ECGD to work for companies which have received support from the Department. In all cases to ensure there was no cause for any suspicion of impropriety, they sought and obtained the required prior approval under the Civil Service rules governing the acceptance of outside business appointments and where appropriate were approved subject to conditions. The details are as follows:

  Date left

  Company

  January 1993

  GEC Alsthom Ltd.

  June 1994

  ANZ Grind lays Bank

  June 1994

  Trafalgar House Construction

  February 1995

  Bank of America

  December 1995

  British Aerospace

  September 1997

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  December 1997

  Barclays Bank plc

  July 1999

  Natwest

  March 2000

  Halifax Bank PLC

  September 1999

  Motherwell Bridge Holdings Ltd.

  July 2001

  Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi

  June 2001

  Barclays Bank plc

  October 2001

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  35W
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been seconded from the private sector to ECGD and from which companies they have been seconded in the last 10 years. [82348]

  Ms Hewitt
  Four people have been seconded to ECGD from the private sector in the last 10 years and details are as follows:An Economist from Barclays Bank plc between October 1989 and January 1993;
  British Aerospace for 15 working days over the period June to September 1993
  HSBC between January 1996 and December 1997; and
  Nat West Bank between July 1997 and February 1999

  Fireworks Sales
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps(a) to ban over-the- counter sale of fireworks, (b) to introduce a local licensing system for applications to use fireworks for party and community events and (c) to regulate the sale of fireworks through order-only companies; and if she will make a statement. [81483]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government do not believe the case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks to the public. Primary legislation would be required to do this as well as regulating the sale and use of fireworks. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 only allows the making of regulations to control the safety of fireworks as a product.

  Also, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 October 2002, Official Report, columns 889–90, announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  Insolvency Service
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Insolvency Service about this year's pay negotiations; and if she will make a statement. [82103]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 722W.

  Israel
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the export licences which have been approved for arms sales to Israel in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [80901]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Details of all export licences issued between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 2001 are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Between 1 January 2002 and 7 November 2002, 64 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and four Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued, for items on the Military List, where the end users were in Israel. Individual export licences might cover a range
  36W
  of items with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the totals for all of the relevant ratings. Details are set out in the following table:

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued

  Number of OIELs issued

  ML3

  1

  —

  ML4

  9

  —

  ML5

  13

  —

  ML6

  2

  —

  ML7

  1

  —

  ML9

  6

  —

  ML10

  12

  —

  ML11

  5

  2

  ML14

  2

  —

  ML15

  3

  —

  ML16

  2

  —

  ML18

  1

  —

  ML21

  3

  —

  ML22

  1

  —

  PL5017

  2

  —

  PL5021

  1

  —

  PL5031

  4

  2

  In addition, items on the Military List might have been exported under certain Open General Export Licences. Copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Newsagents
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Newsagents; and if she will make a statement. [82104]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]My right hon. Friend and I have not had any recent discussions with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents.

  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is currently reviewing the 1994 Code of Practice on the supply of national newspapers, introduced following the 1993 monopoly report on newspaper distribution in England and Wales, and is expected to report by the end of the year.

  Parliamentary Question
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her holding answer of 19 November 2002, Ref: 81866, if she will explain the meaning and purpose of the words "Round Robin-guidance Expected", added to the question. [83029]

  Ms Hewitt
  The wording was provided for drafting officials. Because of an administrative error, it was not removed from the text of the holding reply, for which I apologise.

  Plan Puebla Panama
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if export credit guarantees have been granted to companies wishing to take part in the Plan Puebla Panama in Mexico. [82230]

  Ms Hewitt
  No export credit guarantees have been granted for the Plan Puebla Panama.
  37W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the UK companies who have expressed an interest in taking part in the Plan Puebla Panama in Mexico. [82232]

  Ms Hewitt
  Though some UK companies will be aware of Plan Puebla Panama because information is publicly available, we do not know of any who have registered interest in it. The Plan is still being developed in Mexico with the details of specific projects and financing yet to be finalised.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the take- up rate of the post card account needed to ensure the financial viability of the urban sub post office network once the Urban Reinvention Programme has been completed. [82164]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Urban reinvention is a modernisation and restructuring programme designed to ensure that urban sub post offices can operate as viable businesses for their owners and offer improved services from the right locations to serve their communities.

  As identified in the PIU report on the future of the network, the future viability of the restructured urban network will depend on the ability of the business to maximise commercial opportunities, improve efficiency and improve the quality of individual offices. It is anticipated that banking services will make a major contribution towards ensuring a viable future for many urban post offices.

  Universal banking services (both the card account and the banks own basic bank accounts), together with the Post Office's plans for an expansion of network banking (commercial arrangements between the Post Office and individual banks providing access to standard bank accounts over post office counters), should lead to a substantial increase in the number of people using post offices to do banking transactions. Wider access to bank accounts at post offices opens up a very much larger market than benefit recipients alone, and this should benefit sub-postmasters both directly and through increased footfall.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what commitments have been made to banks concerning the number of(a) basic bank account and (b) post office card accounts that will be opened. [82167]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]No commitments have been made to banks concerning the numbers of Post Office card accounts or basic bank accounts that will be opened.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is an upper limit for the number of post card accounts that can be opened. [82168]
  38W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The aim of the benefit payment migration to ACT and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. There are no eligibility criteria and no cap on numbers for the card account at the Post Office. Customers will choose the account they want.

  Post Offices
  Mr Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Post Offices and (b) sub- Post Offices there were in Dundee East and Dundee West in (i) 1972, (ii) 1975, (iii) 1980, (iv) 1985, (v) 1990, (vi) 1995 and (vii) 2000. [82416]

  Mr. Timms
  I am informed by Post Office Limited that historic data in the form requested is not available as the company does not require this data for operational reasons.

  However, in 1999, the Post Office undertook a special exercise to determine the number of post offices in each parliamentary constituency in response to the then hon Member for Birmingham Erdington (Mr. Robin Corbett) on 29 November 1999 (Official Report, column 22W). I further understand from Post Office Limited that it compiled a list of post offices by parliamentary constituency as of 20 April 2002 showing their classification as urban or rural offices. A copy of this list is held in the Library of the House.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the funding for the rural post office network, announced by the Royal Mail Chairman on 13 November. [82809]

  Mr. Timms
  Following my announcement in the House on 13 June, agreement has been reached in principle on the overall financing package for the Royal Mail. I will shortly be announcing details of the assistance to be made available to the rural post office network, which will be subject to state aids clearance.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether a full-time sub-post office can increase its hours of business for each working day and cease to be regarded as fulfilling its commitment to core hours; [82436]

  (2)how many sub-post offices in (a) Dumfries and Galloway, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK are open for less than full-time hours; [82437]

  (3)what plans she has to review the system of core hours for the sub-post office network; and if she will make a statement. [82438]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.
  39W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Arts Council on the funding of sexually explicit material. [82596]

  Dr. Howells
  None.

  BBC News 24 Report
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the BBC News 24 report will be placed in the Library. [82534]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering her response to Richard Lambert's review of BBC News 24 and will place the review in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as possible.

  Community Radio Station Licences
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what circumstances deposits required for applications for community radio station licences will be returnable; what levels of deposit are required for individuals applying for licences for community radio stations; and what assessment she has made of the types of organisations and individuals who are likely to apply for licences to run new community radio stations. [83301]

  Dr. Howells
  The Radio Authority are currently undertaking a pilot study of a number of access radio stations. The purpose of the study is to establish whether access radio is viable and how it might be licensed, regulated, funded, promoted and organised. The completed evaluation is expected to be published next spring. No charge is made for licensing the pilot experiment access radio stations.

  Clause 254 of the Communications Bill would allow the Secretary of State, by Order, to modify the legislation regulating radio services to make special provision for access radio. Any such Order could make provision about the application arrangements.

  No assessment has been undertaken about the types of organisations that might apply, but I would expect there to be a broad range of applicants.

  Elgin Marbles
  Miss Anne Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received on the future of the Elgin Marbles. [82224]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Andrew Dismore) on 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 172W.

  Library Investment
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the amount spent by each local authority per head of population on library services in 2002. [82488]
  40W
  Dr. Howells
  This information is contained within column 20 (population per service point) of the CIPFA Public Library Statistics, copies of which are lodged in the House of Commons Library. The latest actual figures available are for 2000–01. Estimates are available for 2001–02.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average annual investment in new book stock in libraries was for each shire authority in England in the last 12 months. [82490]

  Dr. Howells
  This information can be obtained from column 163 (total material acquisitions) of the CIPFA Public Library Statistics, copies of which are lodged in the House of Commons Library. The latest actual figures available are for 2000–01. Estimates are available for 2001–02.

  Library Staffing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people there were per static library in each shire authority in England in 2002. [82489]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is contained within column 180 (net expenditure per 1,000 population, excluding capital charges) of the CIPFA Public Library Statistics, copies of which are lodged in the House of Commons Library. The latest actual figures available are for 2000–01. Estimates are available for 2001–02.

  National Arts Council of England
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the(a) median, (b) youngest and (c) oldest age of the National Arts Council of England members are; and if she will make a statement. [82771]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is in the following table:

  National Arts Council of England Members

  Years old

  Median age

  54

  Youngest age

  38

  Oldest age

  71

  Policing Costs
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress with the review of policing costs incurred through stadium events, major sporting events and late night city centre entertainment. [80731]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have set up a working group, comprising representatives of the Home Office, Department of Culture Media and Sport, the Association of Chief police officers (ACPO) and the football authorities, to consider a range of strategic policing football issues, including police charging policy in connection with matches, and the investment of football clubs in the wider community. Supporter groups and other interested parties will be consulted. The group will commence its deliberations shortly.
  41W
  The Government is also concerned at the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues, particularly pubs and clubs which operate late into the night and major events such as sporting and outdoor entertainment. We welcome schedules where entertainment outlets contribute to the additional policing costs associated with alcohol-related disturbance.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the recommendations made by the Radiocommunications Agency, in their report, 'Introducing recognised spectrum access'. [82723]

  Dr. Howells
  General provisions for recognised spectrum access are included in the Communications Bill. The Government is currently considering responses to the consultation document, 'Introducing recognised spectrum access', about the implementation of this system and there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment on detailed proposals for specific frequency bands in due course.

  Regional Arts Council Members
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the(a) median age, (b) youngest age and (c) oldest age is of the Regional Arts Council members; and if she will make a statement. [82445]

  Dr. Howells
  Regional Arts Council members ages are as follows:

  Years old

  Median age

  50

  Youngest age

  29

  Oldest age

  73

  Regional Museums
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions and representations she has received from regional museums(a) individually and (b) collectively, regarding (i) free admission, (ii) funding by her Department, (iii) funding from other sources and (iv) other issues. [82446]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department received a number of representations from Resource (The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries), national and regional museums and museums' bodies. These were taken into account prior to our announcement of £70 million funding for regional museums from this year to 2005–06.

  Restrictive Service Licence (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about the Restrictive Service Licence for Television in Taunton. [82604]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received no representations. The licensing and regulation of Restricted Service Licences is a matter for the Independent Television Commission.
  42W

  Sporting Engagements
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sporting engagements she has attended by category in her official capacity since 7th June 2001. [81573]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have attended:Commonwealth Games
  5 July 2001 City of Manchester Stadium Topping Out Ceremony
  4 December 2001 Spirit of Friendship Festival
  5 December 2001 Commonwealth Games Reception
  12 February 2002 Visit to Sportcity Manchester
  25 July 2002 Commonwealth Games— opening ceremony
  30 July 2002 Commonwealth Games— various events
  4 August 2002 Commonwealth Games— closing ceremony
  Athletics
  31 January 2002 Athletics forum
  Olympics
  27 October 2002 Olympic sites in Barcelona
  5 November 2002 Olympic sites in Beijing
  Football
  14 August 2001 BTA/Premier League Partnership launch at Leeds United's Training Ground
  15 August 2001 Speech at the Club and Talent Development Forum at Bisham Abbey
  National Sports Centre
  12 December 2001 Groundbreaking ceremony at Bharat Football Club, Leicester
  31 January 2001 Launch of Playing for Success initiative at Arsenal FC
  21 April 2002 Norwich City v Stockport County at Carrow Road
  12 September 2002 Supporters Direct Annual Conference
  29 September 2002 Visit to National Football Museum
  School Sport
  19 November 2001 Launch for New Opportunities for PE and Sport programme in Newham
  2 October 2002 Launch Schools Sport Programme Collegiate High School Blackpool
  27 June 2002 Launch of Sport England Toolkit for Primary Schools
  28 June 2002 Launch of Space for Sport and Arts Grafton Primary School
  Cricket
  10 December 2001 Launch of the 'Karrotl youth project at The Oval, Kennington July 2002 England v India at Lords
  Horse Racing
  14 March 2002 Cheltenham Gold Cup
  20 June 2002 Royal Ascot Ladies Day
  Rugby
  3 March 2002 Six Nations England vs Scotland at Twickenham
  8 May 2002 England Women's Rugby Football Union Team Reception
  Golf
  28 September 2002 Ryder Cup
  General
  25 March 2002 Opening of Holmes Place Fulham Pools (public/ private partnership) 17 May 2002 Blaneu Gwent sport Personality of the Year Awards Ceremony.
  43W

  Television Reception (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on television reception in rural Lancashire, with particular reference to the villages of Whalley, Billington and Langho. [82374]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand from the Independent Television Commission (ITC) that terrestrial analogue television services are broadcast across Lancashire from the Winter Hill main transmitter and around twenty relay stations. The ITC advise that a relay station was built in 1975 specifically to provide analogue television coverage to Whalley, Billington and Langho, although a small area of South Whalley remains unserved. Digital terrestrial television (DTT) services are provided from the Winter Hill, Lancaster and Pendle Forest transmitters. Details on DTT availability can be found on the Freeview website at: www.freeview.co.uk http://www.freeview.co.uk. Television services may also be accessed via digital satellite.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Coffee Imports
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made to implement the International Coffee Organisation quality scheme of coffee imports. [80942]

  Mr. Morley
  The International Coffee Organisation's (ICO) Quality Improvement programme was approved by ICO Council Resolution 416 on 1 February 2002. The programme commenced on 1 October 2002. It applies to ICO members and requires that exports of coffee, accompanied by Certificates of Origin, shall comply with minimum standards specified in the Resolution. Exporting members are also required to develop and implement national measures to ensure that no exports of green coffee fail to meet the exportable standards. Discussions are currently on-going about how the exports of processed coffee should be dealt with. Exporting members are currently in the process of implementing the Council's Resolution within their countries. Members will report to the ICO Council on the measures they have taken to do so and of any difficulties encountered. This will feed into an ICO review of the programme planned for September 2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to remove lowest grade coffee from importing country stocks. [80943]

  Mr. Morley
  The international coffee organisation is looking at how importing member countries can become more directly involved in implementing its quality improvement programme. The organisation has not proposed the removal of the lowest grade coffee from importing country stocks and has no action in train to do so.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the US Government regarding membership of the International Coffee Organisation. [80944]
  44W
  Mr. Morley
  The UK supports the proposal for the USA to join the new International Coffee Agreement 2001. We believe this is necessary for the ICO to be fully effective. As members of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) the UK supported ICO Council Resolution 413, approved on 27 September 2002, inviting the USA to join.

  "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" Campaign
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the circumstances are that prevent Mr. Howlett of Dartmouth from qualifying for the suckler cow premium. [82842]

  Alun Michael
  The only apparent circumstance which may prevent Mr. Howlett from receiving Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS) payments is the availability of SCPS quota for the 2002 Scheme year. A producer who does not hold SCPS quota may acquire quota for his 2002 SCPS claim by transfer or lease during the 2002 trading period. This opened in June and will close on 6 December 2002.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual administration costs are of(a) the Environment Agency and (b) the Food Safety Agency. [81026]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) The Environment Agency is subject to a control limit on its total administration costs. For the current financial year (2002–03), the control limit is £
  113 million.

  (b) The Food Standards Agency reports to Parliament through Department of Health Ministers.

  Animal Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the law in respect of the powers available to enforcement agencies responsible for port control on the import of animal and vegetable products. [80467]

  Margaret Beckett
  The powers for enforcement officers to search baggage were extended in May 2002.

  We are now reviewing powers further in the light of my announcement on 6 November, that responsibility for detecting illegal imports of animals, fish, plants and the products, and foodstuffs (including meat) would be transferred to Her Majesty's customs and excise as soon as practicable.

  Arable Crops
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to encourage the establishment of new markets for non-food uses of arable crops. [80480]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are considering its response to the first report from the Government-Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops which identifies opportunities for non-food uses of arable crops. Defra and DTI are consulting stakeholders on
  45W
  establishing a new centre which will bring together industry, academia and the research community to drive forward the commercial development of non-food uses of crops. Defra and DTI are also considering a joint initiative to provide grant support to promote technology transfer through demonstration projects. A cut in the duty rate for biodiesel came into effect in July this year to encourage the biofuel market.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the British Cattle Movement Service database. [80453]

  Margaret Beckett
  The accuracy of the Cattle Tracing Scheme database, which is kept by the British Cattle Movement Service, depends on the accuracy of the data supplied to it by cattle keepers. Currently, around one in five birth registrations and more than one in five movement notifications have some sort of error or anomaly within them.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations have been received regarding the loss of cattle passport tear-off slips by the Cattle Movement Service; and if she will make a statement. [80884]

  Alun Michael
  Some 22,000 representations have been made to the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) since May this year about notifications which were alleged to have been sent to the BCMS but have not been received there and entered on the cattle tracing system (CTS) database.

  In addition the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has received an estimated 45,000 representations (telephone calls, e-mails and letters) about bovine scheme and CTS database issues.

  Regulations governing the payment of bovine subsidies require that payments should be withheld and penalties applied where the claimants have not fulfilled their legal obligations to make appropriate notifications to the BCMS.

  Butterflies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated population was of each species of butterfly in(a) 1991 and (b) 2001. [80873]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]Information in the form requested is not currently available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, administered by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, provides data on changes in the abundance of butterflies at selected sites throughout the United Kingdom. Information on the Butterfly Monitoring Scheme can be found at http://bms.ceh.ac.uk/.

  Data from the Butterfly Monitoring Scheme formed part of the basis for "The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland" published in 2001 by the Oxford United Press. Produced by Butterfly Conservation, the national Biological Recording Centre and the Dublin
  46W
  Naturalists' Field Club, the Atlas contains detailed accounts of the resident or regularly migrant butterfly species in Britain and Ireland, including information on their distribution and trends. A report "The State of Britain's Butterflies", which draws out the key results and conclusions from the Millennium Atlas is available on the Butterfly Conservation website http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/.

  CAP Subsidies
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average payment per hectare from the Common Agricultural Policy's production subsidies is for(a) organic and (b) non-organic farmers in the UK. [81831]

  Mr. Meacher
  Organic farmers are eligible for support from the CAP on the same basis as conventional farmers. This means that organic producers in England receive the same rates of payment as conventional producers. Producers converting to organic farming are also eligible for support under the Organic Farming Scheme. The payment rates for England, other rates apply in other parts of the UK, can be found on the Department's website at http://defraweb/farm/schemes/aap— new.htm (arable crops), http://defraweb/farm/schemes/livstck.htm (cattle and sheep), http://defraweb/erdp/schemes/landbased/ofs/ofsindex.htm£aid (organic conversion).

  Climate Change Policy
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often she has met the head of the agricultural departments of retail banks in the last 12 months; and how often her predecessor met the head of the agricultural departments of the retail banks. [81709]

  Margaret Beckett
  I met the heads of the agricultural departments of the retail banks in November 2001. I do not have information on when my predecessor met them.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she issues to Government Departments to ensure that their purchasing decisions do not contravene the Government's Climate Change Policy. [81775]

  Mr. Meacher
  Guidance issued to procurement officials on minimising the purchase of substances with a high global warming potential includes:

  (i) "Towards More Sustainable Construction: Green Guide for Managers on the Government Estate" (published April 1999). URL: development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/partg/suscon/index.htm.

  (ii) The "Green Guide for Buyers" (revised February 2001) URL: development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/partf/greenbuy/index.htm.

  (iii) "Green Public Private Partnerships", July 2002. A copy of this publication is on ODPM's web site. URL: www.odpm.qov.uk/about/ppp/greenppp/index.htm.
  47W

  CO2 Emissions
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce CO2 emissions; and what targets she has set in this regard. [80533]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government has set itself a domestic goal to reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent, below 1990 levels by 2010. This is in addition to the UK's target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases to 12.5 per cent, below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012.

  In November 2000, the Government published the UK climate change programme, which sets out a range of integrated policies and measures to reduce emissions in six broad sectors: the energy supply industry; business; transport; the residential sector, agriculture, forestry and land use; and, the public sector. Key policies in the programme include: the target under the Renewables Obligation that 10 per cent, of licensed electricity supplies will be generated from renewable sources by 2010; climate change levy and climate change agreements; the worlds first economy-wide emissions trading scheme; the voluntary agreements between the European Commission and the European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers to reduce average carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, supported by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car taxation; and the Energy Efficiency Commitment on energy suppliers to encourage consumers to take up energy saving opportunities.

  We estimate that the quantified policies in the programme could help reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by 19 per cent, below 1990 levels by 2010. Carbon savings, which have not been quantified, from additional policies could help us achieve our domestic goal.

  Composting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department plans to take to encourage and enable local authorities to(a) promote composting and (b) provide low cost compost bins; [80513]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to implement new composting initiatives. [80514]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government has set local authorities a target to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent, of household waste by 2005. This national target has been underpinned by local authority specific statutory performance standards. These standards set levels of recycling and composting that all waste authorities must achieve by 2003–04 and 2005–06. £140 million was provided by the Government under its Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to help local authorities achieve these targets. The Strategy Unit Report on Sustainable Waste Management, due to be published shortly, will also be considering recycling and composting targets and the help required to meet them.

  The Department commissioned a risk assessment that looked at the animal and public health risks posed by the composting/biogas treatment of catering waste and
  48W
  spreading it on land. This work concluded that, provided satisfactory controls are in place, composting/biogas treatment can be done safely.

  We are therefore developing processes that will allow catering waste to be composted safely, based on the results of the risk assessment (without the risk assessment, we would be obliged to follow the EU standard, which would be more restrictive). The aim is to get a draft SI out for public consultation by end November, and to amend the legislation early in the new year. The overall objective is to develop a set of rules that will allow composting of catering waste to take place economically while fully protecting animal and public health.

  Crop Spraying
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce new requirements for the training of people employed to spray crops. [80449]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have no plans at present to introduce any new requirements. However, my officials are working closely with the National Proficiency Test Council to improve operator training and certification. This is an activity contributing to the industry-led voluntary initiative aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of pesticides.

  Diversification
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many funding schemes are available through her Department for farmers who wish to adopt environmentally friendly farming practices; and how much is available per scheme. [81150]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The three main agri-environment schemes run by this Department are the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme. Their budgets in the current financial year are £48 million, £66 million and £20 million respectively. In addition, organisations such as English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the National Park Authorities which receive funding from this Department also operate some schemes.

  Elephant Products
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is in respect of the trade in elephant products where these can be authenticated as having come from properly managed stock. [81598]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]Where there are clear safeguards, the Government would in principle support a limited trade in ivory that is authenticated as being derived from a properly managed source, i.e. where the elephants are managed in a sustainable manner that is not detrimental to the conservation of the species. However, we could only agree to such trade if we were satisfied that the intended market for this ivory was itself properly managed in accordance with the principles set out under the appropriate CITES Conference Resolution, and would
  49W
  not provide a cover for trade in illegally acquired ivory. We do not believe that the conditions to permit this are yet in place.

  Environment Agency Travel
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget is of the Environment Agency for 2002–03 for cars and car travel by hon. Members and staff of the agency. [81014]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency's budget for car provision and car mileage in 2002–03 is as follows:

  Agency's budget

  £ million

  Lease car costs

  12.9

  Less employees contribution

  2.9

  Net cost

  10.0

  Lease car mileage costs

  2.5

  Casual and essential mileage costs

  4.2

  Members mileage costs

  0.2

  Total

  16.9

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she intends to publish details of the National Collection Scheme for fallen stock; [80450]

  (2) what estimate she has made of how many fallen (a) cattle, (b) sheep and (c) pigs were disposed of last year by hunt kennels. [80451]

  Margaret Beckett
  Since April 2002, officials have been holding discussions with livestock and disposal industry stakeholders with the aim of developing a national fallen stock disposal scheme. However, it is for the industries concerned to work out how best to deal with their waste problems and to publish details of their proposal.

  We do not have figures for the amount of fallen stock that hunt kennels have collected in the last year.

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions are placed on the use of home-made fertilisers by individuals in their own gardens; and if she will make a statement. [80881]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Fertilisers Regulations 1991 (UK Statutory Instrument 1991/2197) apply only to fertilisers that are marketed.

  The Animal By-Products Order 1999 (as amended) prevents the use on land of catering waste which may contain meat. This effectively bans the use of catering waste in commercial composting enterprises. The aim was to prevent livestock and poultry from having access to material which might introduce or spread animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease. It was not intended to prevent householders composting kitchen scraps for their own gardens. A proposed amendment to the Order to permit the composting of catering waste in
  50W
  approved premises will exempt domestic householders provided that they do not keep pigs or ruminants on the premises.

  Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a person who deposits, recovers or disposes of waste (including compost) to obtain a waste management licence or to register an exemption from licensing. Current general guidance is that composting facilities should be at least 250 metres from residential areas. However householders who compost their own garden waste are not required to have a licence or a permit under waste management or pollution control legislation.

  Foot and Mouth (Contingency Planning)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the foot and mouth contingency planning exercises in(a) Preston, (b) Carlisle, (c) Taunton and (d) Leeds in November. [82421]

  Mr. Morley
  These exercises are a part of the ongoing process of maintaining the readiness of the Department to deal with an outbreak of disease. Feedback from exercises and from investigations of suspected cases of disease is used to inform the further development of instructions and contingency plans. The lessons learned will be used as a foundation for future exercises.

  IACS
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with which internet service providers her Department's system for online IACS registration is compatible. [80454]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department's facility for the electronic submission of claims under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is managed by the Rural Payments Agency, and is a legacy system taken on by the Agency. This system requires an internet-enabled PC, and works with a range of internet browser options, but the choice of internet service provider used is for claimants to decide.

  RPA has a major IT Change Programme, which is planned to come on stream in 2004. This programme will include electronic submission of a wide range of scheme claim forms, and integration with the RPA back-office processing systems.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many spot checks have been carried out on illegal meat imports at each designated port of entry into the United Kingdom since 31 March. [80463]

  Margaret Beckett
  Details of spot checks carried out for illegal meat imports are not collected centrally. It should be noted that during the course of checks for other illegal products (such as drugs), illegal meat imports may also be found and reported.

  We do hold information on reported seizures. Since 31 March 2002, there have been 970 seizures of illegal animal product imports reported to the centralised Illegal Animal Products Seizures database.
  51W
  It should also be noted that the checks required at each designated port of entry vary depending on whether trade and passengers come from within the EU or from third countries.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the adequacy of warning signs against meat imports at each designated port of entry into the United Kingdom. [80465]

  Margaret Beckett
  We continue to learn lessons about how to improve the impact of our message at ports and airports where there is strong competition for the attention of travellers. Defra is promoting a joint initiative with other Government Departments to review how the impact of the Government's message can be improved at ports and airports.

  Posters are one element of the Government's work to raise public awareness of the rules for importing meat into the country.

  The information displayed at ports of entry into the United Kingdom varies depending on whether trade and passengers come from within the European Union or from third countries. The Department has concentrated its efforts on increasing awareness of the rules for meat imports at ports of entry for passengers from outside the European Union.

  Penalty posters and information leaflets are currently being redesigned to reflect the new EU rules on personal imports of meat and dairy products from outside the EU that will come into effect in January 2003.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for the illegal import of (i) meat and (ii) meat products have been initiated since 31 March. [80469]

  Margaret Beckett
  Responsibility for prosecutions under the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations lies with local authorities, and under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, with HM Customs.

  We are aware of one successful prosecution brought by Crawley Borough Council in July, and six cautions issued by the London Port Health Authority in October. All were brought under the Products of Animal Origin regulations.

  Defra is working with local authorities and with the Magistrates Association to raise awareness of the wider consequences of this offence and to encourage more prosecutions and the imposition of higher penalties.

  National Parks (Housing)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend legislation to enable National Park authorities to restrict entitlement to own domestic dwellings in their area; and if she will make a statement. [82716]

  Alun Michael
  None.
  52W

  Organic Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on which EU member states exclude kitchen waste from the composting of municipal organic waste; and if she will make a statement. [80512]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has no specific information on the practices followed by other member states in relation to the composting of kitchen waste, although visits have been made to look at composting operations in Italy and the Netherlands. However, the new EU Animal By-products Regulation (expected to come into force in 2003) permits the use in composting/ biogas operations of catering waste containing meat and low-risk animal by-products. For plants processing only catering waste, the Regulation allows national standards to be set, provided they guarantee an equivalent effect in pathogen reduction to the treatment standard in the Regulation (70?C for one hour in a closed system).

  The Department commissioned a risk assessment that looked at the animal and public health risks posed by the composting/biogas treatment of catering waste and spreading it on land. This work concluded that, provided satisfactory controls are in place, composting/ biogas treatment can be done safely.

  We are therefore developing processes that will allow catering waste to be composted safely, based on the results of the risk assessment (without the risk assessment, we would be obliged to follow the EU standard, which would be more restrictive and, possibly, counter-productive). The aim is to get a draft statutory instrument out for public consultation by the end of November, and to amend the legislation early in the new year. The overall objective is to develop a set of rules that will allow composting of catering waste to take place economically, while fully protecting animal and public health.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions this year the Environment Agency has submitted formal objections to planning applications. [81019]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agency has submitted 6,002 formal objections to planning applications this year.

  Rights of Way
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total amount of financial support allocated to local authorities for rights of way duties, excluding Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 responsibilities, was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, broken down by local authority. [82365]

  Alun Michael
  Funding for rights of way is included in the unhypothecated environmental protective and cultural services block. That is the means by which such support is provided to local authorities and is the procedure favoured by the Local Government Association. This block also includes services such as waste, libraries and museums.
  53W

  Rural Payment Schemes
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what delays there have been in paying applicants under the rural payment schemes; and if she will make a statement. [82516]

  Alun Michael
  The current position with paying applicants under rural payment schemes is as follows:

  Arable Area Payments Scheme 2002

  The payment window opened on 16 November 2002 and closes on 31 January 2003. Over 40 per cent, of payments for over £700m have already been dispatched to producers, and the expectation is that most producers should receive their payments significantly before the deadline.

  Bovine Schemes

  Under European Community legislation the Rural Payments Agency is obliged to cross-check all animals claimed under the various bovine subsidy schemes against the British Cattle Movement Service Cattle Tracing System (CTS).

  Cross-checks must be carried out to verify that all scheme rules are met and to ensure payments are only made on those animals that are correctly identified in accordance with the council regulations governing cattle identification.

  When the cross-check of data was carried out a large number of discrepancies was identified between the information submitted on claim forms and that recorded on the CTS. The sheer scale of these discrepancies and the time taken to resolve them has resulted in around 19 per cent of unpenalised claims being paid after the statutory deadline of 30 June.

  Scheme

  1999(£)

  2000(£)

  2001(£)

  Arable area payment scheme

  1,25,166,282.081

  1,24,219,183.53

  14,078,743.37

  Sheep annual premium scheme

  26,212,782.54

  24,572,845.27

  22,766,345.84

  Beef special premium scheme

  3,783,700.41

  3,356,220.48

  3,294,163.28

  Extensification payment scheme

  Scheme commenced 2000

  21,245,908.10

  1,21,142,670.00

  Slaughter premium scheme

  Scheme commenced 2000

  1851,843.59

  11,095,057.88

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  1,22,046,856.13

  1,21,573,154.87

  1,21,464,574.29

  Hill farming allowance

  HFA applications are made in one year and paid in the spring of the following year. Therefore the figure for 2001 is for applications made in 2000

  2,495,519

  Hill livestock compensatory allowance

  28,866.86

  224,581.05

  1Figures after modulation

  2Figures include agrimonetary compensation

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 11 November 2002; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what was the address of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments; [80764]

  (2) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on (a) 1 November,
  54W
  Producers who have experienced delays in receiving their 2001 scheme year bovine balance payments beyond 30 June as a result of a failure by the Agency or the British Cattle Movement Service will be compensated. The Agency is still finalising how the arrangement will be implemented. However, compensation will not be paid in any other circumstances. This would include for example, payment delayed because the Cattle Tracing System database had not been notified of changes prior to cross-checks being undertaken.

  The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  The payment window for the Sheep Annual Premium Scheme opened on 16 October 2002 and closes on 31 March 2003. 97per cent of the premium and national envelope top up payments were issued in the first few days of the opening of the payment window. In addition, 8,044 producers (95per cent, of those qualifying for the less favoured area supplement) have now received the supplementary payment amounting to £13 million.

  England Rural Development Programme

  The majority of ERDP scheme claims are currently being paid within published targets.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding has been allocated by the Rural Payments Agency to Lancashire farmers in each of the last three years. [82204]

  Alun Michael
  The amount paid to Lancashire farmers in the three years 1999 to 2001 detailed by scheme is as follows:

  (b) 2 November, (c) 5 November, (d) 6 November and (e) 10 November; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (i) during inspection for health certification purposes and (ii) at Dover docks; and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [80405]

  (3) how many live sheep were exported from Dover on (a) the Caroline and (b) the Omega Livestock to continental Europe on 7 November; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the

  55W
  sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (i) during inspection for health certification purposes and (ii) at Dover docks; and to where those sheep were taken; and what address was of

  Date

  Total animals

  Where consignments were certified

  Animals rejected at certification

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  Destination

  1 November

  2,291

  England and Wales

  29

  0

  Italy and France

  2 November

  2,129

  England and Wales

  34

  0

  France

  5 November

  2,298

  Wales

  32

  0

  France

  6 November

  2,910

  England, Scotland and Wales

  17

  0

  France

  7 November

  12,531

  England and Wales

  35

  2

  France

  7 November

  2867

  Wales

  9

  0

  Germany

  10 November

  2,514

  England and Wales

  40

  0

  France

  10 November

  49

  England

  0

  1

  Belgium

  11 November

  2,279

  Wales

  36

  0

  France

  11,834 on the Caroline and 697 on the Omega Express

  2459 on the Caroline and 408 on the Omega Express

  The sheep for the consignments listed above were certified within 48 hours prior to export. These consignments went to approved slaughterhouses apart from the sailing on 6 November which were fattening animals transported to holdings. The animals which were rejected at certification and Dover docks remained in Great Britain.

  Sniffer Dogs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the pilot scheme for sniffer dogs at Heathrow will(a) start and (b)finish. [80462]

  Margaret Beckett
  A pilot using two detector dogs to trace products of animal origin began at Heathrow on 16 September 2002 and will last for six months.

  Social Exclusion Projects
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department and agencies on social exclusion projects in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c)2002–03 to date; and if she will break down the spending by (i) category and (ii) region in each year. [81143]

  Alun Michael
  This Department is not directly responsible for spending on social exclusion. However, various programmes administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies make a significant contribution.

  The Market Town Initiative is being taken forward on Defra's behalf by the regional development agencies, working with the Countryside Agency and local partners, and using £37 million of Government funding announced in the Rural White Paper in November 2000 plus such match funding as can be secured from other public and private sources. Expenditure on the initiative in 2001–02 is estimated at some £2.9 million by the regional development agencies and some £2.5 million by the Countryside Agency. Information for the current financial year is not yet available but as most towns have now completed their action plans this should result in a substantial increase in project expenditure by rural development agencies and other partners.
  56W
  the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [80404]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  The following table shows amounts (in £) spent on vital villages projects which address social exclusion. The Countryside Agency does not have a "social exclusion" label for its projects. The table picks up projects which target groups which can be social excluded (youth, unemployed, ethnic minorities, elderly).

  £

  Location

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  Parish transport grunt

  North east

  0

  12,044.21

  13,552.50

  North west

  0

  7,882.50

  7,687.50

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0

  8,447.50

  40,125.00

  East Midlands

  0

  10,048.55

  12,128.22

  West Midlands

  0

  34,359.89

  27,234.06

  East of England

  0

  15,172.81

  72,295.00

  South east

  0

  16,722.13

  5,172.50

  South west

  0

  10,384.78

  59,009.28

  Unknown

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  115,062.40

  237,204.10

  Parish plans grant

  North east

  0

  18,359.55

  17,144.75

  North west

  0

  35,056.92

  40,268.72

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0

  41,709.05

  10,428.00

  East Midlands

  0

  15,154.00

  22,723.02

  West Midlands

  0

  73,521.56

  63,282.48

  East of England

  0

  67,779.66

  53,367.56

  South east

  0

  68,400.00

  33,435.37

  South west

  0

  72,331.10

  63,803.98

  Unknown

  0

  0

  4,500.00

  Total

  0

  392,313.30

  308,953.90

  Community service grants

  North east

  0

  141,495.00

  167,714.90

  North west

  0

  174,842.40

  138,371.70

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0

  126,605.40

  71,385.59

  East Midlands

  0

  278,272.20

  55,686.99

  West Midlands

  0

  269,418.70

  169,568.70

  East of England

  0

  460,042.40

  338,675.80

  South east

  0

  238,094.80

  160,791.60

  South west

  2,990.90

  360,381.50

  315,091.10

  Unknown

  0

  0

  6,448.69

  Total

  2990.90

  392,313.30

  1,423,735.00

  Regional transport partnership grants

  North east

  158,123.53

  408,026.90

  167,714.90

  North west

  225,173.34

  619,335.50

  138,371.70

  Yorkshire and Humber

  355,350.80

  404,558.80

  71,385.59

  East Midlands

  270,180.92

  524,587.50

  55,686.99

  West Midlands

  405,339.67

  1,207,526.00

  169,568.70

  East of England

  13,182,309.48

  612,624.30

  338,675.80

  57W

  Location

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  South east

  719,663.51

  1,138,787.00

  160,791.60

  South west

  502,164.97

  503,172.20

  315,091.10

  Unknown

  767,688.14

  696,444.70

  6,448.69

  Total

  16,585,994.00

  6,115,602.00

  1,423,735.00

  Overall total

  770,678.10

  1,596,134.00

  1,976,342.00

  1 Please note 2002£03 figures are incomplete. Figures only reflect the grants awarded before 15 November 2002.

  The English Rural Development Programme's Rural Enterprise Scheme provides, among other measures, support towards basic services for the rural economy and population and support towards the renovation and development of villages.

  The basic services measure can include assistance towards setting up costs and initial operating costs for the provision of small scale transport e.g. mini-bus links, voluntary carer schemes, "out of school" child care schemes and projects that provide information and communication technology links as well as other infrastructure provision benefiting rural communities and businesses. The renovation and development of villages measure can include assistance towards the renovation of dilapidated buildings for commercial or community use or multi-functional village halls which combine both social and economic facilities.

  Committed1 expenditure under the Rural Enterprise Scheme through measures that can contribute to the alleviation of social exclusion:
  1 These figures represent committed (not actual) expenditure over the lifetime of all the approved projects under RES's basic services and renovation and development of villages measures. There is no guarantee that all the funding displayed specifically relates to expenditure on social exclusion projects.

  £

  Region

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Eastern

  0

  169,933.00

  0

  East Midlands

  0

  305,164.00

  170,870.00

  London

  0

  0

  0

  North east

  0

  0

  37,157.00

  North west

  0

  81,578.00

  23,825.00

  South east

  0

  81,312.00

  4,808.00

  South west

  0

  142,236.00

  504,131

  West Midlands

  0

  349,340.00

  82,647.00

  Yorks and Humber

  0

  35,522.00

  189,191.00

  Total

  0

  1,165,085.00

  1,012,629.00

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff the Environment Agency employs; and how many it employed in 1997–98. [81018]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 31 October 2002, the Environment Agency employed 10,949 staff (10,683 full-time equivalents). On 1 April 1997, the Agency employed 9,123 staff (circa 8,904 full-time equivalents).

  Sudden Oak Death
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of Sudden Oak Death have so far been reported to her Department; what(a) preventative and (b) remedial
  58W
  action she (i) has taken and (ii) will take in regard to Sudden Oak Death; and what treatments are available for Sudden Oak Death. [83033]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been no reported cases of Sudden Oak Death in Europe.

  A strain of Phytophthora ramorum, the pathogen which has caused Sudden Oak Death in parts of California, has been found on rhododendron and viburnum plants in a number of European countries in recent years. There have been 122 findings in England and Wales since the first one in April this year. In each case infected plants and those adjacent have been destroyed. Plants in a surrounding cordon sanitaire have been held for further monitoring. In response to a UK initiative, EU measures came into force on 1 November. These require member states to survey for the disease and apply precautionary measures through the plant passport system to prevent spread on nursery stock. Defra inspectors will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures.

  Defra and the Forestry Commission are funding research to address uncertainties in the risk assessment for the European strain of the pathogen, in particular to determine whether native European trees are susceptible. No effective eradicatory fungicides are known at present, but Defra and Forestry Commission scientists are closely following research into treatments in the affected areas of the USA. Further information is available on the Defra website at defraweb/planth/ what.htm.

  Toxic Ash
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls exist on the use of toxic ash from incinerators as an ingredient in breeze block manufacture; and if she will make a statement on the steps taken by her Department on the construction of such breeze blocks by Ballast Phoenix, using material from the London waste incinerator at Edmonton. [81582]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]It is considered by this department and the Environment Agency that the controls for the management of waste, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, extend to the use of incinerator ash until it has been incorporated into a manufactured product (such as breeze blocks). These controls include a duty of care to manage waste safely through the prevention of harm to human health and the environment and through the prevention of the escape of waste. Furthermore, waste disposal and recovery operations are only permitted to take place under the terms of a waste management licence or an exemption from licensing.

  Until August 2000, the Edmonton incinerator was mixing bottom ash with fly ash. Following concerns about the levels of dioxins in this material, the Environment Agency launched an investigation into the destination and use of incinerator ash. The investigation found, among other details, that about 15,000 tonnes of mixed ash from Edmonton was supplied by Ballast Phoenix for the manufacture of construction blocks between 1998 and 2000. The investigation included

  59W
  research into the release of dioxins from construction blocks made using mixed ash from the Edmonton incinerator. The Agency found that mixed ash construction blocks do not release measurable levels of dioxins into the air, and that any dust from drilling the blocks is likely to contribute very little to typical overall exposures to dioxins.

  The Agency also recommended that subject to guidance and appropriate specifications, bottom ash could be a valuable secondary aggregate. Air Pollution Control residues and fly ash, on the other hand, are hazardous wastes and as such are subject to special controls and should be consigned to sites licensed or permitted to dispose of hazardous wastes.

  The Government commissioned the independent environmental consultants AEA Technology to produce a report on the use of incinerator bottom ash in road construction, and this is expected to be published shortly. The Agency's investigation is summarised in their report "Solid Residues from Municipal Waste Incinerators in England and Wales". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and it can also be found at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/ash pdf4.pdf

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the total was of receipts from modulation that was budgeted to be spent on vocational training in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; [80444]

  (2) what amount of the revenue from modulation was spent on vocational training in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [80445]

  Margaret Beckett
  Modulated funds may be spent only on a limited range of the measures provided for under the EU Rural Development Regulation-the so-called "accompanying measures". Training is not one of them. Modulated funds in England are being used to support agri-environment schemes.

TREASURY

  Advance Corporation Tax Credit
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit on private pension schemes. [81302]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends was part of a package of reforms that included cuts in corporation tax and the abolition of advanced corporation tax. These changes were designed to improve the climate for long-term investment in the UK. In the long run, this should benefit all investors— including pension funds and those saving for retirement.

  Age Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) men and (b) women in each local authority area not expected to live to the age of 70. [83000]
  60W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 25 November 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking for an estimate of the number of (a) men and (b) women in each local authority area not expected to live to the age of 70. (83000)
  The figures requested have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The numbers provided are an estimate of the number of people currently living in each area who would die before age 70 if they were to experience current death rates for the area until their 70th birthday.
  These estimates were obtained by using the most recently available life table estimate for each local authority to calculate the probability of dying before age 70 for each age group. The expected numbers dying by age 70 were then calculated by applying these probabilities to the 2001 mid-year population estimates in each group in the area. The life table estimates used are for 1999–2001, based on 2001 population estimates. All the mid-year population estimates used in the calculation are based on the 2001 Census.
  An estimate of people dying by age 70 as a percentage of the total population aged under 70 is also presented in the table. The figures reflect mortality among those living in each local authority in 1999 to 2001. They do not reflect what is likely to happen to individuals currently alive in each area, because the death rates are likely to change in the future and because of individuals move between local authorities.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means the female partners of male recipients of the existing children's tax credit will be(a) identified and (b) notified of their entitlement to the proposed child tax credit. [82999]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To receive their entitlement to tax credits, people need to make a claim. The Inland Revenue is writing to claimants of the existing Children's Tax Credit and inviting claims for the new tax credits. Couples must claim the new Child Tax Credit jointly. Child Tax Credit is to be paid to the person in the family who is mainly responsible for looking after the children. Where a claim to the new tax credits is made jointly, the claimants themselves are asked to identify which of them is the main carer.

  Customs and Excise (Shoreham)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what activities are undertaken by the H.M. Customs and Excise at Shoreham Harbour. [83259]

  John Healey
  It is not Customs policy to disclose information on operational deployment of staff at specific locations.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed by the H.M. Customs and Excise at Shoreham Harbour. [83260]

  John Healey
  There are currently some 60 Customs staff based at Shoreham Harbour.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what customs checks are regularly carried out on traffic at Shoreham Harbour and Shoreham Airport. [83333]
  61W
  John Healey
  It is not Customs policy to disclose information on levels of Customs checks and detection activities at specific locations.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local staff are employed in customs inspections on traffic at Shoreham Harbour and Shoreham airport. [83334]

  John Healey
  There are currently no local staff employed permanently in Customs inspections on traffic at Shoreham harbour and Shoreham airport. Flexibly deployed teams of officers attend targeted arrivals according to intelligence and perceived threat or risk. These officers may be from nearby local units, regional or national teams.

  Excise Duty Prosecutions (Norther Ireland)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions there have been in Northern Ireland for the evasion of excise duty on motor transport fuels in each year since 1997. [83006]

  John Healey
  Customs do not have figures for prosecutions resulting from all forms of revenue evasion in road fuels for years prior to 2000–01. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be published in Customs' annual report for 2001–02.

  For figures for the number of successful prosecutions in Northern Ireland for oils smuggling in the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 20 November 2001, Official Report, column 271W.

  Fuel Smuggling (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) vehicles and (b) litres of fuel were seized by HM Customs for alleged smuggling of petroleum products in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [83005]

  John Healey
  I refer to the earlier answer given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Member for Montgomeryshire on 2 May 2002 concerning the numbers of vehicles seized by Customs for alleged fuel smuggling offences in Northern Ireland.Official Report 7 May 2002 column 39W

  Figures for the amount of fuel seized by Customs in Northern Ireland in the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 are contained in Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud, published at the time of the pre Budget Report in November 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The Government will be publishing figures for fuel seizures in 2001–02 at the time of the forthcoming Pre-budget Report. Figures for vehicle seizures in Northern Ireland for oils fraud in 2001–02 will be published in Customs' Annual Report.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to tackle cross- border smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [83007]
  62W
  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", published at the time of the 2001 pre-Budget report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, which explains the Government's action in Northern Ireland to tackle oils fraud. Updated information will be provided at the time of the 2002 pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings have taken place between Ministers and officials and their Irish counterparts to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [83008]

  John Healey
  I refer to the answer given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) on 2 May 2002 concerning meetings between Ministers and their Irish counterparts to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland, 7 May 2002,Official Report column 39W.

  Officials regularly hold meetings with their Irish counterparts to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss in revenue from petrol and diesel smuggling into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [83009]

  John Healey
  Estimates of the revenue loss arising specifically from smuggling are not available. Estimates of the revenue loss arising from all forms of oils fraud and legitimate cross-border shopping in Northern Ireland for the years 1999 and 2000 are contained in the document Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud,published by HM Customs and Excise in November 2001. An estimate for 1998 is contained in the NAO report The Misuse and Smuggling of Hydrocarbon Oils, published in February 2002. Copies of both of these documents are available in the Library of the House. Figures for 2001 will be published at the time of the pre Budget Report.

  Inland Revenue
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue has conducted an evaluation of the 1996 Spend to Save initiative; and if he will make a statement. [82040]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue did evaluate the 1996 Spend to Save initiative, and concluded that the programme successfully met its main objectives.

  London Underground
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's liabilities are in relation to the public-private partnership for London Underground. [81784]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 18 April 2002, Official Report, column 1107W.
  63W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects a deal for the part-privatisation of London Underground to be finalised. [81786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government expect that the public private partnership contracts to modernise the London Underground's infrastructure will be concluded shortly.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the European Commission regarding the legal status of the public-private partnership of London Underground. [81788]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with its EC obligations, on 12 April 2002 the Government notified the proposed PPP arrangements to the European Commission. On 2 October 2002 the European Commission decided that those arrangements do not constitute state aid.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much has been spent on(a) consultancy and (b) legal fees with regard to the public-private partnership for the modernisation of London underground; [81816]

  (2) what the cost has been to his Department in legal fees of the Government's involvement in the public-private partnership scheme to improve London Underground. [81810]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand from London Transport that their expenditure on external consultants, including legal advice, from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 30 September 2002, for work on the PPP and restructuring of London Underground, was £96.3 million. As a result of the delayed implementation of the PPP, London Transport currently estimate that the final amount should be between £103–£105 million, an increase of between £5–£7 million over its December 2001 forecast. Around £1.6 million of this increase arises from the Mayor's second unsuccessful legal challenge in July 2002. The court granted that these costs should be fully recovered from Transport for London.

  Legal advice to my Department has generally been provided through our own internal legal advisers. Treasury Solicitors were instructed to act for my Department in connection with the Mayor's two unsuccessful legal challenges at a cost to the Department of around £45,000. Approximately half of this amount was subsequently recovered from Transport for London.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times he has visited east Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82405]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not visited east Lancashire in an official capacity.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which categories of deaths have(a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of changes in the ICD-10 coding for cause of deaths in 2001; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the changes in coding. [82685]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 25 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking which categories of deaths have (a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of the changes in the ICD-10 coding for cause of deaths in 2001 and for a statement on the reasons for the changes in coding. (82685)
  The need to move to ICD-10 to maintain the value of mortality data to users is internationally recognised and it has been introduced in England and Wales on the recommendation of the World Health Organisation (WHO). ICD-10 more closely reflects current medical knowledge than ICD-9, which was developed in the early 1970s, introduced in 1979 and is now out-of-date. Many diseases or conditions that are now of particular interest to medical practitioners, and those working in public health and epidemiology, cannot be adequately classified using ICD-9, for example HIV/AIDS. In addition to this there is widespread demand for more modem data on heart disease and stroke. ICD-10 has been used for the classification of morbidity data in the NHS and in cancer registration since 1995. This created difficulties in comparing morbidity and mortality.
  A fuller description of the main changes in classification was published in Health Statistics Quarterly, volumes 8 and 13.1,2 Analysis of the numerical impact of the introduction of ICD-10 on a list of 108 major causes of death in England and Wales can be found in Health Statistics Quarterly, volume 143
  1Rooney C and Smith S. (2000) Implementation of ICD-10 for mortality data in England and Wales form January 2001. Health Statistics Quarterly 8, 41–50.
  2Rooney C, Griffiths C and Cook L. (2002) The implementation of ICD-10 for cause of death coding— some preliminary results from the bridge coding study. Health Statistics Quarterly 13, 31–41.
  3Office for National Statistics. (2002) Report: Results of the ICD- 10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14, 75–83.

  Motor Vehicle Seizures
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many motor vehicles were seized by Customs and Excise at channel ports in each of the last three years. [82371]

  John Healey
  Customs centrally-held information on the numbers of vehicles seized does not distinguish the location at which seizure took place. For the total number of vehicles seized across the UK in 1999–2000 I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 125W. Figures for the number of vehicles seized by Customs across the UK during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Roques into "The Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise" (Cm 5329, July 2001), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for 2001–02 will be published at the time of the pre-Budget Report.
  65W

  Profits Tax on Betting
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans he has to review the gross profits tax on betting the gross profits tax on betting. [80298]

  John Healey
  The Government has today published the consultation document "The Modernisation of Gambling Taxes: Consultation on the Evaluation of the Gross Profits Tax on Betting—One Year on' copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  VAT Relief
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned regarding VAT relief for charities; and if he will publish the results of this research. [79113]

  John Healey
  The Review of charity Taxation in 1999 looked carefully at the tax system for charities, including the question of VAT relief. More recently, as part of Spending Review 2002, the Cross Cutting Review of the Role of the Voluntary Sector in Delivering Services considered whether there is an effective way of mitigating the impact of irrecoverable VAT upon charities. Both of these reviews have been published and are available in the Library of the House.

  Public Services (Expenditure)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was spent on the public services in each of the last 20 years. [81918]
  66W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Adam Price on 5 November 2002 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what percentage of GDP was spent on public services in the last 20 years (81918)
  The term spending on public services is not precisely defined. The ONS produces statistics on Total Managed Expenditure, of United Kingdom National Accounts (the Blue Book) gives details of the components of this series. Copies of this are available in the House of Commons Library. The latest published data is shown in the following table:

  %

  1982

  48.2

  1983

  48.4

  1984

  48.0

  1985

  46.5

  1986

  44.6

  1987

  42.5

  1988

  40.0

  1989

  39.5

  1990

  39.8

  1991

  41.6

  1992

  43.8

  1993

  43.8

  1994

  43.3

  1995

  42.9

  1996

  41.4

  1997

  39.8

  1998

  38.6

  1999

  37.7

  2000

  37.9

  2001

  38.9

  67W

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been conducted by his Department and (b) has been assessed by his Department or is planned on the impact of air traffic growth on air traffic control services, and which has taken place (i) by 2004–05, (ii) by 2015 and (iii) by 2030. [81411]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis included a preliminary high-level assessment of airspace issues by simulating a number of potential airport development packages. This was undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority's Directorate of Airspace Policy and National Air Traffic Services. The results of this work are set out in chapter 18 of The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East main consultation document. Copies of the report by CAA and NATs have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Air Transport Consultation (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of the Scottish Executive in(a) collating and (b) responding to the recent consultation on the future of air transport. [82589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials from the Department for Transport and Scottish Executive have liaised closely on the preparation of the consultation document for Scotland and its associated background reports. Officials from both Departments will continue to work together on the analysis of the responses to the consultation and provide advice to Ministers for future discussions on the development of the air transport White Paper which we will publish next year.

  Airport Security
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level and effectiveness of security at airports, particularly(a) perimeter fencing, (b) outbuildings and (c) airside generally. [80960]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On the basis of an assessment of the risk, the Department for Transport sets aviation security policy, directs the industry and monitors compliance.

  Aerodrome managers are required to establish and maintain restricted zones from which commercial air services operate. They must control access to such zones via a continuous physical barrier with designated, controlled access points to ensure that only authorised persons and vehicles are able to enter. DfT inspectors monitor compliance with these requirements and require remedial action where necessary.

  Airport Expansion
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to make a full environmental impact statement about options for expansion of airports in the south-east of England. [80711]
  68W
  Mr. Spellar
  The "Appraisal Framework for Airports in the South East and Eastern Regions of England" published in November 2000 sets out the indicators for assessing the impacts of the runway options published in the "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation. This includes a range of key environmental impacts such as noise, local air quality, climate change, townscape, landscape, biodiversity, heritage, and water.

  The consultation seeks views on these and other key impacts associated with the runway options. Responses on these issues will be important considerations in the final decisions for the air transport White Paper which we will publish next year.

  Birmingham International Airport
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what supporting documentation has been submitted to his Department in connection with the alternative Birmingham airport option; and how he plans to evaluate the alternative option against the Department for Transport options. [82916]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not received any other supporting documentation from Birmingham airport about their alternative option set out in "The Birmingham Alternative". We will need to consider their detailed response to the future development of air transport consultation and any supporting documentation accompanying it carefully once it is received alongside other representations on the options set out in the Midlands consultation document when preparing the Air Transport White Paper.

  Bus Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has commissioned into the potential improvement of safety on coaches by the introduction of(a) seatbelts and (b) rollover bars. [83569]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Research was carried out in the UK in 2000–02 aimed at identifying any necessary improvements to the European standard for coach rollover protection requirements as a consequence of seat belt use. The results of this research will be published shortly and are currently being used in the international group responsible for developing the standard for rollover protection. Additional research looking at the restraint of children in coaches has recently been commissioned, and is due for completion in 2005. My Department is also contributing to the wider EU funded research project, "Enhanced Coach and Bus Safety" which is looking more widely into bus and coach safety standards.

  Commissioners of Lights
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial contribution in euros has been made by the Irish Government in the financial years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000 under the terms of an agreement reached in 1985 for the sharing of certain costs incurred by the Commissioners of Lights in the Republic of Ireland. [80812]
  69W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Financial years

  Amount in Irish Punts

  Conversion to Euros

  1994–95

  1,853,311

  E2,353,220

  1995–96

  2,001,850

  E2,541,826

  1996–97

  1,884,700

  E2,393,076

  1997–98

  2,013,134

  E2,556,I53

  1998–99

  1,825,392

  E2,317,770

  1999–2000

  1,426,832

  El,811,703

  70 per cent, of the Commissioners of Irish Lights (CIL) total expenditure is deemed to be incurred in the Republic. The contribution varies each year in proportion to CIL's operating costs.

  The single European currency was introduced in the Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2002. Prior to that date, the contribution was made in Irish punts.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted and is planned by his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority on the(a) economic, (b) social and (c) environmental implications of the proposed plans for Crossrail; [81744]

  (2) what discussions his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority have had and plan to have; and what representations have been received by his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority on the (a) economic, (b) social and (c) environmental implications of the proposed plans for Crossrail; and if he will place copies of all related documentation in the Library. [81747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department and the Strategic Rail Authority have received a number of representations about the proposed plans for Crossrail. Cross London Rail Links, the company jointly established by the SRA and Transport for London to develop proposals for Crossrail, are currently considering route and service options and working on the business case for them, including an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts.

  Jet Skis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personal injury accidents involving jet-skis have taken place in UK waters in each of the last five years. [83314]

  Mr. Jamieson
  H.M Coastguard incident reports record a total of 895 incidents involving personal watercraft between 1 January 1997 and 22 November 2002 around the UK coastline. No information is available on the number of personal injuries.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of jet-skis in use in England and Wales. [83315]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not keep statistics on the number of jetskis in use in England and Wales.
  70W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department has issued to promote safe use of jet-skis to(a) individual owners, (b)local authorities with responsibility for beaches and (c)port and marina operators. [83319]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department takes the view that it is the responsibility of UK local authorities and harbour authorities to regulate personal watercraft using local bye-law powers. As such, no guidance has been issued, to date, to local authorities, although the Department is currently involved in an exercise to produce relevant information. A guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations was published for harbour operators in March 2002.

  With regard to individual owners, the Department has produced a nationally distributed 'Voluntary Code of Practice for Leisure Users', which provides safety information to personal watercraft users. Additionally, along with national sporting bodies, manufacturers, and water safety organisations, it is conducting an ongoing safety campaign to encourage training and better awareness of the users' responsibilities.

  London Trains
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains an hour can enter London on a single track. [81251]

  Mr Spellar
  This number will depend on many technical factors, such as the precise signalling system in use on the particular section of track in question.

  London Underground
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that sufficient funds are in place for the continuing requirements of London Underground under the PPP. [82559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has offered an unprecedented long-term grant commitment averaging £1 billion per annum in support of the increased investment and improved service performance that will be delivered through the Tube modernisation plans.

  Light Dues
  Dr. Doug Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue in the form of light dues has been collected in each financial year since 1997–98 from ships calling at ports in(a) Scotland, (b) the Isle

  71W
  of Man, (c) England and Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the Republic of Ireland. [80810]

  Light dues income 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Scotland

  6,628,360.51

  8,034,124.92

  8,929,663.47

  9,110,457.12

  8,536,210.39

  Isle of Man

  37,729.06

  44,424.38

  20,635.93

  19,012.13

  19,400.57

  England and Wales

  41,540,875.68

  54,942,311.20

  55,756,005.50

  57,923,611.28

  62,489,782.79

  Northern Ireland

  706,507.01

  617,011.16

  662,503.18

  599,414.51

  662,195.49

  R.O.I (Customs & Excise)

  2,816,419.48

  3,131,480.85

  3,464,779.82

  3,416,674.55

  3,077,673.30

  Total

  61,729,891.74

  66,769,352.51

  68,833,587.90

  71,069,169.59

  74,785,262.54

  Notes

  The figures above are for General Light Dues and does not include income from UK Fishing Vessels and Tugs.

  The figures do not include any Light Dues refunds that were made.

  The figures for R.O.I are shown in Sterling after conversion. Pre conversion figures shown as follows.

  R.O.I (Customs & Excise)

  3,154,665.35

  1997–98

  3,597,474.41

  1998–99

  4,246,163.66

  1999–2000

  4,396,335.39

  2000–01

  4,144,997.18

  2001–02

  Luton Airport
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the cost of(a) a bypass round Hitchin and (b) widening the Ml in evaluating the case for a new long runway at Luton airport. [80712]

  Mr. Spellar
  "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" main consultation document is seeking views on a range of options, two of which are for development of the single runway at Luton airport.

  Chapter 10 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report sets out the estimated costs of the surface access enhancements associated with the Luton airport runway options. Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Motorway Development (Homeowners' Compensation)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of compensation are payable to homeowners affected by new motorway development. [82285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Compensation is a complex subject. In cases where property is being acquired for a motorway scheme, the homeowner is paid the full market value. The claim may also include professional costs and payments for the loss of their home, disturbance and other items.

  Where property is not being acquired, homeowners may be entitled to claim compensation under Part 1 of the Lands Compensation Act 1973. This takes into account the impact of noise, fumes, artificial lighting and other factors on the value of their property.
  72W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is given in the table as follows.

  A series of booklets 'Compulsory Purchase and Compensation' (1–5), which explains the compensation entitlements arising from highway works, is available to the public and a set will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Multi-modal Study (South-West)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will inform hon. Members directly about his decision with regard to the South West Area Regional Multi-Modal Transport Report. [82613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the recommendations from this study alongside the views from the respective regional planning bodies, and would hope to be in a position to announce our response to the report and the recommendations shortly.

  We will write to hon. Members within the study area on the day of the announcement. Copies of our letters to the Chairs of the regional planning bodies will also be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what (1) measures are being taken to ensure that a continuous 24-hour service is available for the National Air Traffic Services' online safety information service; on how many occasions the service has been suspended, and for how long in each case; and what assessment he has made of the safety implications of United Kingdom pilots having to obtain safety information via alternative sources to the NATS online information service; [81927]

  (2)if he will make it his policy that the maximum period of downtime on the NATS online information service be not more than 30 minutes in any three-month period; [81925]

  (3)what assessment he has made of the implications the faults on the NATS online information service might have for pilots flying from airfields in North Yorkshire. [81926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The setting of service standards for civil air traffic services in the UK is a matter for NATS in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority.
  73W
  The CAA recognise that some users have experienced problems receiving NOT AM information from the Web-based system over the past three months, however the information has always been available by telephone from the UK AIS Office.

  NATS do not have a precise record of the numbers of suspensions to this service. However, a recent software update to the online service has resulted in a marked improvement to the speed and reliability of the system.

  Network Rail
  Mr Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how mach money has been(a) granted to and (b) guaranteed for Network Rail. [81021]

  Mr Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the House on 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 971W, and to the minutes mentioned in that statement.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his definition is of partial protection in relation to single hull oil tankers; and if he will make a statement. [83002]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The term "partial protection" refers to tankers having wing tanks or double bottoms in protective locations which are not used for the carriage of cargo or operating only with hydrostatically balanced loading. Such tankers do not have full double hulls, the standard required for tankers built since 1996.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will press for an immediate ban on single hull oil tankers plying the high seas. [83004]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We support the recent international agreement at the International Maritime Organization, and applied in the EU by Regulation, under which single hull tankers will be phased out in stages up to and no later than 2007. Such tankers must be replaced by tankers with double hulls.

  Open Skies Agreement
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the potential role of Open Skies for Regional Airports in the United Kingdom. [81408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]There are already no capacity restrictions on flights between the US and UK regional airports (defined for this purpose as all UK airports except Heathrow and Gatwick). An "open skies" deal, whether on the partial US model or on a full liberalisation model, would allow US airlines unrestricted fifth freedom rights from regional airports.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU will(a) open and (b) conclude negotiations with the USA on an Open Skies Agreement. [83043]
  74W
  Mr. Spellar
  In order to open aviation negotiations with the United States the European Commission would first need a mandate from the Council.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new investment on the railway network by Rail Track in Administration over the last year. [81259]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the amount spent on enhancements and renewals relating to the railway network by Railtrack plc (in Administration) for the period to 31 March 2002, are contained in the company's accounts published on 31 October 2002 and details of expenditure for the period including the balance of the administration, will be included in the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2003, which are expected to be published around June 2003.

  Railways (Disabled Access)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding his Department is allocating for the refurbishment of railway platforms to ensure full disabled persons' access. [83316]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific funding has been allocated for platform refurbishment in connection with access for disabled passengers. Access for wheelchair users between platforms and trains is currently achieved by the use of ramps.

  Access to railway stations, as with other public transport infrastructure, is covered by the provisions of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. From 2004, station operators will have to take reasonable steps either to remove or alter impediments to access, to find ways of avoiding them or to provide the service by a reasonable alternative means.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Underground stations do not allow disabled persons access to the platforms. [83317]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Improving the accessibility of the underground system is an essential part of the plans to modernise the system. 29 of the 253 stations owned by London Underground are currently step free, and a further eight step-free stations are served by underground services. By 2020 over 100 stations will have step free access, opening up large areas of London to many people previously unable to use the network.

  Shoreham Port Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which officials in his Department who were responsible for the re-appointment of board members of Shoreham Port Authority at the end of 2001 had their duties switched to deal with movement of military personnel and supplies for the Afghanistan campaign. [83262]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.
  75W

  South-East Region Airfield Study
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to Hullavington in the site search for the South East Region Airfield Study; and if he will make a statement. [83032]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Around 400 new and existing sites in southern England were considered in the SERAS preliminary site search study. Hullavington was taken forward into the latter stages of the site search study where it was assessed against a range of criteria. These included topography, obstacle limitation surfaces, airspace, noise, air quality, environment, RPG/ economics, commercial demand, travel times and quality of surface access.

  Hullavington and Alconbury were taken forward for more detailed appraisal into the main SERAS study as prospective sites for small-scale airport development. Following the conclusion of the first stage of the SERAS study, Ministers agreed that Alconbury should be taken forward, and that Hullavington should not.

  Tourist Signs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on brown tourist signs. [82595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  White and brown signs giving directional information about tourist destinations are controlled by traffic authorities as part of their statutory responsibility for securing the safe and efficient movement of traffic. The main purpose of white and brown signs is to guide visitors to their intended tourist destination along the most appropriate route during the latter stage of their journey, particularly where the destination may be difficult to find. The design of signs to direct traffic to tourist attractions and facilities, and of directional traffic signs generally, is controlled through the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).Revised TSRGD, which we

  Customer

  Scope of services

  Anglian Water Services

  Buoy Rental

  ABP—Cardiff

  Buoy Maintenance Services

  ABP—Southampton

  Casualty Attendance

  ABP—Swansea

  Buoy Maintenance Services

  Brightlingsea Harbour Commissioners

  Buoy Servicing Agreement— commenced March 2002

  Brighton West Pier Trust

  Buoy Hire Agreement— commenced November 2001

  Cardiff Harbour Authority

  Intensity, range and sector checks

  CEFAS

  Charter of Vessels

  Cowes Harbour Commissioners

  Purchase and Hire of Moorings

  Environment Agency (Welsh Regions)

  Annual Ship Services

  Falmouth Harbour Commissioners

  Ship Services

  First Corporate Shipping t/a The Bristol Port Company

  Buoy Maintenance Agreement— commenced November 1999

  Harwich Haven

  Utilisation of Ship for Buoy Maintenance Services

  Magnox Electric plc

  Buoy Rental

  Marine Current Turbines Ltd.

  Supply of Fog Detector and Lantern

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Hire of Wreck Marker Buoys

  Ministry of Defence

  Buoy Rental

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  Buoy Maintenance Services

  National Power plc

  Maintenance Services to Navigation Light

  National Wind Power

  Siting of anemometry equipment on Pan Sand Beacon— commenced September 1998

  Neg Micon UK Ltd. (formerly Wind Energy Group Ltd.)

  Siting of anemometry equipment on three existing buoy stations— commenced June 1998

  Noordzeewind

  Data Collection Agreement

  Penwith District Council

  Navigation Light Maintenance Agreement— commenced April 2002

  Ramsgate Royal Harbour

  Ship Services

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Buoy Maintenance Agreement— commenced April 1998

  76W
  expect to lay within the next few weeks, will add to the range of symbols and designs available for traffic authorities to use.

  Decisions about the provision of signs at particular locations are the responsibility of the relevant traffic authority in the light of their local circumstances and signing policies. My Department consulted earlier this year on proposals for updated guidance to local authorities and the Highways Agency on dealing with applications for new white and brown signs. We recognise the importance of getting an appropriate balance between the needs of local tourism, safety, efficient traffic management and the environment. The draft guidance has been further revised in the light of the responses to the consultation and to take account of the revisions to the TSRGD, and we expect it to be available early next year.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. John Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new sets of traffic lights have been installed in(a) London and (b) the rest of England since April 1997. [81244]

  Mr Spellar
  Local highway or traffic authorities have powers to install traffic signals on their roads. The Department has no central record of these.

  Trinity House
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Trinity House Lighthouse Service has been successful in obtaining further maintenance work under contract from other bodies; and if he will list contracts(a) entered into and (b) pending and their financial value. [80811]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) has obtained contract work to the value of £834,688 from the organisations listed in the table.
  77W

  Customer

  Scope of services

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Navigation Light Maintenance Agreement— commenced September 2000

  Sovereign Harbour Marina Ltd.

  Launch Services

  States of Guernsey

  Ship Services

  States of Jersey

  Ship Services

  Tendring District Council

  Sale of Scrap Buoy and Chain

  Wells Harbour Commissioners

  Buoy Servicing Agreement— commencing March 2002

  Yorkshire Water Services

  Buoy Maintenance Agreement— commenced January 2001

  The following contracts are commercial in confidence:

  Commercial in Confidence

  Charter of THV Patricia 10 August 2001 to 15 August 01

  Commercial in Confidence

  Data Collection Services— commencing December 2002

  The contracts have utilised spare capacity in the THLS fleet and include both maintenance contracts and one-off project based contracts. THLS are working on a number of positive leads for additional work but are unable to identify at this stage if any are likely to become firm orders.

  Unregistered Ships
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the conditions of work of foreign nationals on un-registered ships. [81054]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Merchant shipping legislation governing conditions of work on UK registered ships, such as hours of work, applies equally to all seafarers regardless of their nationality.

  The working hours of all seafarers (whatever their nationality) on board UK registered ships are limited by Directive 1999/63/EC, which the UK implemented in September 2002.

  Rates of pay are matters for negotiation between employers and employees, subject to the national minimum wage. Foreign nationals on UK registered ships are not covered by the national minimum wage except when in UK waters.

  Employers of seafarers recruited abroad to work on UK registered ships are exempt from the employment provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 when employing seafarers abroad.

  Waste (Trust Ports)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent guidance has been issued by his Department regarding the disposal of human waste from house boats moored in trust port waters. [83266]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Waterloo Station
  Mr. John Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains per hour enter Waterloo; and what his plans are for capacity there. [81248]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are approximately 45 trains per hour entering London Waterloo station at peak periods. The Strategic Rail Authority has invited comments on a consultation paper on its Capacity Utilisation Policy.
  78W

  West Anglia Rail Route Modernisation
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects the Strategic Rail Authority's indicative timescale for West Anglia Route Modernisation, as set out on page 53 of 'The Strategic Plan', including additional capacity at Cambridge Station, to be maintained. [82414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 21 November 2002,Official Report, column 269 W. The time and cost of any project at this stage cannot be guaranteed, as it is always possible for underlying problems with existing infrastructure to be revealed when work commences.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Plan Puebla Panama
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to conduct a social and environmental impact assessment of the Plan Puebla Panama in Mexico. [82231]

  Mr. Rammell
  None. There is currently no British Government involvement in Plan Puebla Panama nor plans for any. The Mexican authorities continue to develop the Plan with their Central American neighbours.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Bahraini authorities regarding British nationals facing pre-trial interviews in Bahrain. [81782]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Embassy in Bahrain has had discussions with the Bahraini authorities about a British national facing a pre-trial interview. My noble Friend Baroness Amos will write to the hon. Member with more details about the case.

  British Embassy (Yemen)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the staffing is at the British embassy in Yemen. [82357]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are nine UK-based staff and 45 locally engaged staff in the embassy in Sana'a.
  79W

  Central African Republic
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the military situation in the Central African Republic. [82665]

  Mr. Rammell
  HMG is concerned at the recent coup attempt in the Central African Republic and welcomes the current cessation of hostilities. We welcome the arrival of a contingent of troops from CEMAC (Central African Economic and Monetary Community) to undertake a peace-keeping role. We support the UN's efforts to bring relief to the civilian population.

  Consular General's House, San Francisco
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to sell the Consular General's house in San Francisco; what the Estates Department's conclusion was on the sale of the Consular General's house in San Francisco following their visit there in February; and how much the visit of the Estates Department to San Francisco cost the Department. [82530]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have yet to identify an alternative house for the Consul General in San Francisco. An FCO survey team visited the Post in March and viewed 12 possible properties for purchase. None was suitable. The present house will only be sold when an alternative is found which meets the operational requirements of the Post and gives value for money to the taxpayer.

  The survey team also reviewed the suitability of the present offices and looked at a possible alternative property. The associated travel costs of the visit were approximately 17,000.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the setting up of a peace commission in the Ituri district of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [82757]

  Mr. Rammell
  Negotiations continue between Uganda and the DRC on setting up the Joint Commission provided for in the Luanda Agreement, which the two sides signed on 6 September. The Commission will make a significant contribution to securing peace in the Ituri district of the DRC and we attach importance to an early agreement. We are also working with the UN and other interested partners for a successful outcome to the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, which will lead to the creation of an all-inclusive transitional Congolese Government. This Government will have authority throughout the DRC, including Ituri.

  Departmental Telecommunications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at how many missions his Department's telecommunications network has installed both telephone systems and network connections; and if he will make a statement. [82035]
  80W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN) connects our overseas missions to a telecommunications network and to a telephone system (PBX). The related hardware is installed by the FCO's PFI partner, Global Crossing. There are separate, but interlinked, timetables for the two types of installation. The number of missions that have already received network connections and new telephone systems is 150 and 177 respectively.

  Not all missions are receiving both. To date, the number of missions with both network connection and new telephone system is 141.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the maximum period of time that his Department's communications would be disrupted in the event of the failure of Global Crossing to continue in operation; and if he will make a statement. [82036]

  Mr. Rammell
  Contingency arrangements are in place to allow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to continue to operate without disruption should Global Crossing, for any reason, withdraw their service. We are concluding work connected with service to North America and Western Europe, and for service within the United Kingdom, which will further enhance existing contingency arrangements and ensure no loss of service.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what interruptions of service his Department's telecommunication network has had in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [82037]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN) connects our diplomatic missions overseas to a telecommunications network; and to a telephone system (PBX). Both services are provided through service level agreements (SLAs) under the contract with our PFI partner, Global Crossing. While there have been some circuit interruptions, as is to be expected from a world-wide network, the overall performance has exceeded contractual requirements and has served the FCO very well.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will incur financial penalties in the event of Global Crossing becoming bankrupt; and if he will make a statement. [82038]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO would incur no financial or contractual penalties in the event of Global Crossing being declared bankrupt but would assume financial commitments in either appointing a new prime contractor or in taking on the role of prime contractor to ensure continuation of service. The FCO is monitoring Global Crossing's progress towards a successful exit from Chapter 11 protection.

  EU Enlargement
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of enlargement of the European Union for UK relations with Russia. [82455]
  81W
  Mr. MacShane
  We and our EU partners are working to ensure that the effect of enlargement on the EU's relations with Russia— and therefore on the UK's relationship with Russia— will be positive. The EU wants to help Russia maximise the considerable opportunities enlargement offers. EU work with Russia on WTO accession, the EU/Russia energy dialogue, the concept of a common economic space, and increased political and JHA co-operation are all contributing to this end. In addition, the EU is working closely with Russia to ensure that Kaliningrad, its Baltic sea enclave, remains a fully integrated part of the Russian Federation after enlargement

  EU/ACP Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning banned Zimbabwean Ministers being granted visas to attend the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels at the end of November; under what terms these visas have been granted; what role the European Development Fund will have in funding these visits; and if he will make a statement. [82785]

  Mr. Straw
  On 7 November Belgium alerted EU partners to the request for visas to attend the EU/ACP meeting from Christopher Kuruneri, Zimbabwe's Deputy Minister for Finance and Paul Mangwana, Minister of State for State Enterprises. Both are on the EU travel ban list. The Belgian Government explained that under the terms of the Lome and Cotonou Agreements, Belgium had a legal obligation to grant these visas, since these agreements override Council decisions on sanctions. The Belgian Government undertook to attach maximum restrictions. The banned individuals were granted visas only for the period 19–29 November, restricted to the territory of Belgium.

  The meeting of the EU/ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly, funding issues and invitations to ACP countries, are matters for the co-Secretariat of the EU/ ACP. Once the invitation had issued, the choice of representatives from Zimbabwe was a matter for the Zimbabwe Parliament.

  The EU's Common Position 2002/145/CFSP imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe specifically allow member states to grant exemptions where travel is justified on grounds of attending meetings of international bodies

  EU/SADC Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to send a representative to the meeting scheduled for EU and SADC leaders to be held in Lisbon in April 2003; what representations he has made to other SADC and EU countries concerning this meeting; whether Zimbabweans on the EU travel ban list will be able to attend this meeting; whether he plans to support a relocation of this meeting to a venue outside of the EU; and if he will make a statement. [82772]

  Mr. Straw
  The meeting scheduled to be held in Lisbon in April 2003 is an EU/Africa meeting. There has so far been no formal EU discussion of attendance or 82W
  relocation. The Government considers that no-one subject to an EU travel ban should attend a meeting in the European Union unless their right to attend is required pursuant to a legal obligation. The Government will decide its own representation closer to the time

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers he has to hold a referendum in Gibraltar. [81714]

  Mr. MacShane
  This Government has always made clear that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar unless the people of Gibraltar agree to it in a referendum. If there were such a set of proposals on the table that included such a change, then the Government would ensure that the necessary arrangements were in place to hold a referendum, most probably through seeking an Order in Council as was done in 1967.

  Gracemoor Consultants
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the former employees of his Department who have taken up positions with Gracemoor Consultants, stating in each case the name, position previously held and date of leaving. [82151]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are unable to answer this question as instructed by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Part 2, section 12, Privacy of an Individual, which states that unwarranted disclosure to a third party of personal information about any person would constitute an invasion of privacy.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the Military Intelligence Support Group within the Nepalese Army will play in conflict prevention; and what its objectives are. [82372]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The role of the Military Intelligence Support Group (MISG) is to enhance the intelligence gathering capability of the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA). Its objective is to provide accurate intelligence so that the RNA are able to identify Maoist military activity

  Overseas Prisoners
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress his Department has made in assisting Jonathan Lincoln Brown, a constituent who is held in Oman. [82050]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassy in Muscat continues to make representations to the Omani authorities on behalf of Mr. Lincoln Brown, who remains at liberty in Oman though he is not permitted to leave. On 25 September 2002, our embassy wrote to the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs querying the process by which Mr. Lincoln Brown was initially denied the Right of Appeal in 2001. Although his Right of Appeal was
  83W
  subsequently restored and heard on 6 May 2002, it failed. Mr. Lincoln Brown has now said that he will appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision.

  Our embassy has also informed the Omani authorities by a Diplomatic Note sent on 17 November, of Mr. Lincoln Brown's intention to leave Oman. We are seeking from them confirmation that he can do so. Our embassy will continue to press for an early and substantive reply on both issues.

  Prestige
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken and will take at intergovernmental and European levels on accusations made by the Spanish Government and by the European Commissioner for Transport that the accident off Galicia involving the oil tanker Prestige was linked to Gibraltar's alleged failure to comply with Community legislation; and if he will make a statement. [83133]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have made clear to the Spanish Government and to the European Commission that the accident off Galicia involving the oil tanker Prestige was in no way linked to any alleged failure by Gibraltar to comply with Community Legislation. The UK's Permanent Representative to the EU wrote to the Commission on this, and I have arranged for a copy of the Commission's letter and the reply to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Somalia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the peace talks in Somalia. [82664]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has followed with keen interest the Somalia National Reconciliation Conference which started on 15 October in Eldoret and is chaired by Kenya under the auspices of the regional organisation IGAD.

  All the faction leaders present in Eldoret signed a Declaration on Cessation of Hostilities and the Structures and Principles of the Somalia National Reconciliation Process on 27 October. This was welcomed by the European Union in a declaration on 28 October.

  The UN Security Council also issued a Presidential Statement on Somalia on 21 November reiterating its strong support for the Conference. The Conference resumed its discussions on 19 November.

  Thailand (BAE Systems)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the UK Ambassador in Thailand has given to BAe to help them export to that country. [83016]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is established Government policy to support British companies with legitimate defence exports and the Embassy in Bangkok has offered commercial assistance to Bae Systems with their efforts to do business in Thailand.
  84W
  On 18 October the Ambassador signed a Joint Minute on Defence Co-operation with the Thai Deputy Prime Minister, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh in Bangkok. The Joint Minute refers to a commercial agreement between Bae Systems and the Royal Thai Government, the details of which are a matter for BAe Systems and the Royal Thai Government

  Turkey
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the election in Turkey and its impact on Turkey's accession to the EU. [82343]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued the following statement on 4 November:"While the results so far are unofficial, they indicate that AKP will be the largest party in the Turkish Parliament. This is a clear expression of the popular will. As the Prime Minister said this morning, we look forward to working with the new government, as soon as it is formed. I am glad to note the commitment of AKP leaders to taking forward EU/Turkey relations. The UK is a longstanding supporter of Turkey's EU candidature. I stand ready to help Turkey move further and faster along the road to Europe. I also note AKP leaders' commitment to working with the IMF for continued economic recovery; and the stress they have placed on the promotion and protection of human rights
  Britain and Turkey have much to do together, particularly in the run up to the Copenhagen European Council. I very much hope this will include progress on Cyprus. We must all redouble our support for the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus''

  The Foreign Secretary reiterated these points in his meeting with Turkish leaders on 20 November.

  UN Resolution 1441
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to find a peaceful outcome to implementing UN resolution 1441. [82753]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK played a pivotal role in securing the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which offers Saddam Hussein a final chance to give up his weapons of mass destruction peacefully. We will continue to give the UN weapons inspectors all possible help to complete their task effectively. But ultimately it is up to the Iraqi regime to decide whether or not to co-operate. If it chooses not to, resolution 1441 makes clear that it will face serious consequences.

  Unexploded Landmines
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of unexploded landmines in Eritrea. [82758]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE MACC) has reported that no recent estimate has been made of the number of unexploded landmines in Eritrea as a whole. It is estimated that no more than 100,000 of the approximately 250,000 landmines laid during the 1998–2000 conflict remain in the UNMEE-monitored Temporary Security Zone on the border with Ethiopia,
  85W
  from which approximately 4,000 landmines have so far been cleared. There is no reliable data on contaminated areas or numbers of landmines for the rest of the country. A country-wide Landmine Impact Survey is currently being conducted by the UN Development Programme, the results of which are due in mid-2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of unexploded landmines on the demarcation of the disputed border between Ethiopia and Eritrea. [82663]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea Mine Action Co-ordination Centre (UNMEE MACC) has reported that, based on detailed reconnaissance of the new border line, it is estimated that up to 150 border pillar sites may be contaminated by landmines or unexploded ordnance (UXO). All access routes to the border to be utilised by the demarcation survey and pillar construction teams have to be checked and cleared of mines where necessary. UNMEE has been mandated by the Security Council to conduct demining operations in support of the demarcation teams, and UNMEE MACC is co-ordinating and managing this project. The EU has provided Euro 1 million to the Border Commission Trust Fund for Quality Assurance and Explosive Detection Dog support contractors to supplement the UNMEE assets to be utilised for the demining support project.

  Yemen
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Yemen. [82354]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has good relations with the Republic of Yemen. We welcome President Saleh's co-operation in the fight against terrorism. We are in close touch with the Yemenis on this and on other issues.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are in Yemen. [82355]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are 343 British citizens registered with the embassy. We have no reliable figure for others who are not registered.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Government concerning the situation in Yemen. [82356]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss the situation in Yemen, and other countries, both formally and informally with the US Government. These discussions cover a wide range of subjects, including counter-terrorism, security, democracy, human rights, the economy and development.

  Zambia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the use of public funds by the ruling MMD party in Zambia during the presidential election in December 2001. [82822]
  86W
  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no such reports. However, the second interim statement by the European Union Election Observation Mission, which was issued before the Presidential election in December 2001, alleged the use of Government resources for party political purposes. Evidence of this has been presented to the Zambian Supreme Court as part of the on-going petition challenging the legitimacy of the election result.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the use by the Zimbabwe Republic Police of tear gas from the UK; and if he will make a statement. [82259]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today (UIN 82568), to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Oliver Letwin).

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of British-made tear gas being used in Zimbabwe against citizens. [82568]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have received a report from Amnesty International in the UK about the alleged use by the Zimbabwean Police of British made tear gas against Zimbabwean students in November 2001. There has been a UK arms embargo on Zimbabwe since May 2000. We have urged Amnesty to pass any evidence to HM Customs and Excise, who are responsible for the enforcement of UK export controls.

EDUCATION

  Academic Research
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of university staff turnover on the quality of academic research and higher education in the last five years. [81771]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department has carried out no specific assessment of the impact of university staff turnover on the quality of academic research and higher education. However, the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise showed that 55 per cent, of research staff now work in Departments containing work of international excellence compared with 31 per cent, in 1996. In addition, the recently completed QAA eight year cycle of HE subject reviews, which included an assessment of teaching quality, identified only 1 per cent, of unsatisfactory provision. The Higher Education Funding Council in September 2002 pointed to some subject areas where it is difficult to recruit including some shortage areas particularly ICT, business, science and engineering. We recognise these difficulties and the challenges our universities face recruiting and retaining in an international market. Top US universities, in particular, pay some academics and researchers salaries, which can be twice as much as their British counterparts earn.
  87W

  Accommodation Centres (Education)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the teaching unions on his proposals to educate some children seeking asylum in accommodation centers. [81053]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]My. hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare, has had discussions with the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT on the Government's proposals to educate in accommodation centres some children whose family is seeking asylum.

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide assistance to pupils with Asperger's syndrome to ensure that they can enter public examinations on an equal footing, with respect to part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [82502]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Schools are required under part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to take reasonable steps to prevent disabled pupils from being put at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled pupils in respect of education and associated services. This would include, where appropriate, negotiating special arrangements for pupils with disabilities who are taking public examinations. What constitutes a reasonable step will depend on the circumstances of individual cases and schools will need to take into account any relevant factors, including the need to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards, the financial resources available to them and the costs of taking a particular step.

  In addition, both the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the examination boards make special arrangements for children with special educational needs, with and without statements, where it can be shown that they usually have additional or different provision in school. For pupils with Asperger's syndrome special arrangements are likely to take the form of extra time or rest breaks. The tests or examinations can also be taken in a separate room if that is appropriate.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81867]
  88W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Under the proposed central London charging zone within my Department there are:(a) 27 car parking spaces available to employees of the Department
  (b) 14 car parking spaces available to visitors in the Department.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in developing a system of identification, referral and tracking for every child at risk of social exclusion in each local authority. [81066]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government announced its intention to promote better local systems for the identification, referral and tracking of children at risk as part of its street crime initiative last summer. Six local authorities, Bolton, Camden, Kensington and Chelsea, Knowsley, Lewisham and Sheffield, were selected as Trailblazers for funding of up to £1 million to fast-track the development of appropriate systems, and the remaining 28 participating authorities were invited to bid for up to £100,000 for initial developmental work.

  The Cross-Cutting Review on Children at Risk found that the failure to share information between agencies was a significant barrier to the provision of effective preventive services for children and young people at risk of social exclusion. On 16 August I therefore announced that, as a result of the Spending Review 2002, additional funding would be made available to support all local authorities in developing local systems to identify, refer and track children at risk. The offer of £100,000 has now been extended to all local authorities, and a further four Trailblazers are being identified to extend the geographical coverage and range of authorities. In both cases, authorities are due to submit their plans for taking this work forward to the Children and Young People's Unit (CYPU) for assessment and approval during December.

  Draft guidance based on the emerging experiences of the Trailblazer authorities will be published during March 2003 to support all local authorities in the further development of local systems. Concurrently, the CYPU is working with other Departments, including the Cabinet Office's Green Paper team, to develop coherent central approaches to the identification, referral and tracking of children at risk in the context of work to develop local preventive strategies.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81847]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Staff within my Department on official business who are required to drive their own or officially provided vehicles within the charging zone will be reimbursed.
  89W

  Connexions Cards
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much revenue has been raised by selling information contained on Connexions cards. [82605]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No revenue has been raised by selling information contained on the Connexions Card.

  Dance and Drama Awards
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria applicants for the Dance and Drama Awards scheme are required to meet; what representations he has received about the administration of the awards scheme; and if he will make a statement. [82741]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Dance and Drama Awards are given to the "most talented" students following open auditions at the schools that offer the awards. I have received no representations regarding the administration of the scheme in the last two years. I am pleased that our external evaluators report that the scheme is performing well and the awards are enabling students from lower income families to access high quality Performing Arts training. Last year all students passed their Trinity College London qualifications and all providers met the high quality standards set for inspection.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many awards made under the Dance and Drama Awards Scheme went to schools which were not members of the National Council for Drama Training in each of the last three years; what contracts and agreements his Department has with the National Council for Drama Training; and if he will make a statement. [82742]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Of the 820 new Dance and Drama Awards allocated to schools each year the following Awards were allocated to providers that were not members of the National Council for Drama Training:399 Awards in 2002;
  424 in 2001; and
  Awards in 2000

  The Department for Education and Skills has no contracts or agreements with the National Council for Drama Training.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the relationship between the National Council for Drama Training and Trinity College Examination Board; and if he will make a statement. [82743]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have made no assessment of the relationship between the National Council for Drama Training and Trinity College Examination board. These bodies are both independent and make an important contribution to training for the Performing Arts.

  Drugs Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has 90W
  received from (a) LEAs, (b) drug action teams and (c) school heads on the guidelines for drug education in secondary schools. [82269]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has regular contact and consults widely with schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to ensure that they are involved in the policy making process, and officials have discussed drug education with the Home Office, to whom drug action teams are accountable, via correspondence and at regular meetings.

  In the last six months officials have received correspondence from schools and LEAs about various matters related to drugs education.

  We have recently started the process of revising and consolidating Government guidance on drug, alcohol and tobacco education for schools with a view to issuing new guidance in Autumn 2003. Three pre-drafting consultation events held across the country in October, included representatives from drug action teams, LEAs and schools. We will consult widely on the draft guidance in the spring.

  EU Education Benchmarks
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the staying-on rate in post-16 education in coalfield areas was, in each year since 1997, and how this compares with the national average. [82250]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 for coalfield areas cannot be produced reliably at present. Participation rates by LEA and by local LSC area for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in Statistical Bulletin 14/01, "Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1995/96 to 1999/00".

  National participation rates are published annually in a Statistical First Release (SFR), the latest being issue 16/02, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18 Year Olds in England: 2000 and 2001."

  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time and part-time education in England since 1997 is as follows:

  End of calendar year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001 (provisional)

  Full-time education

  69.4

  69.8

  71.3

  71.4

  71.2

  Part-time education

  6.7

  6.6

  6.6

  6.5

  7.3

  Source:

  SFR 16/02

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many LEAs collect statistics on actual and perceived heroin abuse by parents with primary school children; [82270]

  (2) how many primary schools have more than 5 per cent, of pupils with a heroin addicted parent at home; [82271]
  91W
  (3) what recent assessment his Department has made of the impact on primary school children of having a heroin-dependent parent at home; [82272]

  (4) what recent estimate he has made of the number of children at primary school level who have a parent addicted to heroin at home. [82273]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities and primary and secondary schools are not required to collect information about the drug use of their pupils' parents. There are inherent difficulties in collecting information about drug use; because of its often illegal nature, drug users are often reluctant to identify themselves to statutory bodies.

  The Home Office is responsible for collecting information on the scale of drug misuse in England and Wales. The report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs "The Children of Problem Drug Users" is due to be published next year and will contain estimates of the numbers of children affected by parental drug misuse. The report is also expected to make recommendations to address the problem.

  When parents use drugs— especially problematic and illegal drugs like heroin— their children may be exposed to a range of emotional and physical hazards. Children may respond in a variety of ways, including: disturbed or anti-social behaviour; becoming withdrawn or introverted; turning to drink or drugs to escape unpleasant home situations; running away from home; losing concentration in class; and reluctance to form or develop friendships with schoolmates. The child may also be the subject of bullying if schoolmates perceive him or her to be 'different' or 'not fitting in' with the peer group. Schooling is likely to be interrupted if the child is depended upon to care for drug using parents.

  The Government recognise that the children of drug using parents are a vulnerable group. They should therefore benefit from the new requirement for every top tier or unitary local authority to prepare from April 2003 a local preventive strategy to improve outcomes for children aged 0–19 who are at risk of social exclusion. This was announced by the Minister for Young People on 6 September. On 30 October the Prime Minister announced to the House the Government's intention to publish a Green Paper on Children at Risk in the New Year. My Department is playing a full part in helping to make sure that vulnerable children and young people are identified as soon as possible, and that their needs are met with a coherent and effective response from the relevant statutory and voluntary agencies.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which learning and skills councils(a) have and (b) do not have a member representing schools with sixth forms. [80989]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since April 2002 the LSC has been responsible for the funding of school sixth forms. In the Secretary of State's Grant Letter for 2002–03 we asked the LSC to widen council representation from the schools sector. Since then the LSC has been actively recruiting school teachers and head teachers and will continue to do so. Currently there are 19 local LSCs with teachers or head teachers of schools with sixth forms on their local councils.
  92W
  These are: Kent and Medway; Berkshire; Milton Keynes; Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire; Surrey; Bedfordshire; Cambridgeshire; Essex; Hertfordshire; Norfolk; Suffolk; County Durham; North Yorkshire; Greater Merseyside; Coventry and Warwickshire; Gloucestershire; West of England; London South; Northamptonshire; and Derbyshire. Three more local LSCs have head teachers of schools which do not have sixth forms.

  In addition the LSC is the process of recruiting a head teacher of a school with a sixth form to its national council.

  Further experience of schools' matters is brought by those local council members who come from local authorities and local education authorities (30 local councils have Directors of Education/Chief Education Officers, 40 local councils have elected members and 46 local councils have members with other local authority backgrounds). In addition 40 local LSCs have members who are school governors.

  Preventive Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding his Department has targeted on preventive education programmes about(a) drugs and (b) youth offending; what funding is targeted at vulnerable groups; and if he will make a statement. [82711]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department recognises the importance of preventative activity and ensuring that support reaches those most in need and we have made significant funding available to facilitate this.

  (a) Drug, alcohol and tobacco education in the curriculum is funded via the Standards Fund. This funding, made available to local education authorities (LEAs) is to support the training of teachers and deliver effective drug, alcohol and tobacco education and prevention programmes. £15.5 million has been made available in 2002–03 and this will rise to £17.5 million in 2003–04. The breakdown for 2002–03 is: Standards Fund Drug Prevention Grant— £7.5 million; Standards Fund Drug Education Advisers Grant— £5.7 million; Teacher training and Connexions Adviser training £2.3 million. The breakdowns for 2003–04 have not yet been announced.

  This increase will improve the quality and coverage of drug, alcohol and tobacco education, fund drug adviser support in each LEA and help teachers deliver programmes tailor-made to meet the needs of young people across the country, including those most vulnerable to the risks of drug misuse.

  (b)Through our Behaviour Improvement Programme, we have allocated £50 million to 34 LEAs with high rates of street crime and truancy to work with targeted schools in improving behaviour and attendance. Under the Programme, this summer, we allocated a further £16 million to the Connexions Partnerships covering the 34 LEAs to provide key workers and diversionary activities for over 9,000 of the young people in those areas most at risk of offending.

  The Connexions Service brings together a wide range of agencies to provide information, advice, guidance and support to all young people aged 13–19, but with a

  93W
  sharp focus on those who need it most. I announced last week that funding for Connexions will rise to £515 million by 2005–06. The vision statement for Connexions that I issued last week, along with ministerial colleagues across Whitehall, reaffirms our joint commitment to securing better outcomes for this age group, but specifically around increasing the number who participate in education training and employment and reducing the number of young people who become involved in crime.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place the data underlying his Department's value for money scores in relation to the 1998 public service agreements in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [80415]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Progress against our CSR 98 targets was reported most recently in the Department's 2002 Annual Report. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  School Standards
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the progress made towards his Department's targets on(a) reducing the number of secondary schools classed as failing, (b) reducing school truancies and (c) ensuring that all permanently excluded pupils obtain an appropriate full-time education. [81077]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 18 November 2002](a)Significant progress has been made in tackling failure. The number of secondary schools classed as failing has declined and continues to do so. There are currently 51 secondary schools requiring special measures compared with 90 schools in summer 1998.
  (b)The Department's Public Service Agreement target is to reduce school truancies by 10 per cent by 2004 compared to the 2002 rate, sustain the new lower level, and improve overall attendance levels thereafter. The Department's Statistical First Release showing school absence for the 2001/02 school year published on 9 October 2002 shows the national rate of unauthorised absence to be 0.7 per cent, of half days missed
  (c)All Local Education Authorities have said that they would be able to provide suitable full time education to all permanently excluded pupils from September 2002. Officials are currently conducting a survey to ensure that this target has been met.

  School Transport
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the additional school transport required in(a) The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and (b) Wokingham District as a result of the Government's plans for housing; and what additional funding he has provided for it. [81759]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is for local education authorities to determine how much to spend on home-school transport, taking account of need in their area. Funding for home to school transport is routed through the Education Standard Spending Assessment.
  94W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his policy on pilot-free school bus transport for secondary school pupils living less than three miles from school, with special reference to Staffordshire. [82441]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities (LEAs) are encouraged to pilot and evaluate changes to home to school transport entitlement, particularly where low income groups may otherwise be cut off from successful schools or alternative types of learning locally.

  Some LEAs have already expressed an interest in exploring such pilots, including Staffordshire County Council. The outcome of their bid for funding under the Rural Bus Challenge will be announced early in the new year. LEAs are also encouraged to seek funding through local Public Service Agreements when these are negotiated or renegotiated.

  Schools Funding (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire had a cash budget cut this financial year. [81189]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas, rather than districts within an area. Chesham and Amersham is a district of Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority. In Buckinghamshire LEA, 36 schools had a fall in their cash budget share in 2002–03. Of these, six schools closed mid-year. Five of the 36 schools also had a fall in their cash budget share per pupil.

  Changes in pupil numbers are the principal reason for changes in budget share. 200 schools did not have a fall in their budget share, but of these, six had a fall in their cash budget share per pupil. This was largely in cases where small primary schools had rising rolls and, therefore, received less of the extra funding that goes to the smallest schools under the authority's formula.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on each(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03 in (A) Chesham and Amersham and (B) Buckinghamshire. [81190]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas, rather than districts within an area. Chesham and Amersham is a district of Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority. Buckinghamshire LEA spent(a) £2,250 per primary school pupil and (b) £3,030 per secondary school pupil in the 2000–01 financial year. The Department is in the process of collecting data for the 2001–02 financial year and I will write to the hon. Member when it is available. Data for 2002–03 will not be collected until September 2003.

  Skills Base
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent analysis has been
  95W
  carried out by the Learning and Skills Council of the skills base in coalfield areas compared to the national average. [82276]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if a child who is assessed as having special educational needs which are best met in a mainstream maintained school will be permitted to attend such a school; and if the LEA will have a duty to find a school place for that child. [81052]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]If no statement is maintained for a child, they must be educated in a mainstream school. Children with statements of special educational needs should also be taught in a mainstream school and the LEA should find a place for them where parents wish it, and it is not incompatible with the efficient education of other children. This will also apply to accommodation centre residents who subsequently remain in this country after leaving the centre. For children and their parents who are resident in an accommodation centre, local education authorities will be able to disapply the relevant provisions of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to name a mainstream school in a child's statement, having carried out a statutory assessment of a child's special educational needs, if they consider that the accommodation centre or a special school will not be able to meet the child's needs. We would, however, expect local education authorities to take this course of action only rarely, and the great majority of children will have their special educational needs met appropriately in the accommodation centres.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what education a child with special educational needs who is living in an accommodation centre will receive while their assessment is in the process of being completed. [81069]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]Children with special educational needs will continue to receive education in accommodation centres while they are being assessed. Education provided within the accommodation centres will have the same broad range and be of equivalent quality to that provided in mainstream schools, including support through School Action and School Action Plus under the Special needs Code of Practice.

  Student Loans
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the interest rates charged to students who receive loans from the Student Loans Company. [82418]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support.96W
  The document will be published in January; it would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or what is not planned.

  University Merger (London)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he has been consulted on the proposed merger of Imperial College and University College, London. [82420]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been consulted. I understand that Imperial College and University College, London announced their decision not to merge on 18 November.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what he estimates the annual cost of credit card fraud to be in the UK economy; [80735]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with credit card companies and the banking industry regarding credit card fraud. [80734]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not compile estimates of the cost of credit card fraud and this information is not available from police recorded crime statistics.

  In the publication, "2002: Fraud in Focus", the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) estimated the losses from cheque, debit and credit or charge card fraud at £317 million in 2000 and £411.4 million in 2001. APACS recently estimated losses in the 12months to August 2002 at £429.4 million.

  I met representatives of APACS in January 2002 to discuss the establishment of a joint national cheque and credit card fraud squad. The Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Card Unit came into existence in April 2002, with funding provided by both the private sector and the Government. Home Office officials hold quarterly meetings with representatives from APACS and the British Bankers Association (BBA) to monitor the Unit's progress.

  In addition, Home Office officials hold regular discussions with key representatives from the credit card companies and the banking industry about credit card fraud and progress of the project to introduce microchips into payment cards to help their authentication and personal identification numbers (PINs) in place of signatures.

  Hearsay Evidence
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the treatment of hearsay evidence. [80499]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the proposals set out in the Government White Paper, "Justice for All", we will allow reported evidence, 'hearsay', to be included in criminal proceedings if there is a good reason for the original maker not to be able to give evidence personally
  97W
  (e.g. through illness or death); or where records have been reliably compiled by businesses. In these circumstances, the evidence should automatically go in. The courts would also have the powers to decide that other evidence of this sort can be given, with certain safeguards.

  Furthermore, under these reforms, witnesses' previous and original statements would be more widely admissible at trials in order to make it easier for them to give their evidence.

  Police Constables (Nottinghamshire)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans have been made for the recruiting of additional Special Constables in Nottinghamshire Constabulary's 'B' Division. [80699]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise that the Special Constabulary has a vital role to play in reducing crime and providing reassurance to the public.

  We are working with stakeholders on a variety of measures to help forces improve the recruitment, management and deployment of Specials, including good practice guidance.

  We have set aside £300,000 to help "Specials Champions" drive forward initiatives to support the development of the guidance. The "Champions Initiative" will help identify effective local recruitment practices and procedures, including recruitment from visible ethnic minority communities and also other groups which, traditionally, have been harder to attract to the special constabulary.

  Taser M26
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the deterrent capabilities of the Taser M26. [80624]

  Mr. Denham
  The deterrent capabilities of Taser were considered by the Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch in their second phase report on less lethal technology, which was published in November 2001.

  Trial by Jury
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on trial by jury. [80498]

  Hilary Benn
  The responses to the consultation exercise are currently being considered. I will arrange to publish them in due course.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since their introduction in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [81177]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) is a civil order made by a court which currently can be applied for by a local authority or the police. There have not been any 98W
  notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued within the Chiltern district council local government area, which includes Chesham and Amersham. The table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued within Buckinghamshire by local government authority up to 30 June 2002 (latest available).

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made locally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders reported to the Home Office which have been issued as from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2002 within Buckinghamshire by local government authority

  Area

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2002

  Total

  Police force area/MCC

  Thames Valley

  1

  29

  10

  Local government authority

  County of Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes BC

  3—

  3

  3

  Wycombe DC

  3—

  2

  2

  1 Total figure only available for Thames Valley police force area within this period. Local government authority not known

  2Includes total figure for counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire

  3Not available

  Burrell Case
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department was informed of the collapse of Regina v. Paul Burrell; and if he will make a statement. [81716]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The Attorney General kept my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed of developments immediately prior to the collapse of the Paul Burrell trial. This was a matter of courtesy; the Home Secretary has no responsibility for the conduct of criminal trials, the prosecution of which are entirely the responsibility of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81834]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]With the exception of a limited number of staff who are entitled to claim excess fares allowance on permanent transfer, Home Office staff are responsible for paying their own everyday home to office travel costs. The introduction of a Central London Road User charge will not affect this. Home Office staff who travel on official business are required to use the most efficient and economical means of travel, taking all costs into account. Subject to that, staff who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.
  99W
  The estimated cost of the charge in relation to Home Office fleet vehicles is £53,000 per year. The additional cost in relation to individual journeys on official duty is not expected to represent a significant element of the overall budget for official travelling and related costs.

  Conviction Rates
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the conviction rate was in relation to the overall number of estimated crimes in each year since 1992. [81002]

  Mr. Denham
  Convictions for offences covered under the definition of recorded crime are only available on a consistent basis for all areas for 1998–99, 1999–00 and 2000–01. The available information is contained in the table.

  Convictions for notifiable offences as a percentage of recorded crime, England and Wales, 1992–2001–02

  Period

  Recorded crime

  Convictions

  Convictions as a percentage of recorded crime

  1992

  5,591,717

  —

  —

  1993

  5,526,255

  —

  —

  1994

  5,258,139

  —

  —

  1995

  5,100.241

  —

  —

  1996

  5,036,552

  —

  —

  1997

  4,598,327

  —

  —

  1998–99

  5,109,089

  755,705

  14.8

  1999–2000

  5,301,187

  756,629

  14.3

  2000–01

  5,170,843

  706,277

  13.7

  2001–02

  5,527,028

  —

  —

  Notes:

  Criminal Statistics, England and Wales

  Crime in England and Wales, 2001–02

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Cycling (Accidents)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his policy that, in a motor accident between a driver and a cyclist, the driver should be presumed to be at fault. [82569]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There is no legal presumption to this effect, and the Government do not intend to introduce one. Road traffic law is based on the principle that the prime consideration in deciding how to deal with road traffic offenders should be the degree of culpability. In many cases, even though an accident between a driver and a cyclist might have had tragic consequences, the driver may not have been at fault. In the police investigation of such an accident, the cyclist and driver are treated on exactly the same basis. Any decision as to charges against either party will depend on an assessment of all the evidence available.

  IT Securtity
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80777]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office and its agencies use a variety of information technology (IT) systems, ranging from stand-alone machines to large networks. Those 100W
  systems processing sensitive information are subject to on-going IT security accreditation checks by the Departmental Security Unit.

  The number of cases of digital attacks detected on Home Office systems was (a) 108 in October and (b) 2,518 in 2002.

  All these cases involved the detection and prevention of computer viruses. There were no recorded instances of hacking.

  Murder (Sentencing Tariffs)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in relation to tariff-setting arrangements for those convicted of murder. [83771]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The House of Lords has made decisions today in two cases that deal with the arrangements for the sentencing of adults convicted of murder. These judgments concern matters of fundamental significance for the criminal justice system and the role of Parliament and Ministers in formulating policy on the provision of adequate punishment for the guilty and the protection of the public.

  In the case of Pyrah and Lichniak, the House of Lords has confirmed that the mandatory life sentence for murder is compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. This sentence will remain in place.

  The case of Anderson deals with the Home Secretary's power to set the tariff, or minimum period a convicted murderer must remain in custody until he becomes eligible for release. This power has ensured ministerial accountability to Parliament within the criminal justice system for the punishment imposed for the most heinous and serious of crimes. When Parliament took its decision to abolish the death penalty for murder, this was the framework with which it was replaced. The House of Lords has not ruled that the Home Secretary's power is unlawful. All existing tariffs therefore stand. The House of Lords has declared instead that the Home Secretary's power to set tariffs for those convicted of murder is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The existing law and tariffs set according to it therefore remain until new legislation is in place.

  This judgment will affect only the issue of who sets the tariff in each case. As is proper in a democracy, Parliament will continue to retain the paramount role of setting a clear framework within which the minimum period to be served will be established. I am determined that there should continue to be accountability to Parliament for these most critical decisions. This is fundamental to our democracy and to the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system.

  We need to study the judgment carefully before finalising our proposals but I intend to legislate this Session to establish a clear set of principles within which

  101W
  the courts will fix tariffs in the future. These principles will be debated and agreed by both Houses of Parliament and in setting a tariff, the judge will be required, in open court, to give reasons if the term being imposed departs from those principles. The Attorney General already has powers in relation to unduly lenient sentences and it will be open to him to challenge any tariff which he does not consider to be consistent with these principles.

  These principles will set a framework within which judicial discretion, which is an essential feature of sentencing, will operate. They will be robust and comprehensive. We envisage that they will comprise a statement of the major guiding principles followed by a series of clear messages about the tariffs Parliament expects to be imposed for different categories of murder. The principles will provide entry points for particular categories of murder, which would be adjusted up or down in line with specified aggravating and mitigating factors. The principles will set out that for the most serious crimes— such as the sexual, sadistic murder of children— life should mean life. The principles will incorporate the same aggravating factors upon which previous Home Secretaries and I have based our decisions. These factors will include murder committed in the course of armed robbery or the murder of prison or police officers in the course of their duty as set out to Parliament by my predecessor Leon Brittan in 1983. In

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total number of currently recorded homicides

  33

  29

  33

  25

  36

  Number of homicides where victim known to suspect

  20

  18

  18

  12

  20

  Proportion of homicides where victim known to suspect (percentage)

  61

  62

  55

  48

  56

  Number of homicides with suspect

  30

  26

  33

  23

  34

  Percentage of homicides with suspect

  91

  90

  100

  92

  94

  As at 3 October 2001, figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  North Wales Police
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much(a) Home Office funding, (b) National Assembly funding and (c) local authority funding was received by North Wales police in each of the last 10 years at present-day prices. [80579]

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

  £ million

  Home Office grant1

  National Assembly for Wales grant2

  Council tax

  Total in cash terms

  Total at 2001–02 prices3

  1995–964

  35.3

  24.5

  8.8

  68.6

  80.2

  1996–97

  37.6

  24.0

  10.7

  72.3

  81.9

  1997–98

  37.3

  25.1

  11.2

  73.6

  80.9

  1998–99

  39.1

  24.1

  13.6

  76.8

  82.1

  1999–2000

  38.7

  25.9

  15.7

  80.2

  83.8

  2000–01

  41.5

  26.1

  18.8

  86.3

  88.2

  2001–02

  46.0

  28.0

  20.1

  94.1

  94.1

  2002–035

  49.6

  28.7

  23.6

  102.0

  99.5

  102W
  the case of existing tariffs, these arrangements will ensure that any judicial reconsideration is on the basis of this same set of principles.

  I believe that coupled with the new arrangements for the determination of release of mandatory life prisoners by the Parole Board, under which I will have an opportunity to make representations on the impact of any future offending by the prisoner concerned, the provisions I have outlined will amount to a sensible and secure scheme for the management of life sentences generally. The new scheme will be compatible with our Human Rights obligations and will also ensure that Parliament has established the framework for dealing with the most dangerous and evil people in our society.

  Murder Statistics (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many murders in Leeds were committed by a person well known to the victim in the last five years; and what proportion of the total number of murders this represents; [81484]

  (2) what the clear up rate for murders committed in Leeds was in the last five years. [81485]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of homicides held centrally locate the offence by police force area only. The available information relates to currently recorded offences of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) by West Yorkshire police and is given in the following table.

  1Home Office grant includes principal formula police grant, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing grant, capital grant, DMA funding and Airwave grant. Under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) floors and ceilings arrangements, police authorities in England were guaranteed a minimum increase in principal formula police and ODPM grants of 2.3 per cent, for 2002–03. Floors and ceilings are not applied by the National Assembly for Wales, but to ensure North Wales benefited from a minimum increase of 2.3 per cent., my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary exceptionally agreed to make a special payment to North Wales police authority of £362,000.

  2 National Assembly for Wales grant includes national non domestic rates and revenue support grant.

  3 Real terms are at 2001–02 prices using gross domestic product deflator at 27 September 2002.

  4Before 1995–96, when most police authorities became independent local authorities, revenue support grant and national non domestic rates were paid as part of respective county council grant funding.

  5The grant figure for 2002–03 is not directly comparable with that for 2001–02 owing to changes in funding for the National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service, now funded centrally rather than through police authorities. On a comparable basis, grant for 2001—02 would be £93.3 million.

  Police
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what areas of police(a) deployment,

  103W
  (b) management and (c) enforcement he is responsible to Parliament for in terms of parliamentary questions. [80526]

  Mr. Denham
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible to Parliament for an efficient and effective police service in England and Wales. To that end the Police Reform Act 2002 has extended the scope of regulations, codes of practice and directions to take remedial action that the Secretary of State may issue. The Secretary of State shares with chief officers of police and police authorities the management of policing, but is not responsible for the deployment of police officers and staff. Nor is he responsible for enforcing the law— this is a matter for those who hold the office of a constable or who have otherwise been given specific powers by Parliament. The control and direction of police officers and police support staff is vested in the chief constable, save for those staff who by agreement work for the police authority.

  In former times, the Secretary of State has declined to answers related to police operations and this has been upheld by the Speaker. Recent Secretaries of State have often tried to accommodate hon. members with specific information relating to the police. Most information should be sought direct from the chief officer of police or the police authority.

  Clifford Police Station (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many days York's Clifford street police station was closed during and following the flood in York in November 2000; what was the revenue cost to the North Yorkshire police authority of the closure; what assessment he has made of the wider economic cost to other people in North Yorkshire who use the police station and are protected by its services; what damage was done to the building; how much it cost to repair; and whether the cost of the repairs was covered by insurance. [80997]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Constable of North Yorkshire police informs me that Clifford street police station was closed for the period between 3 November 2000 and mid February 2001.

  The main damage was to decorations and the flooring. The cost to the force, including cleaning and moving, was approximately £18,800. This was covered by the force's insurance.

  During the closure services were provided from the nearby Fulford road station. The force informs me that there may have been a marginal effect on response times but that there was no great effect on residents or businesses in the city centre.

  Community Support Officers (Nottinghamshire)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce community support officers into Nottinghamshire Constabulary's 'B' Division. [80703]

  Mr. Denham
  On 23 September my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a fund of 19 million for the recruitment of more than 1,000 Community Support.
  104W
  Officer's (CSOs) in England and Wales this financial year. 27 forces bid successfully for a share of this funding.

  Nottinghamshire is among the forces which will benefit from this. They bid successfully for £222,577 to recruit and train 12 CSOs and will deploy them on certain estates in the city of Nottingham.

  Deployment of CSOs is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force concerned. I understand there are no current plans to introduce CSOs into Nottinghamshire's 'B' Division.

  Police Paperwork
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce paperwork for police officers. [82149]

  Mr. Denham
  Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce was commissioned to give the Government a police service view of what could be done to tackle the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices which keep police officers off the streets. The taskforce report highlighted ways to free up significant amounts of officers' time. We have now set up a steering group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office, to take the taskforce recommendations forward.

  The Government recognise its responsibilities to support this work, including considering changes to legislation where necessary. Indeed, in line with a number of taskforce recommendations, the Police Reform Act 2002 has already made the necessary changes in the law to enable chief officers to expand the range of functions that support staff can perform in the custody suite. We will also ensure that significant funding is made available to improve police information technology. This is a vital opportunity to change the culture and management of the police service and bring about a real difference to the everyday lives of officers on the front line.

  Police Recruitment (Medical Standards)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to provide new guidelines to police forces on medical standards for police officer recruitment. [80924]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]The medical and eyesight standards for entry into the police service have been reviewed as a part of the national recruitment standards project.

  We expect to receive the draft recommendations for the medical standards early next year. Following the consultation period the medical standards will be put in place.

  The draft recommendations for the eyesight standards have been circulated to forces for comments. Following consultation the new eyesight standards will be put in place early next year.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to meet the Acting Chief Constable of Leicester concerning ethnic minority recruitment. [81503]
  105W
  Mr. Denham
  I have no current plans to do so. Support and assistance is being offered to forces on ethnic minority recruitment through annual reviews by the Home Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate Constabulary against agreed interim targets. Good or promising practice in the areas of recruitment, retention and progression will be promulgated when identified.

  Police Transfers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis concerning the current advertising campaign by the Metropolitan police to encourage police officers of Thames Valley to leave their employment and work in the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement. [82380]

  Mr. Denham
  I am aware of the concern about the recent advertisements issued by the Metropolitan police.

  It is healthy to have a degree of interchange of experience between police forces, to allow officers to pursue their personal and career development. But we have made clear that it is essential that recruitment exercises should be conducted in a responsible manner that does not cause operational difficulties for colleagues in other forces.

  Retail Workers (Assaults)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the trends in assaults on workers in the retail sector; and what action he has taken in the light of such assessments. [80541]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics are not collected on a regular basis about assaults on shop staff. However, we have launched the first independent crime victimisation study of the retail and manufacturing sectors for 10 years. This will gather valuable information about the types of crime businesses suffer and help in developing the best ways to tackle these. In May 2002 we issued "Don't Discount Crime", a new user-friendly crime reduction guide for retailers. This is of particular relevance to small retailers and includes basic guidance on what steps to take to reduce crime as well as what to do in crime situations. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also published "Work-related violence: managing the risk in

  Special constable total strength, September 1995 to March 2002

  September 1995

  March 1996

  September 1996

  March 1997

  September 1997

  March 1998

  September 1998

  March 1999

  September 1999

  March 2000

  September 2000

  March 2001

  September 2001

  March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  676

  688

  662

  759

  629

  621

  584

  547

  482

  459

  416

  400

  391

  364

  Bedfordshire

  196

  189

  189

  182

  186

  186

  175

  154

  148

  151

  134

  115

  119

  118

  Cambridgeshire

  264

  275

  302

  303

  336

  320

  308

  310

  293

  274

  214

  218

  197

  207

  Cheshire

  269

  274

  350

  475

  491

  459

  416

  407

  358

  350

  307

  290

  233

  191

  Cleveland

  204

  195

  180

  160

  157

  164

  136

  126

  108

  128

  122

  93

  98

  85

  Cumbria

  221

  201

  184

  189

  184

  198

  210

  204

  193

  176

  167

  156

  125

  102

  Derbyshire

  440

  413

  405

  428

  414

  380

  355

  317

  303

  282

  286

  275

  263

  260

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,079

  1,102

  1,133

  1,148

  1,079

  1,024

  916

  918

  908

  870

  836

  796

  780

  689

  Dorset

  230

  254

  263

  289

  325

  315

  303

  305

  287

  298

  278

  267

  258

  253

  Durham

  192

  187

  187

  184

  178

  144

  159

  159

  169

  157

  155

  146

  146

  134

  Essex

  548

  608

  614

  634

  641

  638

  590

  544

  528

  483

  478

  445

  413

  381

  Gloucestershire

  330

  330

  315

  297

  287

  276

  245

  233

  221

  206

  197

  183

  153

  154

  Greater Manchester

  749

  746

  710

  685

  657

  598

  567

  523

  498

  457

  408

  367

  355

  338

  Hampshire

  549

  564

  519

  621

  681

  698

  747

  760

  720

  615

  500

  454

  437

  444

  Hertfordshire

  307

  315

  309

  297

  306

  306

  267

  238

  232

  216

  214

  198

  177

  206

  Humberside

  380

  391

  363

  340

  348

  324

  289

  269

  263

  246

  198

  212

  207

  207

  Kent

  598

  555

  545

  589

  588

  592

  565

  526

  484

  436

  416

  392

  366

  327

  106W
  smaller businesses" on 9 July 2002. The publication includes 10 case studies on reducing risk of violence to staff.

  Security Alert Rating
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the security alert rating was for the country in each year since 1997. [81005]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There is no single national alert system. Different systems apply in various public sectors, and there is a range of alert systems for critical industries, aviation and maritime interests, dependent on the circumstances of each. These are based upon assessments provided centrally.

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidelines he has published for issuing shotgun licences; and if he will make a statement. [82130]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Chapter 11 of the Home Office publication, "Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police", provides an overview of the shotgun certificate procedure. The guidance was published in March this year, but has been available on the Home Office website since December 2001.

  It is for the police to determine in individual cases whether or not to issue, refuse or to revoke a certificate.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were employed by each police service in each year since 1992. [81003]

  Mr. Denham
  For 1992 and 1993 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) collected data on the number of special constables in England and Wales at the end of the calendar year. In December 1992 there were 19,035 special constables. The figure for December 1993 was 20,573. The HMIC data was collected for the financial year 1994–95 when there were 20,026 special constables.

  Since 1995, data on special constabulary strength has been collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate for end of March and September each year. This is shown in the table.
  107W

  Special constable total strength, September 1995 to March 2002

  September 1995

  March 1996

  September 1996

  March 1997

  September 1997

  March 1998

  September 199S

  March 1999

  September 1999

  March 2000

  September 2000

  March 2001

  September 2001

  March 2002

  Lancashire

  594

  553

  510

  483

  500

  489

  465

  449

  397

  382

  362

  360

  325

  363

  Leicestershire

  334

  360

  391

  415

  402

  406

  350

  316

  303

  247

  202

  162

  155

  143

  Lincolnshire

  311

  299

  279

  271

  273

  260

  233

  216

  218

  195

  179

  166

  160

  155

  City of London

  81

  77

  90

  86

  84

  76

  69

  64

  66

  56

  46

  43

  34

  36

  Merseyside

  349

  333

  392

  401

  407

  419

  463

  458

  467

  476

  452

  541

  507

  468

  Metropolitan police

  1,657

  1,850

  1,797

  1,714

  1,528

  1,282

  1,214

  1,138

  1,173

  758

  754

  774

  753

  680

  Norfolk

  325

  319

  311

  402

  346

  337

  351

  336

  317

  285

  270

  259

  240

  244

  Northamptonshire

  298

  289

  301

  316

  314

  288

  262

  230

  210

  199

  195

  188

  177

  177

  Northumbria

  479

  471

  458

  533

  480

  400

  352

  342

  356

  332

  323

  300

  276

  256

  North Yorkshire

  359

  360

  368

  362

  337

  358

  302

  276

  245

  217

  189

  182

  186

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  534

  537

  596

  620

  597

  558

  530

  461

  405

  411

  411

  335

  281

  341

  South Yorkshire

  423

  381

  330

  308

  295

  281

  266

  246

  236

  205

  193

  188

  189

  206

  Staffordshire

  687

  702

  752

  685

  643

  595

  558

  468

  460

  482

  461

  402

  395

  384

  Suffolk

  419

  407

  391

  379

  300

  397

  402

  420

  420

  391

  376

  349

  322

  308

  Surrey

  241

  260

  248

  297

  231

  235

  226

  224

  205

  175

  168

  149

  176

  187

  Sussex

  514

  511

  485

  472

  465

  442

  415

  393

  377

  352

  317

  306

  301

  306

  Thames Valley

  764

  744

  731

  656

  694

  609

  587

  569

  514

  472

  463

  418

  377

  356

  Warwickshire

  351

  340

  357

  381

  379

  345

  323

  261

  260

  260

  260

  221

  208

  209

  West Mercia

  587

  613

  564

  582

  558

  512

  499

  515

  512

  476

  443

  399

  364

  339

  West Midlands

  849

  897

  913

  945

  949

  889

  784

  731

  697

  680

  662

  617

  604

  598

  West Yorkshire

  783

  709

  664

  690

  604

  589

  590

  559

  572

  484

  452

  415

  371

  349

  Wiltshire

  259

  233

  120

  154

  150

  149

  176

  184

  182

  173

  172

  152

  160

  147

  Dyfed Powys

  304

  314

  309

  283

  241

  254

  237

  237

  237

  202

  193

  191

  174

  157

  Gwent

  129

  136

  157

  157

  149

  119

  114

  113

  110

  119

  131

  137

  148

  142

  North Wales

  323

  332

  324

  341

  388

  358

  336

  400

  262

  247

  233

  207

  203

  125

  South Wales

  469

  461

  383

  361

  362

  366

  360

  338

  331

  267

  254

  254

  250

  277

  Total

  19,655

  19,775

  19,451

  19,874

  19,163

  18,256

  17,296

  16,484

  15,727

  14,347

  13,487

  12,722

  12,054

  11,598

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving special constables there are; and how many there were in each year since 1997. [81909]

  Mr. Denham
  Data on the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate for the end of March and September each year. The numbers of special constables from March 1997 to March 2002 are given in the table.

  Special constabulary strength 1997–2002

  Number

  March 1997

  19,874

  September 1997

  19,163

  March 1998

  18,256

  September 1998

  17,296

  March 1999

  16,484

  September 1999

  15,727

  March 2000

  14,347

  September 2000

  13,487

  March 2001

  12,722

  September 2001

  12,054

  March 2002

  11,598

  Note:

  Figures supplied by Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on measures taken to recruit special constables. [81910]

  Mr. Denham
  We are supporting forces in the recruitment of special constables through advertising and promotional material. In the last year, the Home Office has run a police specials recruitment campaign in the national press. Advertisements appeared under the police "Could You?" campaign branding and sought to demonstrate the kind of situations that a special constable could face.
  108W
  Information is not available on the direct effect on recruitment, but expressions of interest on the hotline number and website rose from 247 in December 2001 to 1,681 in January 2002 when the ads were first run.

  We have also produced new recruitment literature, which will be sent to all new inquirers interested in becoming a special constable. A new information pack is also being produced for employers to promote the potential benefits business can derive from supporting staff who are interested in joining the special constabulary.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what charges per officer are imposed by the police force for providing special constables to cover events where necessary. [81915]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally. The decision whether to charge for the provision of special police services under section 25 of the Police Act 1996 is a matter for police authorities and chief constables.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will break down the cost, per officer, of training and equipping specials within the special constabulary. [81916]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not held centrally.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations his Department has received concerning initiatives encouraging public sector employers to allow employees leave to serve in the special constabulary; [81919]

  (2)what representations his Department has received from the special constabulary regarding payment and conditions; [81908]

  (3)what representations his Department has received concerning the average length of time served by a special constable within the service; [81914]
  109W
  (4)what representations his Department has received concerning the success of advertising for recruitment within the special constabulary; [81913]

  (5)what representations his Department has received regarding the effectiveness of the special constabulary; [81907]

  (6)what representations his Department has received regarding the introduction of (a) pay and (b) benefits for the special constabulary; [81906]

  (7)what recent representations his Department has received regarding the number of special constables leaving the special constabulary. [81911]

  Mr. Denham
  We consult regularly with representatives of the special constabulary and other stakeholders on the future development of the special constabulary and on conditions of service issues.

  We believe that the special constabulary has a vital role to play in combating crime and providing reassurance to the public.

  We are working with stakeholders on a package of measures which are designed to increase the size of the special constabulary. We intend to amend the Special Constabulary Regulations to provide greater flexibility for police authorities to a limited number of trial schemes for making small payments to specials. These trial schemes will require the approval of the Secretary of State. A new headline role for specials has been agreed and a national "foundation" training package developed. We are working on joint Home Office/ Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering all aspects of the recruitment, management and deployment of specials.

  We have identified a number of "special champions" projects to take forward initiatives to support the good practice guidance and have allocated £300,000 this year for this work.

  We fully recognise the contribution employers can make to supporting the work of specials. We are looking at how we can develop closer links with employers to increase awareness of the range of skills specials acquire through their training and operational experience and to encourage engagement with the special constabulary.

  Stolen Art and Artefacts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to provide a national database of stolen art and artefacts; and if he will make a statement. [80983]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is considering with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the National Crime Intelligence Service and the police, the feasibility of implementing a national database of unlawfully obtained cultural property as recommended by the House of Commons Select Committee in a report entitled "Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade" published in July 2000.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces employ specialists in stolen art and artefacts. [80985]
  110W
  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not keep a central record of which forces employ specialists in stolen art and artefacts but all police forces in England and Wales appoint a due diligence officer who is a focal point for dealing with art and antiques crimes within their force.

  Strip Searching
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are of the research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of strip searching; what consideration he has given to providing the manual completion and compiling of strip search records while an IT solution is being prepared; and what information on strip searches he has tasked the Prison Service IT provider to monitor. [81213]

  Hilary Benn
  The research into strip-searching to be conducted by the University of Nottingham was commissioned as a response to the review of searching. The Prison Service accommodates large and diverse populations all of which may have differing experiences and attitudes to strip-searching. The research was commissioned to identify whether, and if so what, changes can be made in the procedures for strip searching to improve its effectiveness. The aim of the research is to consider the views of staff, their approach and demeanour while conducting strip searches and the perceptions of prisoners of strip searching A copy of the review of searching is available in the Library.

  While some records of strip searches are kept, for example of cell searches, to record every search would pose an unacceptable administrative burden and could only be achieved at a disproportionate cost. Manual records do not allow for easy analysis or collation of statistics and it is for these reasons that an Information Technology (IT) solution is being developed.

  The IT provider for the Prison Service has been asked to produce a system that will enable all prisons to record the frequency and outcomes of strip searches, to provide information on the prisoner, such as age, gender and ethnicity, the reason for the search, the amount of time taken to conduct the search, a record of finds, and a facility that can generate statistical information on strip searches.

  Mr. Kevin McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the use of strip searches and alternative body search technology in the prison regimes of other Council of Europe Member States. [81223]

  Hilary Benn
  The Police and Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) are responsible for carrying out technological research for the Prison Service. They are constantly looking at any new technology that is available on the market to ascertain if it would be suitable for use in prisons and the Prison Service has set aside resources to enable the Police Scientific Development Branch to do this. At present, there are no suitable available alternatives capable of finding all items found during a rub down or strip-search, such as drugs, weapons, or other contraband.
  111W
  All searches are carried out in accordance with legislation and European Court of Human Rights, and any new technology available on the market would not be considered if in any way either was breached.

  Telephone Tapping (MPs)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the tapping of telephones of hon. Members. [80518]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) informed the House on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 367W, Government policy remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the house of

  Persons aged 10 to 20 convicted of all offences at both magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in April 1997 and April 2000, those sentenced to immediate custody and average sentence length, England and Wales and North Yorkshire

  England and Wales

  North Yorkshire

  England and Wales

  North Yorkshire

  England and Wales

  North Yorkshire

  April 1997

  19,997

  268

  1,877

  19

  11.3

  7.4

  April 2000

  18,530

  219

  1,866

  20

  9.6

  5.4

  The average sentence served is available for young offenders (aged under 21) discharged from prison. Table 3.13 in Prison Statistics England and Wales 2000 provides statistics on the average time served for young offenders discharged during 2000 from determinate sentences on completion of sentence or on licence. Equivalent information for those discharged in 1997 is given in Table 3.13 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 1997. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Figures for North Yorkshire are contained in the table.

CABINET OFFICE

  PIU Report on Sport
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the PIU Report on Sport will be published. [82533]

  Mr. Alexander
  The joint Strategy Unit/DCMS Report on Sport will be published in due course.

  Charter Marks
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government Departments hold(a) a Charter Mark and (b) a Plain English web award. [83300]

  Mr. Alexander
  No Government Departments are Charter Mark holders themselves.

  Currently 2,485 organisations within the public sector are Charter Mark holders, covering a wide range of sectors such as health, education, the courts, the employment service, Inland Revenue, local government
  112W
  Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, the Prime Minister would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it.

  Young Offenders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were successfully prosecuted in(a) April 1997 and (b) April 2002 and what was the average sentence (i) given and (ii) served in (a) England and Wales and (b) North Yorkshire. [81767]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information, relating to April 1997 and April 2000 is contained in the table.

  Information for 2000 is the latest currently available, that for 2001 being published in December and that for 2002 due for publication in the Autumn of 2003.

  and Police Forces. For example, all but a handful of local authorities have been awarded Charter Marks for a total of 874 individual services.

  Plain English awards are a matter for individual Departments and are not coordinated centrally. There is no central record of these awards maintained within the Cabinet Office.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Arson
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many incidents of arson there have been in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992. [83139]

  Mr. Leslie
  The table contains information on the number of malicious fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom in each year between 1992 and 2000 (the latest year for which data are available). Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected (this includes fires which were recorded by the brigade as 'doubtful').

  Malicious fires attended by location, UK, 1992–20001

  Thousands2

  Total

  Dwellings

  Location Other buildings

  Road vehicles

  Other outdoors

  1992

  79.5

  10.6

  15.7

  47.8

  5.5

  1993

  80.2

  10.8

  16.9

  46.6

  6.0

  19943

  84.6

  13.7

  22.4

  40.3

  8.2

  1995

  85.5

  13.8

  21.9

  41.5

  8.3

  1996

  88.4

  14.3

  21.4

  44.4

  8.3

  1997

  82.6

  13.8

  18.9

  42.2

  7.6

  1998

  86.2

  13.4

  17.1

  48.8

  7.0

  1999

  103.0

  13.9

  17.9

  63.0

  8.2

  113W

  Malicious fires attended by location, UK, 1992—20001

  Thousands2

  Total

  Dwellings

  Location Other buildings

  Road vehicles

  Other outdoors

  20001

  111.1

  14.2

  18.0

  70.8

  8.2

  1Provisional.

  2Figures are rounded and the components do not necessarily sum to the independently rounded totals.

  3Figures from 1994 are based on sample data weighted to brigade totals. They include 'late' calls and heat and smoke damage only incidents, which were not recorded prior to 1994.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many incidents of arson there were in(a) Chesterfield and (b) Derbyshire in each year since 1997. [83140]

  Mr. Leslie
  In 2000, the Fire Service in Derbyshire attended 1,225 fires where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected (this includes fires which were recorded by the brigade as 'doubtful'). This compares to 1,244 such fires in 1999, 1,003 in 1998 and 949 in 1997. Incident data are not available below brigade area level. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Asylum Seekers (London)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the financial impact on each London borough of their duties with regard to asylum seekers and refugees; and what assistance he has given to London boroughs to cope with these financial pressures. [80539]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have looked carefully with local government during the spending reviews at all the pressures that they face. Additionally, we have provided local authorities with increases in general revenue grant since taking office. London boroughs received an average general grant increase of 5.6 per cent, in the current financial year.

  We have also revised the formats of the grants providing essential living needs of asylum seekers supported under the Asylum Support (Interim Scheme) Regulations 1999, as amended and are looking to do the same with the grant for unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to provide resources to house the families with children in Redbridge who reside in temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast accommodation. [80542]

  Mrs. Roche
  In June this year, the London Borough of Redbridge was allocated just over 426,000 to help them reduce the number of homeless families with children in Bed and Breakfast hotels (B&B) and to meet the national commitment of ensuring that by March 2004 no such household is in B&B, other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks. Rebridge will also benefit from the increased housing benefit subsidy rates, estimated nationally at £10 million, introduced in April this year. This provides additional subsidy to local 114W
  authorities to secure self-contained temporary accommodation, rather than B&B, for homeless households.

  The net costs to local authorities of securing accommodation for homeless applicants, apart from those costs related to the use of authorities' own housing stock, are funded through general grant. Grant is distributed through Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) and local authorities' responsibilities in this area are contained within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) SSA block. The London Borough of Redbridge received an increase in it's EPCS SSA of £1.35m which equals a 3 per cent, increase. For local authorities overall, the EPCS SSA is set to increase by an average of 4 per cent, a year up to 2005/06.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is possible for a father's name to be left blank on a birth certificate in a case where the name of the father is known. [82564]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Oliver Letwin dated 25 November 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning whether it is possible for a fathers name to be left blank on a birth certificate in a case where the home of the father is known.
  Under current law, the home of the father is not a factor in whether his name appears on the birth certificate or not.
  There is a common law presumption that a child born to a married woman is the offspring of the mother and her husband. In these circumstances, the law requires the husband's name to be recorded as the father in the birth registration unless that presumption is rebutted.
  Where the parents are not married to each other, there is no such presumption of paternity. By law, the name of the child's father may be recorded in the birth registration only where paternity is acknowledged by both parents or where it has been established by an appropriate court order. Otherwise the father's name would be left blank.

  Children in Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions his Department has had with(a) the Department of Education and Skills and (b) the Department of Health regarding runaway children in care. [83275]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently working on projects on both the educational attainment of children in care and young runaways. Ministers and officials from the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Health have been very closely involved in both projects.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people over the age of 60(a) are employed in the civil service and (b) were appointed to full-time positions in the civil service in the last 12 months. [82535]
  115W
  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the age of civil servants is collected centrally via the Mandate system, which covers about 98 per cent, of those employed, (a) In April 2002, there were 8,540 civil servants aged over 60, representing 1.7 per cent, of the total, (b) In the year to April 2002, 350 staff aged over 60 were recruited to full-time posts. This represents 0.5 per cent, of all new full-time appointees.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the employment of people over the age of 60 in the civil service. [82536]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  In line with all employers in the public and private sector, the Government believes that the civil service should be allowed to determine retirement age policy with regard to its business needs while giving staff as much choice as possible about when they retire. Departments and agencies are free to set the normal retirement age for their own staff subject only to the requirement that the minimum age at which civil servants can retire with full superannuation benefits is 60.

  Against this background, 75 per cent, of the civil service now has the option to remain in work until 65, and a further 11 per cent, has the option to remain in work on short service concessions. Those Departments and agencies which have decided that there is a strong case for retaining a retirement age of 60 in the current circumstances will be expected to continue to re-examine the issue and look positively at offering more flexibilities to older staff.

  The normal retirement age for the senior civil service is 60. However, Heads of Departments and Agency Chief Executives have the flexibility to retain members of the senior civil service beyond 60 if they judge it to be in the public interest and are satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  Contaminated Land (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land in the Greater London area is contaminated; and if he will make a statement. [82734]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no figures currently available on how much land in the Greater London area is contaminated. A survey of London boroughs was carried out by LP AC in 1993 that indicated that at that time there were about 1,400 hectares of land that were not able to be developed for an alternative use without a significant degree of treatment.

  Since April 2000 local authorities in England have been under a statutory duty to inspect their areas to identify contaminated land under part IIA ("contaminated land") of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. To date, local authorities have mostly concentrated on preparing inspection strategies. The majority of these have now been been published and for many authorities inspections are under way.
  116W

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many council properties were sold under the right to buy in(a) December 2001 and (b) January 2002; [81704]

  (2)how many council properties were sold under the right to buy in (a) December 2000 and (b) January 2001; [81942]

  (3)how many council properties were sold under the right to buy scheme in (a) December 1999 and (b) January 2000. [82393]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Data on the sale of council dwellings are collected from local authorities in England on a quarterly rather than monthly basis. Information on quarterly right to buy sales is presented in Table 6 of the publication "Housing Statistics, March Quarter 2002", and is also available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is his policy to permit local authorities a greater discretion in the setting of discounts for council tax payable by single people. [82573]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 19 November, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced that we would include provision in our Local Government Bill to enable English and Welsh local authorities to introduce their own locally defined discounts and exemptions. This would allow local authorities to increase the national 25 per cent, single person discount if they so wished. Local authorities would not have power to reduce or remove the current 25 per cent, discount.

  Eden District Council
  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in Eden District Council, Cumbria. [83144]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government have allocated their grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and hopes to do better than that when announcing the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Empty Homes
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to abolish the 50 per cent, discount on council tax for empty homes; and if he will make a statement. [82715]
  117W
  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich announced in a written statement on 19 November that we would be giving English local authorities the discretion to reduce or remove the current 50 per cent, council tax discount on long-term empty property. We are including the necessary provision in our forthcoming Local Government Bill and, subject to parliamentary approval, we aim to implement this change in time for 2004–05 council tax bills.

  English Partnerships
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria are being used to determine whether the coalfield programme is maintained by English Partnerships or the regional development agencies. [82256]

  Mr. McNulty
  In announcing the outcome of the quinquennial review of English Partnerships on 24 July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed English Partnerships' role in regenerating those places most badly affected by abandonment and decay and confirmed that he was asking English Partnerships to continue to operate the National Coalfields Programme. This approach was considered to offer the most effective method of delivering the programme.

  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation with hon. Members is planned on the future of English Partnerships. [82257]

  Mr. McNulty
  Hon. Members were welcome to make their views known on the future of English Partnerships during the recent Quinquennial Review. Views received were taken into account and the outcome of the review was announced to Parliament on 24 July 2002.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the suspension of Mr. Terry Glossop, the commandant of the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh to be resolved; what investigations have taken place; what further investigations need to be undertaken; how many written reports he has received; how many of his officials have been involved; and what reasons underlie the length of time the investigations have lasted. [82656]

  Mr. Leslie
  The investigation into financial regularity and propriety is currently under way. Mr. Glossop is fully aware of the arrangements. As the investigation is on-going it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

  Fire Services (CBRN)
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many CBRN decontamination facilities have been established since 11 September 2001, and where they are. [82389]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have taken steps to assure the efficient functioning of the fire service's existing decontamination facilities and to facilitate, by agreement, the delegation of decontamination operations from local ambulance services to the fire service. Additional equipment, funded from the Capital 118W
  Modernisation Fund, is on order and will be deployed in 2003. Its location is being determined by an assessment of risk.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what costs are being centrally reimbursed to fire authorities in respect of additional expenses they incur due to the strikes by the fire brigade union. [82598]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Central Government will meet the additional costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence in providing emergency fire cover, and by Police Authorities in supporting it. Central Government will not meet any other additional expenses incurred by Fire Authorities due to strikes by the Fire Brigades Union.

  Government Programmes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was budgeted in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 for (i) Excellence in Cities, (ii) Neighbourhood Management and (iii) Business Brokers Programme; what funds budgeted for in each year were not spent; and whether funds were carried forward in each case. [81701]

  Mrs. Roche
  Excellence in Cities (EiC) had a total budget allocation of £182 million for the financial year 2000–01, of this some £12 million was unspent and reverted to the departmental central budget.

  For the financial year 2001–02 the total budget was some £303.1 million. Information is not yet available on amounts left unspent by the EiC Partnerships, however any unspent funds will remain within the EiC authorities to be re-allocated, this reflects new flexibilities now available under the DfES Standards Fund.

  Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders (NMP) and the Business Brokers (BB) are two programmes which form part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's New Ventures Fund (NVF). Plans for both programmes were put in place after the unit was set up in April 2001; there were no budgets for either in 2000–01.

  The NVF had a total budget of £50 million for 2001–02. Of this £6 million was allocated to NMP in 2001–02 and expenditure totalled £2.4 million. BB proposals were less advanced and expenditure totalled £41,000. Some £22 million of NVF funding was unspent to be carried forward.

  Both programmes form part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's spending plans for this year 2002–03 and for the SR2002 period.

  Homelessness
  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless families there are in the UK. [82724]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on local authorities' activities under homelessness provisions in England is published in a quarterly Statistical Release, "Statutory Homelessness: England". Table 2 of the Statistical Release presents a summary of those households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act
  119W
  Copies of the Statistical Release are held in the House Library and the latest edition, published on 11 September, presents statistics up to and including the second quarter of 2002.

  For information about other parts of the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to my. right hon. Friends the members for Torfaen, Airdrie and Shotts and Hamilton North and Bellshill.

  Housing Research
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what internal and external research programmes and reports have been commissioned by(a) the Affordable Housing Unit and (b) the Planning Housing and Growth Unit since February. [81697]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Research Analysis and Evaluation division has commissioned, on behalf of the Affordable Housing Unit and the Government Office for London, three research projects.1. Research aimed at helping to accelerate schemes involving affordable housing through the development process, in April 2002. ("Improving the delivery of Affordable Housing").
  2. Research on the potential to utilise the space above existing buildings in and around London and the south-east (such as garages and supermarkets) for mixed development was published in February 2002.
  3. Research on the potential for using fiscal measures to tackle the affordability problem was commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in late 2001, and published in September 2002.

  As with other parts of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Planning Housing and Growth Unit will be drawing on the departmental research programme which oversees a wide range of urban, housing, planning and development issues. The unit will commission additional research when necessary.

  Local Authorities (Fraud)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if a hotline for reporting fraud within and against local authorities has been introduced. [83269]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since a high proportion of fraud perpetrated against local government is benefit fraud by the public, the Department for Work and Pensions has established a fraud hotline which people can telephone to give information about benefit fraud. Many local authorities have also established fraud hotlines.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have established staff anti-fraud practices; and what form these systems have taken. [83268]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Audit Commission's January 2001 publication "Protecting the Public Purse" included the following summary of anti fraud arrangements in local government:

  Percentage of councils answering 'yes'

  Question

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Does the council have an anti fraud and corruption strategy?

  50

  72

  84

  Does the council have formal arrangements to comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998?

  n/a

  56

  87

  Does the council have a police liaison contact?

  46

  74

  80

  120W

  Percentage of councils answering 'yes'

  Question

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Does the council have a local code of conduct for members?

  89

  91

  92

  Does the council have a standards committee?

  n/a

  26

  57

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of spending by(a) Buckinghamshire county council, (b) South Buckinghamshire district council and (c) Wycombe district council has been financed by council tax payers in each year since January 1996; and what proportion is to be financed by council tax payers in 2002–03. [82386]

  Mr. Leslie
  The proportions of revenue expenditure financed from the council tax for Buckinghamshire county council, South Buckinghamshire district council and Wycombe district council in the financial years 1995–96 to 2002–03 are set out in the table:

  Income from council tax as a percentage of spending

  Year

  Buckinghamshire county council1

  South Buckinghamshire district council

  Wycombe district council

  1995–96

  27

  28

  37

  1996–97

  28

  31

  39

  1997–98

  31

  33

  41

  1998–99

  34

  63

  42

  19999–2000

  34

  48

  47

  2000–01

  35

  58

  55

  2001–022

  34

  55

  35

  2002–032

  1For 1997–98 onwards this excludes the area of Milton Keynes borough council, which became unitary from 1 April 1997.

  22001–02 and 2002–03 are budgeted figur1995–96 to 2000–01 are outturn figures.

  Source:

  1995–96 to 2000–01 Revenue Summary Returns. 2001–02 and 2002–03 Budget Estimate Returns

  Manton Pit Site
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the timescale is for agreement between English Partnerships and the East Midlands Regional Development Agency on the infrastructure works and marketing of the former Manton pit site; [82254]

  (2) what the English Partnerships' budget is to bring the former Manton pit site to the market. [82255]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships and the East Midlands Regional Development Agency have already agreed on much of the infrastructure works and marketing of the former Manton Pit site. In addition, reclamation and the agreed level of infrastructure work has been delivered through an agreement with English Partnerships and the East Midlands Regional Development Agency, which is currently on the market. However, both organisations continue to work towards establishing the needs for further works, and may seek approval for further expenditure depending on the outcome of an economic appraisal which they hope to bring to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister early in 2003.
  121W
  To date, £4.3 million has been approved for investment in Manton Colliery in order to reclaim, service, manage and market the site as well as undertake further feasibility work to consider additional investment.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have implemented the Learning Curve neighbourhood renewal scheme; and if he will list them. [83267]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Learning Curve, published on 21 October, is the Government's strategy to promote better skills and knowledge for everyone working in neighbourhood renewal. It sets out 23 measures, including face to face advice, regional networks, and an innovative website, renewal. net, to ensure that everyone, including local authority staff working in our most deprived areas can acquire the skills and knowledge they need to deliver real, lasting change. Some measures are already in place, others will be developed with a range of organisations, including the Local Government Association and local authorities, over the coming months.

  I have placed a copy of the Learning Curve strategy in the House Libraries.

  Park Homes
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Government's response to the survey on the economics of park homes; and if he will make a statement. [82517]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the publication of the report on the Economics of the Park Homes Industry, which makes an important contribution to addressing issues of concern to park home residents. It highlights the importance of site owners taking a professional approach to financial management of the park, and the need for those who are buying a park home to be aware of their current position under the law and of the costs and risks involved.

  There is no plan to publish a formal Government response to the report.

  Planning
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish his Department's research into the effectiveness of implementation of PPG3 and on the progress made by local authorities in carrying out urban capacity studies; and if he will make a statement. [82456]

  Mr. McNulty
  The intention of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to publish the research by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners on assessing the implementation of PPG3 as soon as possible, however the timing is dependent on satisfactory completion of the report. 90 per cent, of unitary authorities and district councils responding to the questionnaire survey forming part of this research had, by spring 2002, completed an urban housing capacity study or had one in preparation.
  122W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (l)what assessment he has made of(a) partnership working between counties in cross-border policy making on PPG3 issues and (b) the effectiveness of regional planning bodies in facilitating this; and if he will make a statement; [82461]

  (2) whether his Department's review of the effectiveness of the implementation of PPG3 includes, assessment of how sensitively possible conflicts with PPGs 15 and 16 have been resolved in practice; [82462]

  (3) what consultations his Department is having as part of its research into the effectiveness of implementation of PPG3; and whether these consultations include contacts with (a) English Heritage and (b) the DCMS with regard to the impact of urban infill on the historic environment and heritage of cities. [83267]

  Mr. McNulty
  The research for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners on assessing the implementation of PPG3 has:(i) considered cross-boundary working between planning authorities in the context of planning for sub-regional housing markets and the distribution of previously-developed land. The research has found evidence of improvements in joint working since PPG3 was published but also a number of difficulties. The research points to a number of options for addressing these and highlights the important role to be played by our proposed regional spatial strategies.
  (ii) found that protection of the historic environment has been the basis for refusals of planning permission for residential development.
  (iii) included a postal survey of local planning authorities, housing departments, house builders and regional development agencies. This survey has been supplemented by in-depth interviews with a number of organisations across the English regions with first-hand experience in planning for housing. The research team has not discussed the impact of urban infill on the historic environment and heritage of cities with either English Heritage or the DCMS but this matter has been raised by others.

  Public Services (Babergh)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in Babergh. [82841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce the new system for distributing formula grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government have allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Rough Sleepers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department next plans to undertake a street count of those living rough in(a) London and (b) West Sussex. [83274]
  123W
  Mrs. Roche
  Local authorities are responsible for homelessness in their areas and as such also take responsibility for the co-ordination and timing of street counts. It is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister policy that areas where more than ten people are sleeping rough conduct a count at least every twelve months. This would apply to any local authority areas in West Sussex or London.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what methodology is used to count the number of rough sleepers; and what plans he has to change this. [83276]

  Mrs. Roche
  Guidance was first published in 1996 on counting methodology developed in partnership with charities and voluntary organisations helping people sleeping rough. Independent evaluation has confirmed that the methodology remains the most robust method for measuring relative levels of rough sleeping and of change over time.

  Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the counts are undertaken and that the methodology is followed. The snapshot counts should take place on a single night, between 12 am and 6 am. The definition of people who should be included in rough sleeper counts is clearly set out in the guidance. It is: people sleeping, or bedded down, in the open air (such as on the streets, or in doorways, parks or bus shelters); people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations or bashes).

  There are no current plans to change this methodology. Changing the methodology could reduce the value of counts in measuring change.

  Rural Deprivation
  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of rural deprivation in the local government formula grant review. [83146]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 52W.

  Rural Services
  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he has taken of the extra cost of providing services in rural areas in the local government formula grant review. [83145]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 4 November 2002, Official report, column 49W.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research was conducted by his Department into the impact of dispersal and settlement patterns on the cost of providing services in rural areas as part of the local government formula grant review. [83143]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 49–50W.
  124W

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the reports the Social Exclusion Unit is working on and the proposed completion dates in each case. [83271]

  Mrs. Roche
  The SEU is contributing to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's aim to create thriving, inclusive, sustainable communities, with current projects looking at:

  young runaways;

  transport and social exclusion; and

  the educational attainment of children in care.

  We hope that the young runaways and transport reports will be published shortly. The children in care report will be published in the New Year.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many(a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties were classified unfit for human habitation in (i) December 2001 and (ii) January 2002; [81705]

  (2) how many (a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties were classified unfit for human habitation in (i) December 2000 and (ii) January 2001;. [81943]

  (3) how many (a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties were classified unfit for human habitation in (i) December 1999 and (ii) January 2000. [82394]

  Mr. McNulty
  The precise information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Local authorities in England report a wide range of housing information on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns, including the number of residential properties which the authority considers likely would be "certifiable as unfit under the legislation as defined in Part XVIII of the Housing Act 1985 as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989". The latest available data on this basis, for the past three years, is presented in the table.

  Numbers of unfit1 dwellings in England

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Dwellings owned by:

  Local Authorities

  173,490

  160,600

  151,930

  Registered Social Landlords

  11,610

  14,690

  21,660

  Other private or public

  1,254,320

  1,253,750

  1,198,730

  All unfit residential properties

  1,439,420

  1,429,040

  1,372,320

  Notes:

  1 Dwellings regarded as failing to meet one or more of the statutory fitness criteria, but not necessarily certified as unfit. All figures as at 1 April.

  Source:

  ODPM Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many empty(a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties there were in (i) December 2000 and (ii) January 2001;. [81940]
  125W
  (2) how many empty (a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties there were in (i) December 2001 and (ii) January 2002;. [81707]

  (3) how many empty (a) local authority properties, (b) registered social landlord properties and (c) residential properties there were in (i) December 1999 and (ii) January 2000. [82396]

  Mr. McNulty
  The precise information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Local authorities in England report a wide range of housing information on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns, including the number of residential properties vacant as on 1 April. The latest available data for the past three years is presented in the table:

  Numbers of vacant dwellings in England

  Dwellings owned by

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Local authorities

  83,900

  87,200

  80,300

  Registered social landlords

  32,600

  37,500

  41,300

  Other private or public

  650,500

  635,800

  633,500

  All vacant residential properties

  767,000

  760,500

  755,100

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Sources:

  Vacant local authority dwellings are taken from ODPM's annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns.

  Vacant Registered Social Landlord (RSL) dwellings figures are taken from the Housing Corporation's annual Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR) completed by RSLs.

  Total vacant residential dwellings figures are calculated summing

  local authority, "Other public sector" and "Other private sector"

  data from ODPM's HIP returns, together with RSL vacant

  dwellings from the Housing Corporation's RSR return.

  Supporting People Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have not drawn up a shadow Supporting People Strategy. [83272]
  126W
  Mr. McNulty
  All local authorities have drawn up a Supporting People Strategy.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints his Department has received from(a) local authorities, (b) service providers and (c) service users regarding the implementation of the Supporting People Strategy. [83273]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been in constant dialogue with all partners and stakeholders throughout the implementation of the Supporting People Programme through the Supporting People Kweb and the Supporting People helpline.

  The helpline takes on average some 100 calls per week and 'complaints' are not registered separately.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the quality of temporary accommodation provided by London boroughs; and what action he has taken in the light of these assessments. [80529]

  Mrs. Roche
  Homelessness legislation requires that all temporary accommodation offered to homeless households must be suitable, taking account of the law on unfitness, overcrowding and multiple occupation houses.

  London boroughs also have a duty to ensure that their environmental health officers carry out regular inspections of all bed and breakfast hotels used for statutorily homeless households in their locality. They must abide by the joint London boroughs' code of practice on hotel standards.

  We are committed to end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children except in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks, through a number of measures to promote better quality self-contained accommodation and action to prevent homelessness.
  127W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Visits (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times the Lord Chancellor has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82367]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has not visited East Lancashire in the course of his official duties. The following table details the number of official visits to Lancashire undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries at the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1997, and the purpose of each visit.

  Date

  Place visited

  Purpose

  23 September 1998

  Burnley

  To visit the Magistrates Court

  15 September 1999

  Blackburn

  Roundtable Meeting for North West Associate Pioneers

  15 September 1999

  Rawtenstall

  Visit to the Magistrates Court

  11 October 1999

  Rawtenstall

  Visit to the Magistrates Court

  5 October 2000

  Preston

  Visit to the Preston Combined Court

  5 October 2000

  Blackburn

  Visit to Magistrates Court

  23 January 2001

  Preston

  Community Legal Service Event

  5 February 2002

  Preston

  Launch of Preston e-mail application unit

  19 February

  Preston

  Visit to the Court of Protection at the Combined Court

  7 October 2002

  Blackburn

  Domestic Violence Roadshow

  Wasted Costs
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last five years a judge has made a wasted costs order. [82471]

  Trust

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Halton general hospital NHS Trust

  93

  90

  112

  129

  68

  Warrington hospital NHS Trust

  259

  224

  264

  242

  240

  1Hospital Episodes Statistics: Finished Consultant Episodes for "Stroke" (ICD10 code 160–169)

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute stroke beds are available in each hospital in the North Cheshire Hospitals Trust; and how many will be available in each hospital under the trust's plan A Vision for Future Services. [82707]

  Jacqui Smith:
  There are currently 24 acute stroke beds at Warrington Hospital. At Halton Hospital, stroke patients are currently admitted to general acute beds as there are no beds dedicated to stroke care. Under the plan outlined in the discussion document, "Vision for Future Services," the 24 acute stroke beds at
  128W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not collect information on the making of wasted costs orders centrally. To ask all the courts in England and Wales to provide the information to answer the Question would be at a disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Mental Health (Murders)
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many murders have been committed by persons with mental disorders in the community but not taking their medicine in the periods(a) 1990 to 1993, (b) 1993 to 1997, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 2000 to 2002. [82806]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Confidential Inquiry in to Suicides and Homicides by People with a Mental Illness started data gathering in 1996, and have data which are fully analysed and published available to the end of 1999.

  The data show that between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1999 there were a total of 145 homicides committed by people with a mental illness who had been in contact with mental health services (i.e. secondary care) in England and Wales in the 12 months prior to the homicide offence. Of these 32, or 26 per cent., were reported to be non-compliant with medication in the month before the event.

  Acute Stroke Beds (North Cheshire)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people who had suffered a stroke were admitted to acute stroke beds in each of the hospitals constituting the North Cheshire Hospitals Trust in each of the past five years. [82706]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested. However, the table shows the latest available published data1 for finished consultant episodes for stroke at Halton General Hospital and Warrington Hospital national health service Trusts for each of the five years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Warrington Hospital would be retained and six new acute stroke assessment beds established at Halton Hospital.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have suffered irreversible vision loss as a result of wet age-related macular degeneration in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [82708]

  Mr. Lammy
  A study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society in 2001 estimated that there were 182,000 people with age-related macular degeneration
  129W
  with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. Around 10 to 15 per cent, of those will have the 'wet' type of the condition; it is not possible to say how many of which have benefited from treatment.

  Antipsychotic Medicines
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maximise compliance and minimise compulsion in relation to the use of antipsychotic medicines for severe mental illness. [83306]

  Jacqui Smith
  This Government see the development of robust community-based mental health provision as the key to ensuring that people adhere to their care plans helping them maintain their care and treatment.

  The NHS Plan proposed to increase and develop the number of community-based teams, such as crisis resolution teams, also called home treatment teams, assertive outreach teams, also known as assertive community treatment teams, early intervention teams and community mental health teams. These teams will support and encourage patients to adhere to their care plans, minimising the need for compulsory treatment.

  Autism
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department gives to adults with autism. [82712]

  Jacqui Smith
  Adults with autism are benefiting from funding of over £200,000 which the Department made through the Section 64 Scheme of Grants to Voluntary Organisations between 1998–99 and 2001–02. We are currently devoting a further £154,000 over three years to the National Autistic Society project "Independence and Autism: Good Practice for Service Providers". This will support the development of new services to enable adults with autism or Asperger's Syndrome to live independently.

  The "Valuing People" White Paper directly covers every adult with autism who also has a learning disability. Implementation guidance, issued in August last year, makes clear that adults with Asperger's Syndrome or higher functioning autism are not precluded from using learning disability services, where appropriate, and may require an assessment of their social functioning and communication skills in order to establish their level of need. By bringing together a wide range of local statutory agencies, "Valuing People" gives us the scope to improve opportunities and services for people across the autistic spectrum.

  People with autism will also gain, along with others, from the investment we are making to improve standards in health and social care services. In particular they will benefit from the NHS Plan, the mental health national service framework, which covers the mental health needs of adults with autism, and fair access to care services.

  Beta Interferon
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the criteria are for the prescription of beta interferon to multiple sclerosis sufferers; and how patients obtain funding. [82018]
  130W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]All patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and those with secondary progressive MS, in which relapses are the dominant feature, are eligible under the "risk-sharing scheme" for treatment with a disease modifying drug on the national health service if they meet the criteria set out by the Association of British Neurologists.

  Patients with relapsing-remitting MS should:
  be able to walk independently (beta interferons) or at least 100 metres without
  assistance (glatiramer acetate);
  have had at least two clinically significant relapses in the last two years; and
  be aged 18 or over.

  Patients with secondary progressive MS should:
  be able to walk at least 10 metres with or without assistance;
  have had at least two disabling relapses in the last two years;
  have had minimal increase in disability due to gradual progression over the last two years; and
  be aged 18 or over.

  NHS bodies are required to fund any treatment within this scheme prescribed by clinicians for eligible patients, in accordance with statutory directions.

  Cane Hill
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is in negotiations with a third party over the future of Cane Hill, Coulsdon; and if he will make a statement. [80786]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Cane Hill site at Coulsdon is included in the one-off-sale. A preferred party has been selected for the one-off sale portfolio, which includes the Cane Hill site.

  It is intended to conclude this one-off sale of the Secretary of State's retained estate as soon as possible. With a number of sites included within the portfolio, there is a need for a substantial and detailed negotiation before contracts can be exchanged.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81860]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]There are 150 parking spaces within the congestion charging zone, available to both employees of this Department and visitors. Spaces are not specifically allocated to staff and visitors. This response does not cover parking on national health service property.

  Cataract Surgery
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in West Sussex are waiting for cataract surgery, broken down by hospital trust. [83322]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  131W

  Number of patients waiting for specialty ophalmology in Surrey & Sussex Strategic Health Authority, by National Health Service Trust

  Trust

  Total waiting list

  Less than 3 months

  3 to 6 months

  6 to 9 months

  9 to 12 months

  12 to 15 months

  Over 15 months

  Worthing & Southlands

  1,740

  529

  476

  366

  240

  129

  0

  Surrey & Sussex Healthcare

  1,110

  592

  424

  89

  5

  0

  0

  Brighton & Sussex University

  1,584

  693

  517

  308

  56

  10

  0

  Royal West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures as at end of September 2002.

  2. Information is only available for the wider ophalmology specialty.

  3. Information is provided for those trusts in or providing services for West Sussex residents.

  4. No figures are held for opthalmology at the Royal West Sussex NHS Trust.

  Source:

  DH Return KH07

  CBRN Incidents
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made in establishing(a) a national doctrine, (b) national standards and (c) national commonality of equipment to enable ambulance services to respond to a CBRN incident. [82583]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made in establishing(a) a national doctrine, (b) national standards and (c) national commonality of equipment to enable ambulance services to respond to a (i) chemical, (ii) biological, (iii) radioactive and (iv) nuclear incident. [82160]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Ambulance services are required to maintain their capability to respond to a range of major incidents, including chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear incidents. But due to the changes in risk and scale, the Ambulance Service Association has been working in conjunction with other emergency services to produce a national approach based on a common doctrine, standard approach and common procedures. This work is approaching its conclusion and that we can expect recommendations shortly. National procurement arrangements for interim personal protective equipment have already been completed and higher specification equipment and decontamination units are now being delivered, which will ensure that each ambulance service will have access to common equipment.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance personnel in each ambulance trust have been trained in dealing with a CBRN incident. [82581]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance personnel have been trained in dealing with a(a) chemical, (b) biological, (c) radioactive and (d) nuclear incident in each ambulance trust. [82159]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]Ambulance services, based on their local risk assessment, were required to train teams of staff in dealing with a chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear incident. As they take delivery of decontamination units and newer protective equipment, further training programmes are being instigated on a cascade basis. The current number of staff trained is not collected centrally.
  132W

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS community psychiatric nurses there were in each year since 1995. [83331]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between September 1995 and September 2001, the number of qualified nurses employed in the community psychiatry area of work increased by over 3,500, or 43 per cent.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in the community psychiatry area of work in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  1995

  7,970

  8,560

  1996

  8,710

  9,330

  1997

  9,010

  9,740

  1998

  9,460

  10,230

  1999

  9,710

  10,550

  2000

  10,190

  11,080

  2001

  11,040

  12,220

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  4. Figures are for qualified nurses working in community psychiatry. This includes community psychiatry nurses and nurses with other first level qualifications

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is to his Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81879]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Any additional costs to the Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Deaf Children in Care (Sexual Abuse)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of deaf children suffered sexual abuse while in local authority care in the last year for which figures are available. [82697]
  133W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold this data centrally

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in(a) England and (b) Wales in the last three months; and how many of these were due to delayed discharge. [82494]

  Mr. Hutton
  In England, data are collected on the number of patients whose operation has been cancelled for non-clinical reasons "on the day of surgery and at the last minute". The most recent data available for the quarter ending June 2002 shows there were 14,808 operations cancelled at the last minute for non-clinical reasons, of which 10,819 operations were cancelled on the day of surgery.

  The data collected on cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons are not broken down into the reasons for cancellation. Therefore, no data can be provided on how many operations are cancelled due to delayed discharge from hospital.

  Health matters in Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Dementia
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to improve the training of doctors in the diagnosis and treatment of dementia; [82262]

  (2)if he will make a statement on Government support for people with Alzheimer's Disease; [82263]

  (3)what recent representation he has received about the need for earlier diagnosis by GPs of dementia; [82261]

  (4)how the National Carriers Strategy is meeting the needs of people who care for those with dementia. [82265]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of people with dementia and their carriers are met. For that reason, the national service framework (NSF) for older people has a standard, a service model and milestones to monitor progress around the health and social needs of older people with mental health problems, including all people with dementia, and requirements around meeting the needs of their carers.

  A key element of the NSF requirements is ensuring early diagnosis of dementia. We are aware of concerns over this, and of the research funded by the Alzheimer's Society to assess ways of helping primary care teams with diagnosis and treatment of dementia. The Department's care group workforce team for older people's services is also looking at the training needs of staff working with people with dementia.

  Various other strands of work are under way to help with implementation of the NSF. For example, consideration is being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia within the programme of work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
  134W
  As a result of the national carers strategy, carers of people with dementia have a right to an assessment of both their needs and ability to continue caring. Ring-fenced money totalling £85 million this year and £100 million next year has been provided to allow carers to take short term breaks from their caring responsibilities. In certain circumstances, carers may also receive cash that they can use to purchase the services they need.

  Dermatology (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Action on Dermatology programme capital projects have been awarded to primary care trusts in West Sussex. [83283]

  Ms Blears
  The former West Sussex Health Authority was allocated £142,000 in action on dermatology funding. Information is not available centrally on how this money was disseminated to the wider health community.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of hours was an individual in(a) England and (b) Wales received domiciliary care in (i) May 1997 and (ii) the last month for which figures are available. [82496]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of hours of home care is collected for households, not individuals. The average number of hours of home care received by a household in England was 5.4 hours in September 1997 and 7.6 hours in September 2001. Corresponding data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Information on the number of people receiving home care in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. for Wales.

  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) England and (b) Wales were receiving domiciliary care in (i) May 1997 and (ii) the last month for which figures are available. [82495]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000–01, some 1.3 million adults in England were helped to live independently at home through the provision of a variety of community-based social services. Corresponding data for 1997–98 is not available.

  The number of households receiving home care in England in September 1997 and September 2001 was 479,100 and 381,200 respectively. The number of people in these households is not known.

  Information on the number of people receiving home care in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Exeter Hospice
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the amount received by the Exeter Hospice this year was an allocation from the NHS Cancer Plan for Specialist Palliative Care. [82599]
  135W
  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave her on 23 October 2002,Official Report, column 396W. Information is not held centrally on the sources of the funding provided to Exeter Hospiscare.

  Finished Provider Spells
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished provider spells in hospital for 0–18 year olds there were in 2000–01, in each(a) health authority and (b) NHS trust. [80599]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Flu Vaccinations (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people have been given flu vaccinations in West Sussex; and what percentage of the elderly population of the county this represents. [83320]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority that by 31 October the number of older people over 65 immunised against flu in West Sussex was 79,747. Although this is the most recent count available locally of individual patients, the strategic health authority estimates that by 18 November, 55 per cent, of over 65s in West Sussex had been immunised.

  Foreign Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agencies have been brought to the attention of his Department by work force development confederations for failure to adhere to the ethical foreign nurse recruitment policy. [82963]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work force development confederations have reported three cases since the code of practice was established.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reimbursement and relocation expenses are paid to nurses recruited to the NHS from countries other than the UK. [82576]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1999, the Department published a document, "Guidance in International Nursing Recruitment". The document clearly outlines the responsibilities of trusts in the payment of reimbursement and relocation expenses.

  It is the responsibility of national health service employers to pay for recruits' airfares to ensure they are met on arrival in the United Kingdom. The document stipulates that NHS employers must make sure that appropriate accommodation is available for the recruit before they arrive in the country.

  There is a General Whitley Council (GWC) agreement on removal expenses: section 26 of the GWC Handbook, which is essentially an enabling agreement insofar as it gives the employer discretion about how much removal expenses are payable and to whom.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the recruitment drive to recruit foster carers. [82034]
  136W
  Jacqui Smith
  There was a national recruitment drive in 2000. The campaign succeeded in its aim to raise the public profile of foster care, help establish a positive image of foster care as vocational and professional, and challenge the stigma of children being in public care. It resulted in a large number of people requesting the information packs. The choice protects review is considering recruitment of foster carers and there is a clear message that the best recruitment campaigns are those delivered locally, so that the methods of recruitment can be responsive to local populations. The Department is supporting work on this through a Section 64 grant to fostering network, who are working with local authorities to develop advice on how best to go about recruitment.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what constraints there will be on foundation hospital trusts' autonomy over the level of local pay settlements for clinical and non-clinical staff; [83311]

  (2)if he will make a statement on the accountability mechanism for foundation hospital trusts; [83264]

  (3)who will be eligible to sit on boards of foundation hospital trusts; and how they will be appointed. [83265]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will shortly issue a publication that will set out in detail our proposals to establish national health service foundation trusts.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements his Department is making to avoid confusion in the new payment system for free nursing care where PCT and social services boundaries are not coterminous; [82832]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the transactional costs between PCTs and social services arising from the new payment system for free nursing care (a) by NHS Region and (b) for England. [82833]

  Jacqui Smith.
  Circular HSC 2001/17: LAC(2001)26 contains guidance on the respective responsibilities of the national health service and local authorities on NHS funded nursing care. Further supplementary guidance on the arrangements from April 2003 will be published shortly. This will emphasise the need to ensure that transactional costs are kept to a minimum.

  The level of funding that will be available to primary care trusts in England for 2003–04, including the amounts needed for administration, are currently under consideration and will be announced in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of vacancies for GP posts there are; what the average number of applicants per GP vacancy post was in the last 12 months; and what the average time to recruit for a GP vacancy post in the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust was in the last 12 months. [83281]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  137W

  Hearing Aids (Blackpool)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be available to patients of Blackpool Victoria Acute Health Trust. [81101]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Blackpool Victoria Hospital Trust issues patients with digital hearing aids based on the patient's individual clinical need. However, the trust is currently negotiating with the local primary care trust for additional funding, which will extend this provision further.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80774]

  Mr. Lammy
  Protection of the Department's information technology (IT) systems is of primary importance, and the risk of digital attack is continually re-assessed in the light of changes in technology and the perceived danger. Technical and procedural measures are regularly adjusted to take account of changing circumstances.

  The Department recently achieved compliance with the British Standard (BS7799) for Information Security, which covers IT security procedures. To ensure IT security processes and procedures remain effective, regular independent security audits and tests are conducted.

  The number of cases of digital attack detected was 2 in October and 3,476 in 2002 to date. These attacks were all in the form of e-mailed computer viruses.

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many looked-after children obtain(a) no GCSEs, (b) one A-G GCSE, (c) five A-G GCSEs, (d) one A*-C GCSE and (e) five A*-C GCSEs in 2002; and what targets have been abandoned for the educational achievement for looked-after children in the last year. [81676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on the educational qualifications of children who ceased to be looked after in England during year ending 31 March 2002 are not yet available. The Department plans to publish these data on 28 November 2002.

  The Government have not abandoned any of their public service agreement targets on the educational achievement of looked-after children.

  Mass Contamination
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the Memorandum of Understanding agreed in December 2001 between his Department and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, setting out the arrangement for co-operation between the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service to respond to mass contamination of the public. [82579]
  138W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Memorandum of Understanding agreed in December 2001 between his Department and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, setting out the arrangement between the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service to respond to mass contamination of the public. [82162]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The Memorandum of Understanding is between two Government Departments, and as such, did not constitute agreement between Fire and Ambulance Services, but is intended to provide a national framework against which those services can produce locally agreed plans and procedures for mass decontamination. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to treat mass casualties arising from a chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear attack. [82158]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The planning for the response to a mass casualty incident involves the scaling up of the normal response to a major incident. Following the September 11 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, specific guidance was issued to the national health service on the public health response to the deliberate release of chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear incidents, mass decontamination and mass casualties.

  The Department has made available, through the emergency planning section of its website, www.doh.gov.uk/epcu http://www.doh.gov.uk/epcu, a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences of deliberate release. This information is regularly updated. The website contains a link to the public health laboratory service website, which provides additional clinical and other information.

  Additional arrangements have been put in place for the provision of decontamination units and protective equipment for NHS staff and strategic stockpiles of medical supplies and other equipment.

  Mental Health (Deaf People)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of detention was for deaf people detained under the Mental Health Acts in the last year for which figures are available. [82702]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mental Health Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his mental health bill; and if he will make a statement. [83303]

  Jacqui Smith
  A draft Mental Health Bill and consultation document was published on 25 June 2002. The consultation exercise closed on 16 September and we are currently considering almost 2000 replies. We intend to introduce a Bill as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
  139W

  New Treatments
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is regarding NHS provision of new treatments recommended by a consultant clinician before these have been assessed by NICE. [81770]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service bodies should use existing arrangements to access the publicly available evidence and to determine local policies for the managed entry of new interventions, as set out in Health Circular HSC 1999/176.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank the primary care trusts in order of the number of vacancies available on NHS dentists' lists at the last date for which information is available. [81673]

  Mr. Lammy
  Most general dental practitioners (GDPs) working in the national health service general dental services are self-employed and are free to choose and vary the number of patients they wish to register. Primary care trusts do not control patient registrations and there is no fixed limit for the number of patient registrations allowed per dentist. Furthermore, patients do not need to be registered to be seen by an NHS dentist.

  It is therefore not possible to quantify the number of "vacancies" on dentists lists.

  The number of GDPs continues to increase. There were 18,114 GDS practitioners on 30 June 2002, of which 16,181 were principal dentists. This compares to 18,004 and 16,167 respectively, 12 months earlier.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio is of NHS general dental practitioners to population in each primary care trust area. [81674]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) assumed responsibility for dentistry on 1 October 2002.

  The ratios of national health service general dental practitioners to population in each PCT area are not yet available centrally.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists per head of population there were in(a) England and (b) each NHS region in each of the last six years. [81685]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of national health service dentists per 100,000 population for England and for each NHS region for 1996 to 1997 is contained in table 1. The regional breakdown is different for 1998 to 2001 due to reorganisation and these figures are contained in table 2.

  NHS dentists covers dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS), community dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS. Dentists have been counted in each dental service in which they practise apart from dentists working in the PDS and GDS that are counted as GDS dentists only.
  140W
  These figures are on a headcount basis rather than a whole time equivalent (wte) basis and therefore take no account of part-time working.

  Table 1: NHS dental services: numbers of dentists1 per 100,000 population2, 1996 to 1997— England

  1996

  1997

  England

  40.7

  41.6

  Northern and Yorkshire

  39.6

  39.1

  Trent

  36.9

  35.1

  Anglia and Oxford

  37.1

  38.6

  North Thames

  46.3

  47.0

  South Thames

  46.4

  48.2

  South and West

  43.0

  42.5

  West Midlands

  33.8

  36.4

  North and West

  39.2

  42.1

  1Dentists are counted in each dental service in which they practice apart from dentists working in the PDS and GDS that are counted as GDS dentists only.

  2ONS mid year population estimates based on the 1991 Census.

  Table 2: NHS dental services: numbers of dentists1 per 100,000 population2,— England

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  42.6

  43.4

  43.9

  45.8

  Northern and Yorkshire

  39.9

  40.3

  40.8

  43.0

  Trent

  35.5

  36.9

  37.2

  37.7

  West Midlands

  37.2

  37.6

  38.6

  40.6

  North West

  42.9

  44.0

  43.7

  45.5

  Eastern

  39.5

  40.5

  41.4

  43.2

  London

  53.0

  52.9

  52.7

  55.4

  South East

  42.9

  44.2

  44.9

  47.0

  South and West

  46.3

  47.2

  48.3

  49.9

  1Dentists are counted in each dental service in which they practice apart from dentists working in the PDS and GDS that are counted as GDS dentists only.

  2 ONS mid year population estimates based on the 1991 Census

  NHS Litigation Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims the NHS Litigation Authority received in the 2001–02 financial year in respect of employer liability; how much it paid out in costs; and how many cases remain outstanding. [83285]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service litigation authority received 2,439 claims from NHS employees in the financial year 2001–2001. Of these 2,210 remain open.

  A total of £1.89 million has been expended on these claims in total but this figure includes on-going payments in claims which remain open.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims in respect of employer liability remain unresolved by the NHS litigation authority; and of these, how many are up to(a) six months old, (b) one-year-old, (c) two-years-old, (d) three-years-old, (e) four-years- old and (f) over four-years-old. [83286]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are a total of 4,820 claims for compensation from national health service employees currently being handled by the NHS litigation authority. Of these:

  1,163 are up to six months old.

  1,113 are between six months and 12 months.

  1,822 are between 12 and 24 months.

  141W

  687 are between 24 and 36 months.

  35 are between 36 and 48 months.

  The litigation authority took over the handling of claims in 1988.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio is of medical and clinical staff practising in the national health service to total staff employed by his Department, health NDPBs and the NHS. [81024]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data are shown in the table. 64 per cent, of staff employed in the national health service, Department of Health and health non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are medical and clinical staff practising in the NHS.

  Staff and medical and clinical staff employed within the NHS, Department of Health and NDPBs in England

  All staff

  Medical and clinical

  Total

  1,175,348

  750,636

  NHS

  1,167,166

  1750,018

  DH

  4,953

  134

  NDPBs

  3,229

  484

  1 Includes doctors, GPs, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, scientific, therapeutic and technical staff, health care assistants, nursing, midwifery and health visiting learners and ambulance staff.

  North-West NHS Staff Redundancy
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost of severance and redundancy payments to employees of the Bury health care, North Manchester health care, and Oldham and Rochdale NHS trusts on the formation of the Pennine Acute hospitals trust. [82972]

  Jacqui Smith
  Pennine Acute hospitals national health service trust was established on 1 April 2002, following the dissolution of Bury health care, North Manchester health care, Oldham and Rochdale health care NHS trusts. The new trust inherited 22 directors, eight of whom have been, or will be, made redundant.

  The total cost of their severance packages is £1,758,617. The directors have not received this sum of money collectively; the figures represent the cost to their employers and include the capitalized costs of early retirement pensions as well as redundancy payments.

  The severance packages have all been approved by the appropriate remuneration committees and signed off by the trusts' external auditors.

  Nursing and Residential Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people sold their homes to pay for(a) nursing and (b) residential care in Shrewsbury and Atcham in the last year for which figures are available. [83183]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  142W

  Ophthalmology Choice
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to the Ophthalmology Choice scheme as a part of the Patient Choice Project; and for what duration. [83321]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London Patient choice project has allocated £11 million in 2002–03 towards providing choice for ophthalmology patients in London. Funding for 2003–04 and future years has yet to be confirmed.

  Pain Management
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all NHS hospitals have in place policies for the assessment and management of pain. [80112]

  Mr. Lammy
  While the Department does not collect information on this issue centrally, we do know from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report, published in April 2000, that acute pain services were available in 220 out of 250 national health service trusts throughout the United Kingdom, and that in addition, local pain guidelines had been widely developed.

  Primary Mental Health Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many graduate primary care mental health workers there are, in each NHS region. [83332]

  Jacqui Smith
  No graduate primary care workers have been employed yet. Funding to employ graduate primary care workers will be allocated to primary care trusts with their general allocation next financial year.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to enable those individuals who have a disability affecting their mobility to obtain repeat prescriptions via a general practice surgery or pharmacist(a) by telephone and (b) otherwise remotely. [82280]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]We expect general practitioner practices to provide information for patients on how they may obtain repeat prescriptions. Local pharmacies may also decide to offer patients a range of repeat medication, prescription collection or prescription delivery services.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 365, on benefit uprating, what will be the entitlement of a single person receiving contributory jobseekers allowance in 2002–03 and 2003–04 to free prescriptions; and what estimate he has made of the number of recipients of contributory jobseekers allowance who receive free prescriptions. [82415]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]People receiving contributory jobseekers allowance are not automatically entitled to free prescriptions, but may make a claim for help under the national health service low income scheme. Whether or not they are entitled to free prescriptions will depend on their personal circumstances. Their entitlement will be calculated using the current rate of income support plus allowances and premiums. No help is available if a person has capital of
  143W
  more than £8,000 (£12,000 if they or their partner are aged 60 or over). In 2001–02, 29 people receiving contributory jobseekers allowance successfully claimed entitlement to free prescriptions.

  Severe Mental Illness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to give legal status to advance statements for people with severe mental illness. [83305]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following consultation on the Draft Mental Health Bill we are considering how to ensure that, wherever possible, patient's views are taken into account while they are being treated under compulsory powers, whether expressed in an advance statement or in any other way.

  In the policy document 'Making Decisions' the Government said,
  "a clear statement of the present legal position concerning advance statements would be helpful to lawyers, doctors and patients."

  This would affect many other patients including those with severe mental illness treated voluntarily, who for whatever reason, lose the ability to make their own decisions. An Incapacity Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Social Workers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies he is introducing to make existing social workers realise that their work is valued. [83325]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government and the Department of Health are committed to the enhancement of the professional status of those involved in social care work.

  The national social care recruitment campaign, launched in October 2001, has just entered its second year. It is aimed at informing the public about social work and social care, as well as encouraging recruitment and retention. The campaign includes both national and local press and radio advertising and particular efforts are being made in some areas such as London and the South East that have more severe problems with recruitment and retention of social workers.

  This commitment was further proven by the introduction of the Care Standards Act 2000, this brought into being, among other regulatory bodies, the General Social Care Council (GSCC). The GSCC is responsible for improving standards across the sector and registering qualified and competent social workers and social care staff. As part of this process, the GSCC published codes of practice for social care workers and employers on 23 September 2002.

  The training strategy implementation fund—£15 million in the current year— is available to all employers in social care to support 26,500 staff to participate in skill development programmes. The focus of half of this funding will be to strengthen the National Vocational Qualification infrastructure within the workplace. With this investment, employers will be able to further train their staff and managers and establish a culture of lifelong learning and continuous professional development within social care.
  144W
  Introduction of the new three year degree and bursaries will be a unique opportunity to transform the status, image and position of social workers— making social work what it should be, a graduate profession in its own right— and build on the best of social work education and training.

  Specialised Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directions his Department gave to the regional specialist commissioning groups in requiring them to seek the views of their local providers, commissioners and patients' and carers' representatives. [82777]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regional specialised commissioning groups (RSCGs) were asked to seek views within their RSCG area of their local providers, commissioners and patients'/carers' representatives on commissioning arrangements for specialised services and to submit an overall RSCG response to the Department by 30 September 2002.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the process and timetable is for completion of the review into commissioning specialised services; how the views of patients will be taken into account, and when he will announce the outcome. [82778]

  Mr. Hutton
  A summary of the responses will be placed in the Library in December and guidance will be issued in the new year.

  The responses of patients' organisations to the review will be considered alongside other responses received. Each regional specialised commissioning group (RSCG) sought views of their local commissioners, providers and patients' organisations. London RSCG commissioned the College of Health to consult patient groups and received 31 responses as a result; two national patient organisations were represented on the national review group; and 14 responses from individual patients' associations and voluntary organisations were submitted directly to the Department.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses his Department received as part of its review of commissioning arrangements for specialised services from(a) regional specialised commissioning groups, (b) local service providers, (c) commissioners, (d) patients' representatives and (e) carers' representatives; and how many responses were submitted directly. [82782]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 53 responses were directly submitted to the review of commissioning arrangements for specialised services.

  Specialist Stroke Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department's 2003–04 Priorities and Planning Guidance will require action from hospitals on developing specialist stroke services; and if he will make a statement. [82705]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's 2003–06 priorities and planning framework requires that by April 2004 all general hospitals caring for people with stroke have a specialised stroke service. The national service
  145W
  framework for older people established the development of an integrated stroke service and improvements in the delivery of stroke care as a priority.

  Trained Nurses
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained nurses there were in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 in England and Wales. [82578]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at March 2000, there were 634,529 nurses registered with the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (now the Nursing and Midwifery Council). This is the number of nurses registered to practice throughout the United Kingdom. It fell to 632,050 in 2001 and rose to 644,024 in 2002.

  Between September 2000 and September 2001, the number of qualified nurses employed in the national health service in England increased by 4 per cent, from 335,950 to 350,380. This marked the early achievement of the NHS Plan target for 20,000 extra nurses by 2004 over a 1999 baseline.

  Information on Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government spent on fees in respect of training nurses in the last year for which figures are available. [82577]
  146W
  Mr. Hutton
  Work force development confederations contract directly with local universities for nurse training and spent £342 million on tuition costs in 2001–02, the latest year for which information is available.

  West Sussex Health Authority
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the financial deficit of the West Sussex health authority at its dissolution; and how this was divided between the primary care trusts that took over its commissioning role; [82469]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the level of the financial deficit of the Princess Royal hospital, Haywards Heath at the time of its merger with the Royal Sussex County hospital, Brighton; and how this has been apportioned. [82470]

  Ms Blears
  The Surrey and Sussex Strategic health authority has advised me the former West Sussex health authority did not have a deficit.

  The Princess Royal hospital was part of Mid Sussex national health service trust. On 31 March 2002 the trust was dissolved and the management of the acute services provided by the hospital was transferred to the Brighton and Sussex University hospitals NHS trust. The final accounts of the Mid Sussex NHS trust presented an outturn deficit of £2.7 million. However, the underlying deficit was £4.7 million.

  In June 2002 the trust was allocated transitional funds of £4 million from the NHS bank to offset the underlying deficit. The trust planned to manage the remainder of the deficit through cash releasing efficiency savings.

HEALTH

  Human Genetics and Embryology
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms. Hazel Blears)
  The Government's response to the Fourth Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, on developments in human genetics and embryology, Cm 5693, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Further to my written answer of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 334—35W scoping studies have confirmed that operational benefits, and significant savings, could be achieved by rationalising a number of specialist training streams along defence, rather than single-service lines. The studies identified benchmark options for providing the different types of training at existing MOD sites to serve as public sector comparators, against which a wider range of options can be considered. These will include partnering with the private sector, where potential private sector providers will be encouraged to propose innovative solutions, which might include proposals to establish training establishments on completely new sites. The selection, therefore, by a study of a benchmark site does not imply that the MOD has taken a firm decision to continue training on that site.

  The sites being examined for these benchmarks or public sector comparators are HMS Sultan for electro-mechanical engineering training; RAF Cosford for aeronautical engineering training; the Defence School of Transport at Leconfield for logistic training; the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre at Chicksands for security, intelligence, language and photography training; the Royal School of Signals at Blandford for communications and information systems training; and RAF Halton for joint personnel administration and police training.

  There are implications for other MOD sites at which elements of this training are currently being carried out. Sites where training may cease, and for which no alternative military use is currently envisaged, are: Bordon, Arborfield, Deepcut, Lodge Hill & Chattenden, St Omer, Chichester, Worthy Down and Beaconsfield. Sites where some of the current training activity may be relocated are: Chatham, Marchwood, St Athan, RAF Cranwell, Shrivenham, HMS Collingwood (Gosport), RAF Digby, RAF Benson, RAF Brize Norton, Chatham, Grantham, Lympstone, Plymouth (including HMS Raleigh), Stafford, West Moors, Portsmouth and Wethersfield.
  2WS
  The next stage of this work is to engage with industry to explore procurement options and to determine the most appropriate and cost-effective means of delivering this rationalised specialist training. Once this work is completed we will have a clearer picture of the likely locations of the various Defence Schools, and will be able to offer a more detailed assessment of the implications for other sites.

  Firm decisions on the future use of the sites will be made in the light of the evaluation of the options that emerge from our engagement with industry, and following the normal consultative process.

  I have written to right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies may be affected by these proposals.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Modernisation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  I intend to announce modernisation proposals for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on Monday 25 November. The announcement will provide details of the Government's response to the O'Hare report on the arrangements for the provision of agri-food education and R&D in Northern Ireland. I will also announce management changes which are designed to improve the Department's customer interface. I intend to simultaneously release the vision action plan, containing a long-term strategy for the agri-food industry, developed in response to a report compiled by a steering group containing industry and departmental representatives.

  Copies of the Government's response to the O'Hare report and the vision action plan have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Policing
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton North and Bellshill (Dr Reid), announced on 30 April this year the arrangements for the review promised in the revised implementation plan of August 2001.(Official Report, Volume 384, Column 659 W). This statement sets out the progress to date on the review and advises hon. Members of the next steps that the Government intends to take.

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Dan Crompton, has conducted his annual inspection of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the focus of which was the impact of the new arrangements on police effectiveness and was therefore an important part of the Review. His report was published on 6 November, and a copy was placed in the House Libraries.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been looking at detailed administrative and legislative issues and has completed a preliminary round of meetings with interested parties. The next step is to share draft clauses with the parties and to hold a further round of meetings. My hon. Friend is today writing to the parties and enclosing examples of how we intend to deal with the various commitments made in the implementation plan

  3WS
  of August 2001 and other issues that have arisen during discussions on her strand of the review. In addition to these, she is enclosing, for consultation, text setting out how the Government might deal with two further issues which, in the implementation plan, we undertook to consider further. Her letter— a copy of which will be will be placed in the Library of the House— explains that the Government consider that the time is not yet right to legislate on these matters.

  And finally, the Oversight Commissioner, Tom Constantine, has, under his terms of reference, been reviewing the progress made in implementing Patten on the basis of experience during the first year of the board's operation. I expect his report in early December.

  It is my intention to introduce legislation to Parliament before the Christmas Recess.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations Act 1976
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I have today made a new authorisation enabling immigration officers to prioritise arriving passengers for examination on the grounds of nationality. This replaces an interim authorisation made on 18 October this year and extended on 2 November, which has now been revoked.

  I undertook a full review of the authorisation following a recent ruling by the High Court that the original authorisation (of 27 March 2001) was unlawful. I am satisfied that the new arrangements fully comply with the Court's findings.

  A copy of the new authorisation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Nutritional Labelling
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether sufficient progress is being made towards the introduction of a legal requirement for all pre-packed foodstuffs sold to carry nutritional labelling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the European Commission has indicated that it plans to propose revisions to the nutrition labelling directive in 2003. The Food Standards Agency is pressing the Commission to introduce compulsory nutrition labelling for all foods and a clearer format for nutrition information.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that this has been a very frustrating time for the FSHA. It is outrageous that British consumers should be denied the benefits of nutrition labelling by the EU. Does the Minister agree that it must have been frustration that led the FSHA to make the silly suggestion that menus should carry nutritional information? Does he further agree that this would be impossible, impractical and unnecessary?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that we want to see progress made in relation to accurate information on labelling. The FSA will continue its efforts to encourage the European Union to act as quickly as possible. As to the question of information on menus, I am advised that the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency informed the agency's board on 14th November that, contrary to reports in the media, the agency had not called for catering outlets and restaurants to list the calorie contents of their dishes. He explained that people are entitled to information when they eat out, but that it should be practical and meaningful and offer consumers real choices.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that I have previously raised the issue of celiac disease'? People who have this condition have to stay on a gluten-free diet for the rest of their lives. My noble friend said that progress is being made—he is correct; some shops are doing quite well—but does he not
556
agree that much more needs to be clone by superstores and all kinds of outlets? This is a problem of immense importance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The EU has published some proposals in this area which will help, but it is taking time to bring them to a successful conclusion. It would be of benefit to retailers if more information was given because the public would have greater confidence. Retailers providing such information would probably find that more customers came to their shops.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will my noble friend discourage the practice of some restaurants of putting the calorie content of their dishes next to the entries on the menu? Some of us find it a little intimidating.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, nothing must get in the way of a noble Lord and a good dinner. I certainly agree that we need to be proportionate. It is right to give information to the public, but we do not want to discourage people from going out to eat in a perfectly acceptable way. We need to get the right balance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister take any opportunity he has to encourage the various trades when they publish this, for some of us, essential as well as useful information, to do so in a print that people of a certain age are able to read?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The same point can be made in relation to medicine labelling. The Government are pursuing the matter.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if guidance were given to restaurants that they should always provide gluten-free alternatives? The problem of the celiac condition is increasing and it is very frustrating for sufferers when they go out to eat and are told that there is no such thing as a gluten-free dish.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point. We need to be proportionate. We need to avoid insisting on restaurants providing extensive information. On the other hand, many restaurants find that if they provide some of the information to which the noble Baroness referred they get more custom. [t can be seen to be a commercial advantage,
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the Minister underline the point that the importance of these regulations is that they should be uniform in presentation and, as my noble friend said, in a print which is recognisable? This will enable comparisons to be made readily and easily.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. It is also important that when a claim is made for a product—for example, that it has a low salt content—the consumer can have confidence that it is indeed a low salt product.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not important to avoid taking steps that might drive smaller restaurants and manufacturers out of business? There used to be a saying, caveat emptor, but that seems to have been completely forgotten nowadays.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me assure the House again that there is no proposal within the EU or this country for information about the nutritional content of meals having to be available on the menu. That must be right. Equally, whether the restaurant is a small outlet or part of a large chain, it may be to its advantage to provide some information. I know from the comment made by my noble friend about gluten-free food that retailers who make it clear that a product is gluten-free will find that shoppers are more likely to use them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some processed foods contain high quantities of salt. sometimes sugar and sometimes both, and are labelled in such a way as to suggest that they are as healthy and nutritious as fresh fruit and vegetables? Without giving the brand name, a particular variety of spaghetti and sausages has a label on it which, I understand, states "one portion of fruit or vegetables"? Is not that potentially misleading to the consumer? Should it not be strongly discouraged?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is potentially misleading to the consumer. That is why we need better regulation in this area. The important point is that if a claim is made for a product the consumer can have confidence that the product meets that claim. That is the purpose of the current discussions on proposed EU legislation.

Iraq
2.38 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy towards Iraq.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, our policy remains to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including by giving up its weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations Security Council, through its unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, has served notice on the Iraqi regime that it must now give up those weapons or face serious consequences.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We all hope that, in the words of Hans Blix last week, a war can still be averted. However, does the Minister agree that the use of force against Iraq opens up the possibility of an on-going military and political entanglement and that the quicksands of Middle Eastern politics dictate that any decision to use force
558
against Iraq must also include a strategy for the long-term, post-war stability of Iraq and, indeed, of the region as a whole? What assurances, therefore, can the Minister give that Britain will not enter into a conflict against Iraq without a clear, effective and well-planned exit strategy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's quote of what Hans Blix said. There has been no decision to launch any military action and we very much hope that we will avert so doing. The government of Iraq is a matter for the Iraqi people. We believe that the people of Iraq deserve a better government, one based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity. We welcome the external opposition's role in discussing the future of Iraq and in debating issues such as democracy, that cannot be discussed in Iraq. Government officials from the United Kingdom meet regularly with external Iraqi opposition members to remain informed on their thinking. As at the end of the Gulf War, Britain would remain at the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people into the future.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the United Nations resolution is to disarm Iraq and that that is the objective? Should it become necessary with UN endorsement to deploy force, can she clarify whether it will be the responsibility of the Secretary-General or the United States to assemble the necessary military operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that the objective is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. In the case of a material breach of UNSCR 1441, the matter would be referred immediately to the Security Council. At that point, there would be a discussion about the most suitable way forward. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but it is not possible to discuss at this juncture precisely what would happen next; that is to say, whether there would be a united determination on the part of the Security Council to go forward or whether there would be what has been termed a coalition of the willing to do so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister take her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, one step further? In the event of an allegation of a material breach not made by UNMOVIC, who would be responsible for interpreting whether there had been a material breach? Does it depend on that statement coming, at least in the first instance, from the UNMOVIC inspectors?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as regards who would be responsible for determining that material breach, operational paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 states that a material breach arises where there are,
"false statements or omissions in the declarations … and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution".

559
Of course it cannot give an exhaustive list of what amounts to a material breach. It would be a question of judgment at the time. The noble Baroness is quite right that it might be referred by the inspectorate. But, equally. it might be referred by a member of the United Nations Security Council. There would be an immediate meeting, when no doubt there would be a discussion about how serious such a breach was.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has given way twice already.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged. I hope my question is worthy of the privilege. Does the Minister agree that it is wholly inappropriate for this House to seek to advise Her Majesty's Government as to what they should do in wholly unpredictable circumstances? Does she agree that the essence of the problem is that these weapons of mass destruction, one way or another, shall be destroyed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord said. Perhaps the words "wholly inappropriate" are a little sweeping. In a democracy such as we enjoy in this country. naturally M embers of your Lordships' House will wish to discuss various eventualities. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the circumstances are unpredictable; we are unable to exhaust every possibility of what might arise. Therefore, tying the Government's hands completely in this respect only helps Saddam Hussein himself.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I can ask yet another version of the question by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. If there is a material breach or noncompliance, or if Saddam Hussein lies, as is highly likely. does UN Resolution 1441 allow us to go to war thereafter or is a further resolution on top of a further meeting with the Security Council required before that procedure can take place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that there has to be a second Security Council resolution to authorise military action. Such a stipulation was never tabled as part of UNSCR 1441, which has enjoyed the unanimous support of the Security Council. My right honourable friend has made clear that the preference of the British Government in the event of a material breach is that there should be a second resolution. But we are not about rewriting UNSCR 1441. It says what it says, and it does not say that such a second resolution would he necessary.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend wish to take this opportunity to express the Government's complete confidence in Mr Hans Blix and his team of inspectors? Does she agree that attempts in certain parts of the United States to undermine his authority are most unhelpful?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence not only in Mr Hans Blix but also in Mr El Baradei, who also has a crucial role as part of the IAEA.

Air Traffic: Bilateral Agreements
2.46 p.m.
Lord Berkeleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the decision of the European Court of Justice on 8th November that bilateral agreements on air traffic between individual member states and the United States are illegal, what action they plan to take to support the European Commission in future negotiations on behalf of the European Union to ensure equitable rights for European Union registered airlines to operate to and within the United States.
Lord McIntosh of Flaringey: My Lords, the court found the UK's agreement with the United States to be in conflict with Community law only in so far as it favours UK airlines compared with other carriers. We expect existing arrangements to remain in force until a way forward is decided between member states and the Commission. Giving the Commission a mandate for negotiations with the United States is one option for consideration. We will consider carefully where the balance of UK interest lies.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full answer. In the meantime, while all this is being resolved, will he inform the House of the status of current negotiations between the UK and the United States, particularly in relation to cargo airlines? Will he confirm that US cargo airlines VN ill not be given any fifth freedom rights to come into this country unless there is a reciprocal arrangement for UK cargo airlines in the United States?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's position is that the United Kingdom will not agree any new bilaterals or amend existing bilaterals until the issue has been resolved between member states and the Commission.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government's first priority in this matter must be the safeguarding of British commercial and passenger interests rather than the wider European interests, which do not always coincide?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said in my first Answer that:
"We will consider carefully where the balance of UK interest lies".
That does not mean necessarily that it might not lie in some European action.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend conclude that a battle between British interests and those of Europe is inevitable? What is the alternative? Can Britain go its own way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not come to that conclusion. The matter is now with the Commission and it will be raised again at a meeting with transport Ministers at the end of next week. As I said, giving the Commission a mandate for negotiations is one option for consideration but it is not the only one. The continuation of bilaterals in an amended form is another option.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect further on his answer to the very important supplementary question from his noble friend Lord Berkeley. Can he, or can he not, give an assurance that no fifth freedom rights will be granted to US cargo carriers in the absence of any reciprocal rights from the US authorities for UK carriers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the Answer that I gave was very precise. We are not proposing to agree new bilaterals or to amend existing ones. That is not to say that the existing Bermuda II agreement is perfect in every respect; that is far from being the case. However, we will not make any further changes until the issues that are the subject of the Question have been resolved.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I may not have made myself clear. The applications concerned will be made within the context of the existing Bermuda agreements and we are asking for an assurance that no such further permits will be issued in light of the circumstances that I have described.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they would involve amendments to the existing Bermuda II agreements, and no such amendments will be made.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the Government agree that the European Union would be good at running a common air traffic policy, would they be prepared to share with your Lordships' House the reasons why they believe that the corrupt and unsackable octopus in Brussels will be any better at running this common policy than it has been at running all of the other common European policies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, stripped of the rhetoric, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asks for an assurance that any policy decisions that we make will be shared with Parliament. He can have that assurance.

Allotments
2.51 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are proposing to take to remind local councils of their statutory duty to provide allotments, in view of the recent decision not to include a specific mention of this in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 requires local authorities to make provision for all types of open space that may be of public value. The Government expect that by implementing this guidance, local authorities should make adequate provision for allotments.
We have also published guides for plot holders and local authorities that provide comprehensive advice on all aspects of allotment provision and management.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the bodies representing allotment holders were led to believe that there would be a specific mention in the document of allotments as such, and that they are very disappointed that there is not? Do the Government accept that there is enormous value in the provision of allotments? They contribute to the health and welfare of communities.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with all that, except for the first part; nobody was led to believe that there would be anything in PPG17. The draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 restated the Government's criteria for the disposal of allotments; it did not relate to the provision of allotments. It was not repeated in the final issue in February this year. It stated existing policy. We were trying to shorten the document; my department is trying to shorten all of the planning guidance documents. There has been no policy change in respect of allotments. They are a joy of life for hundreds of thousands of plot holders in this country of all ages and both sexes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is enormous pressure on local authorities to grant permission for the development of allotment sites, to such an extent that some local authorities are refusing to allow new plot holders on to sites on which planning permission is being sought or is impending? Will he give an assurance that when the Secretary of State exercises his powers under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925—that involves the power to grant or withhold permission for alternative development of allotments—he will take into account the fact that local authorities have jumped the gun in that way?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, local authorities have a duty to provide facilities that the public require. I most certainly will give the assurance that Ministers will look

563
at the situation regarding statutory allotments, which require ministerial permission under Section 8, as the noble Lord said. For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth stating on the record the situation regarding previously developed land qualifying as brownfield land, in case anyone tries that. We want to secure the systematic development of brownfield land in this country. Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing contains a definition of previously developed land that includes the following excerpt:
"The definition excludes land and buildings that are currently in use for agricultural or forestry purposes, and land in built-up areas which has not been developed previously … e.g. parks, recreation grounds, and allotments—even though these areas may contain certain urban features".
In other words, one cannot use the excuse of claiming that an allotment, even a disused one, is suitable and right for brownfield development.
Lord Rea: My Lords, do the Government now recognise that fruit and vegetables are an important health benefit and that exercise is protective against coronary heart disease? Will that strengthen their resolve to do what they can to assist local authorities in resisting developers and promoting the wider use and provision of allotments?
Lord Rooker: Most certainly, my Lords. As I said earlier, we are about to conduct a survey to establish exactly the current number of plots and allotments following the publication at the urban summit recently of the document, Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener. We will report in due course on those numbers. The last time that the numbers were surveyed—in 1996—there were 296,000 plots, which is a very large number, although it is nothing like the number of plots in the 1950s and 1960s. It is worth adding that some 35 per cent of plot holders are under the age of 50. I came across a couple of acquaintances of mine in their late 20s, who last week applied for a plot in the Borough of Croydon. The purpose of allotment gardens—-this also involves their definition—is to be mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable and fruit crops. Other activities can also be permitted. That is all good, healthy exercise, which is carried out in open space.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., which almost certainly means after the Motion to be moved by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House on September sittings, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being presented as a Private Notice Question in the other place on the fire dispute. Following that, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the NATO Summit in Prague. So far as I know, that concludes the number of Motions and Statements being made by my noble and learned friend for one day.

European Union Committee
2.56 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider administrative services, security, works and accommodation, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Cope of Berkeley,

L. Craig of Radley,

B. Darcy de Knayth,

L. Evans of Parkside,

L. Grocott,

Bp. Guildford,

L. Kirkham,

B. McFarlane of Llandaff,

B. Massey of Darwen,

L. Phillips of Sudbury,

L. Roper;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider information and communications services, including the Library and the Parliamentary Archives, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Avebury,

L. Baker of Dorking (Chairman),

L. Burnham,

E. Erroll,

B. Gale,

B. Gardner of Parkes,

B. Goudie,

L. Hobhouse of Woodborough,

L. Lucas,

L. Methuen,

L. Mitchell,

E. Sandwich,

B. Wilkins;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the refreshment services provided for the House, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Ahmed, L. Burnham,

L. Colwyn (Chairman),

V. Falkland,

L. Geddes,

L. Grocott,

B. Harris of Richmond,

L. Palmer,

B. Pitkeathley,

B. Rendell of Babergh,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

B. Strange;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund; and to consider matters relating to works of art in the House of Lords, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Cobbold,

L. Eames,

L. Gavron,

B. Hilton of Eggardon (Chairman),

L. Luke,

L. Redesdale,

L. Rees,

L. Rees-Mogg,

L. Tordoff,

B. Trumpington,

B. Warwick of Undercliffe;

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Shutt of Greetland be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Recess
Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Group on Working Practices was eager to achieve a more balanced parliamentary year. We had a substantial and significant—and lengthy—debate on those proposals. The report included the following statement:
"We believe that the House of Lords should also be willing to sit in September, and we recommend that in return the House should have longer recesses at Christmas, Easter or Whitsun, or rise earlier for the summer recess".
That was part of a package which I believe it is fair to say was fully debated and had substantial approval from noble Lords.
The Procedure Committee said in its report:
"We believe that the House will wish to express an opinion on this possibility"—
that is, September sittings—
"before a change with such important effects".
The Procedure Committee recommended that any such proposal should be put before the House early in the Session; that is what we are now doing.
On 31st October, it was announced that the Commons will indeed sit in September. This Motion therefore proposes—I hope that your Lordships will agree—that the House should trade, as it were, the latter part of July for two sitting weeks in September. That is a straight exchange; it would not in itself make the total number of sitting days in the year either greater or smaller than we have been used to.
There has been quite considerable support, which I shall cover as briefly as I can. The Conservative Party policy document, Delivering a Strengthened Parliament, said:
"We support the proposal that Parliament should normally rise in mid July, return at the start of September, and rise again only for the length of the Party Conference season".
The right honourable Mr Forth said very recently in another place:
"We … enthusiastically endorse sittings in September because it will give the House more opportunity to hold the Government to account instead of giving the Government the free ride that they have traditionally had for two and a half months during the summer".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/02; col. 712.]
During the debate on 21st May this year, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, most helpfully said:
"My view is that if another place starts to sit in September. it will be very difficult for us not to go down that route also, particularly if it is tied in with an earlier rising in July".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 653.]
Perhaps I may also mention the equally helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who has very substantial experience in another place, as well as that derived during his time as Leader of this House:
"We did not discuss longer recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun, However, we did agree that, if the House of Commons rose at the beginning of July and returned in September, we should be wise to follow suit".—[Official Report, 21/5/02: col. 719.]
That is the spirit in which I am putting forward this Motion. It is an aspect of something very fully discussed and carried with a very significant majority. I ought to emphasise that we all came to the conclusion on that earlier occasion that this would be for a trial period only. We can always review the situation if your Lordships are agreeable.
I should like to make a few final comments. I am sorry to say that it was not known to me that Royal Assent is not capable of being given unless both Houses are sitting. Therefore, if we did not generally coincide our Sittings with the House of Commons, there would be that difficulty. Your Lordships would lose the ineffable joy of the possibility of ping-pong.
More significantly, I make the following suggestion quite seriously. If we were to decline to sit in September to coincide generally—I put it no higher—with the House of Commons. I believe that the representation of this House and its reputation outside would bring about the suggestion that we were not willing to do our full work. That suggestion would be wrong, because we work harder than the House of Commons; and, indeed, harder than any other Chamber in the discovered universe. However, the representation outside Parliament would suggest that we were not willing to work. That would be very wrong; it would be very unfair; and it would be damaging to our reputation. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in Sept ember.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not wish to make a ceilidh about it, but I have a very short point t o make about the giving of Royal Assent. Surely this House sits without the House of Commons being in session? As we sat for two weeks in October when the Commons were not sitting, it seems to me that the Minister is being a little invidious in saying that the two Chambers must sit at the same time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I had said that it would have been wrong. But, of course, I did not say it. My suggestion to the House is that we should "generally coincide" with the sittings of the other place. If we do not and there is a two-week period when we are not sitting followed by a further two-week period when the House of Commons is not sitting, that would be a total of four weeks when Royal Assent could not be given. It is an aspect of these proposals. It is not t he most important point, but it is a matter that should be borne in mind.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for the way that he has proposed the Motion. He is right to say that the matter was discussed during our deliberations in the Leader's Group on Working Practices. As a result, I know just how keen the noble
568
and learned Lord is to introduce what has become something of a novelty; namely, that this House should sit regularly in September.
I also, rightly, warned that this would be a controversial decision, and pointed out that there were many different views around the House. That allows me to say that, as far as I can see, there is no politics in this: there is no advantage or disadvantage to the Government or to the Opposition as regards sitting in September, as opposed to the end of July. This is entirely a House matter. Therefore, there will be a free vote from our party. I am sure that that will be replicated in every other part of the House.
It is important that the issue should be decided this afternoon. We can then put such matters to one side and carry on with our business. It strikes me that there are three issues to be kept in mind. First, if the House is to rise early in July, that may make it marginally more convenient for those of us with younger children, who, at that stage, are already on holiday. However, it will also make it marginally less convenient for those noble Lords who do not have chilldren and who, traditionally, like to take their holidays outside the school holiday period; namely, in September.
Secondly, if we return early in September, which, I understand, is the Government's proposal, we should consider how that will affect Members of the Front Benches on all sides of the House. When those Members realise that they have difficult—and often complicated—legislation on the horizon, they may have to return a week or 10 days in advance of the sitting in order to lay amendments and carry out all the background work involved. Therefore, far from coming back in early September, they may have to return at the end of August. I wonder what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has to say in that respect.
Thirdly, there is the idea advanced in the other place of returning in early September, sitting for two weeks, and then rising again for another three-week period so that Members can address their business at various party conferences. It is widely known in this House that, on the whole, there is not quite the same degree of enthusiasm for visiting party conferences as is the case in the House of Commons. If we consider September sittings, I wonder whether we have to replicate another place exactly. That sort of coming and going—toing and froing—may be more confusing for this House than it is for another place.
I also gather that the other place will be returning not so much to deal with the detail of scrutiny of government and of legislation but more for general debates, or to deal with issues that have arisen over the summer period. That would be very different in your Lordships' House, where that is an important period of the Session—the latter part—during which we deal with difficult legislation.
As regards Royal Assent, I understand that the issue is that both Houses must be sitting at the same time in order for Royal Assent to be given. I do not know whether this is guided by legislation, by practice, or by convention; or, indeed, whether it is such an

569
insurmountable difficulty that it cannot be circumvented. After all, it was not so long ago that Royal Assent was always given by a Royal Commission, as is the case at Prorogation. However, that is not so for most Bills during the course of the parliamentary Session. I wonder whether we are entirely wise to rush into this process, given the fact that the other place is undergoing its own experiment. It may prove to be less effective than we all believe.
As the noble and learned Lord said, this is a hard-working House. I have no idea how the public would view both Houses sitting at different times. From my experience, I can make only the following observation. Very often, your Lordships' House is sitting during the last week of July when the House of Commons has risen. At that time, I believe that public opinion views extremely favourably the work that this House accomplishes.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for moving this Motion. Perhaps I may make a suggestion on a subject on which the noble and learned Lord led with his jaw. The noble and learned Lord might care to issue a business statement at the end of each Session setting out how many hours we have sat, how many days a week we sat, and how much work we accomplished. That would give the world outside a clearer view of the endless hard work carried out in this House and ensure that it is perceived less as some form of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
I turn to the arguments before the House. With its normal extraordinary judiciousness, my party is somewhat divided on the issue. The reasons are as follows. The suggested rising in mid-July and sitting throughout most of September has the great advantage of being family friendly. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, it means that people with young children—or, for that matter, grandchildren—can spend more time with them. That is an important consideration for many Members of the House.
However, there is another clear and important argument to make. I refer to the one mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal; namely, that we should keep more closely in step with another place if we follow its proposals for modernisation. Two real difficulties would arise in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a comment that I believe applies more to his party than to mine. He said that there is no huge enthusiasm for party conferences. My party is wildly enthusiastic about party conferences. It hugely enjoys them. There is always an atmosphere of extraordinary comradeship and friendliness and almost no division of opinion. Therefore, members of my party and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is the greatest decoration of our party conferences because he presides over them, would be very sad if not many people attended them. The difficulty of sitting, rising, sitting again and rising again is also associated with the proposal.
570
I want quickly to advance another consideration which concerns those of us who have a great interest in foreign affairs. Real problems are involved in moving to the proposed new pattern. Effectively, it means that one can never visit another country when its own legislature is sitting. That, in turn, immediately weakens the amount of information that people can bring to this House through work that they do in other parts of the world and, not least, through work done in Europe. That is a serious consideration. I believe that many of us can see the extent to which congressional influence in the world has suffered because so few congressmen and women now travel for any length of time to other parts of the world. I simply want to advance that as a thought on the other side of the argument. But I leave it to the extraordinary wisdom of my colleagues in the House to come to the right answer.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, it pains me to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, especially on House matters. I have great affection and admiration for him but I find myself unable to support his Motion this afternoon. I hope that he will forgive me not only for that but also because I cannot even bring him the comfort of being able to claim that English is not my first language. As a matter of fact, for all practical purposes and despite being partly Italian and partly French, it is my only language. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and I will remain friends at the conclusion of this debate.
The statement last Monday by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms was very helpful. One hopes that it will prove to be a precedent over the years. The only part that I found myself unable to accept was that relating to the Summer Recess. That statement said that the two Houses of Parliament,
"work best when the sitting patterns … run roughly in parallel".
I agree with that. But the noble Lord went on to add,
"as has been the case in the past".—[Official Report, 18/11/02; col. 144.]
That is not quite the case. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord for I am fond of and respect him as well, but it has been precisely at this time of year—that is, the time around the Summer Recess—that we have tended to be out of line with another place.
For some years now, we have tended to sit for days—sometimes for a week or so—longer than another place before rising for the Summer Recess. Similarly, we have reassembled earlier than another place. That has been understandable and perfectly proper. It has been partly, if not mainly, because we have to deal with Bills—normally the more controversial ones—which reach us later in the Session after starting in another place. Therefore, not only are we not in parallel with another place at this time of the year; I submit that this is the very time of the year when it is appropriate for the two Chambers to be out of alignment. In case anyone thinks otherwise, of course I appreciate that it is possible for both Chambers to

571
coincide. But I suggest that not only is that not necessary; it is perhaps better and understandable if we do not sit at the same times.
The Government Chief Whip's statement also indicated that, even under the new proposals for recesses, there is already proposed to be a difference between the two Chambers, as was the case last year. In February next year, another place will be in recess from 13th to 24th February. We shall get,
"a day or two [probably] during the week beginning 17th February".—[Official Report, 18/11/02; col. 144.]
I would add to that, "if we are lucky".
Another important and significant point that has not been raised thus far in the debate in arguing for not resuming in September and then adjourning again until mid-October is the vast annual Summer Recess programme of maintenance and improvement of the palace by the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate. The proposed change would involve two periods of disruption. I suggest that having to take up and put back the floorboards, together with the other disruption caused, on two occasions would make matters very difficult. Such an operation would also be costlier, less efficient and more difficult to control. That is especially the case with regard to the timetable of any of the various contractors whom we commission from time to time.
We are served splendidly by the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate and the Parliamentary Estates Directorate, as we are by all our staff—the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office, Black Rod's Department and the others as well. Of course, the staff of the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate will say that they could cope. They will cope with any obligations that we lay upon them—we need have no doubt about that. But that is not to say that that is the best, most efficient and least costly way of dealing with these matters. As a former Chairman of Committees, I had direct dealings with the Parliamentary Works Directorate, as it was then called. The staff of that department need to have a good run at such work during, the Summer Recess. If at all possible, except when there is an emergency recall, for example, that is the way to get the best out of it.
As we know, and as has been said already, another place has already decided its views on this matter. I do not know how carefully another place considered the matters concerning parliamentary works. Of course, it is not for us to intervene in the affairs of another place. Each House is free to decide upon and control its own procedures, conduct and operation. But that only serves to emphasise that it is for us to decide on the best way to deal with these matters. I hope that this afternoon your Lordships will decide to keep things as they are.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am conscious that, when we discussed and considered these matters a few months ago, I attracted the reputation of being something of a dinosaur. I shall do my best to dispel that reputation now. The resistance which I then
572
offered to some of the proposals that came before us from the Procedure Committee and, indeed, in the proceedings of the Procedure Committee itself was based on one premise only: the need to ensure that we retain the capacity to hold all governments to account in all circumstances. I do not want to suggest that this issue ranks high in that type of consideration. If hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Pricy Seal will think again about this proposal.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the need for your Lordships to be involved in overseas visits and other activities outside your Lordships' House during September. I do not suggest that we all need to go away at that time simply to earn our livings or matters of that nature, but overseas visits on foreign policy, defence and other matters can be properly scheduled only in September.
There is then the consideration referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. This is an old building. Much work needs to be done to it in the Recess and will no doubt continue to need to be done for as far ahead as we can foresee. There is then the question of the staff, who would have to be recalled, perhaps for just two weeks in September at a time when they would otherwise not have to be here and, indeed, when they might be attending upon missions conducted by your Lordships overseas.
I recognise that it was agreed long ago that this matter would be considered now, early in the Session. There is much merit in that. However, there is also a difficulty. At this stage we do not know where we shall be in the business programme by mid-July or mid-September, so there is still a degree of uncertainty. I agree that the Motion refers to the progress of Business but we are seeking to decide now whet her or not we should sit in September.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reflect again upon the Motion. I do not believe it is appropriate at this time. The noble and learned Lord concluded by stating that this is a trial arrangement. It is the case that the detailed arrangements we agreed earlier this year were said to be subject to reconsideration after a couple of years. However, the Motion before us says nothing about a trial. Therefore, I hope that we can disregard the Motion on that account.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join the dinosaur group in opposing the Motion before us. I do so on the basis that, were it not for the fact that another place wants to alter its arrangements, we would riot be discussing the proposal today. The proposal is not for the benefit of Members of this House but for the benefit of Members of the House of Commons, who want to get away early. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that would be inconvenient to many of your Lordships who want to go away in September to avoid the crowds of children who by September would normally be back in school. That is an important point.
However, what is important is whether a change would assist us better to do the work of this House. The answer is that it would not. It would be better if

573
we continued our present arrangement to ensure that the proper scrutiny of legislation takes place to a timetable suitable to Members of this House and not to Members of another place.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that perhaps it would not be right and would be misunderstood by the electorate if we did not sit while the House of Commons sat. That must have been a joke. There have been many occasions, indeed in the last Session, when this House sat on many days when the House of Commons did not. Therefore, presumably people would take the same view of the House of Commons not sitting while the House of Lords sat. That argument does not wash. As has been observed, we have sat without the Commons on many occasions over a number of years.
I would also make the point that it is only when we sit alone that we get a fair crack of the whip from the press and the BBC. Indeed, "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" come alive because of the marvellous discussions we have in this House, which are given greater prominence and time than would otherwise be the case. That is perhaps a good reason for sitting more often without the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in a measured speech, suggested that this is not the time to decide this matter; and that perhaps we should have more time to consider it. Does that mean that the matter will be pressed to a vote by the Opposition? I hope it does. Indeed, if so, I should have to support them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for not having been present when he moved the Motion. I had what I thought was an extremely good excuse. I opened my party Whip—a document which I read every week with intense interest and excitement—when I first arrived in London this afternoon. I saw four questions tabled on the Order Paper and had no doubt that if I arrived soon after three o'clock I would be in good time. Unfortunately, I missed what I am sure was a most illuminating speech and am sorry for myself as well as for the noble and learned Lord.
I echo those who said that merely because another place does something, that is not a good reason for us to do the same. I am inclined to a different view. If another place does something without good reason, which it often does, I would rather see us make a point of differing. That is what I should like to see us do on this occasion.
I listened with great respect, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Boston. I was impressed by the way in which, despite his disagreement with his noble and learned friend, he massaged him as near as he could into a good mood before he put the knife in and said that he would not be able to vote for the Motion. Disguised in all that complimentary and extremely civil language was a solid point which, I feel confident at guessing, has not even been thought of by another place.
574
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, it is probable that another place has been thinking solely of its own convenience, as is its habit. It is always nudged into thinking of its own convenience by the diabolical mephistophelean cleverness of an Administration which does not always display cleverness. On this kind of matter, the Administration is cunning indeed. Clearly, once again it has persuaded Members of another place how much more convenient it would be for them and has not mentioned the convenience or otherwise to the Government.
I shall not continue. The rather short, informal way in which we are being slipped into another change is something about which I am wary and do not welcome. Perhaps I may attempt to copy the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, by saying that I hope that nothing I have said today will disturb the happy and friendly relationship I enjoy with the noble and learned Lord.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Peyton graciously apologise to the noble and learned Lord for not having been in his place. I make the same apology because I was not in my place when the noble and learned Lord made his speech. For that I deeply apologise and grovel in sackcloth and ashes before him. I went round like a whirling dervish this morning trying to get things done in order to be here in time to listen to the noble and learned Lord. However, the whirling dervish did not move as quickly as it should, and I apologise. I hope that that will not preclude my adding a few views.
Like my noble friend Lord Peyton, I regret the idea of making this change. I cannot see that it will do much good for anyone, other than for those—and I can understand this—who wish to go on holiday at the end of July. Of course people have had children for years and years and they somehow manage to go on holiday. I do not know that that is a very good reason, particularly when Members of the House of Commons and indeed your Lordships receive greater emoluments now. My fear is that we will pay everyone, including ourselves, more and more and alter the processes for our own convenience. I do not know that that is a good idea.
I also think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is very true. The Palace of Westminster is a huge place. It has to be repaired. Repairs are programmed five years ahead. Everyone knows that one can get a good slice of time in the Summer Recess. If one leaves in July, comes back in September for two weeks and then goes away and comes back again, it really is not the most efficient way to do things.
Perhaps I may give the noble and learned Lord one small lesson in dynamics. He will know, I am sure, that with two four-inch pipes one does not get nearly so much water out as one does with an eight-inch pipe. In other words, if one goes from July—the noble and learned Lord is worried already: I know that it is not a legal argument—to October there is a good slice of

575
time during which work can be done. If one asks people to come in and out, one will not get nearly so much done and it will be far more expensive.
I am deeply apprehensive when the noble and learned Lord comes along with a very simple idea that is really just a little modernising of Parliament. I do not think that it is modernising of Parliament; it is unpicking much of what has been done. What we do at the moment in your Lordships' House is to great effect. I do not see that it is necessary for us to alter our times of sitting just because another place has decided to alter its times. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and my noble friend Lord Peyton, said, that the noble and learned Lord will think again, heavily and carefully, about this matter; and that he will conclude that on the whole it is better to leave things as they are and to not make an alteration which momentarily, for some extraordinary reason, he seems to think is a good idea.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had not intended to take part. I have been listening to the debate with increased disbelief. This is the second Chamber of Parliament. We hear a great deal about the need for Parliament to call the executive to account, with which I entirely agree. Yet we have to consider apparently the convenience of the public works department and of your Lordships' taking holidays in September in order to avoid the children being under their feet as they have gone back to school. It also appears now we should consider the chance of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, appearing on "Today in Parliament".
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, says that today is too early to consider this matter. As Chief Whip, I used to get asked questions about the Summer Recess about Christmas-time. Noble Lords would come in and say, "We should like to book our holiday. Can you give us any idea when we might rise for the summer?" I used to say. "Well, I will try to get up by the end of July, but we might have to sit in August" and so on. So the idea that this is too early does not run.
I think that it would be sensible to have a six-week break—which is what it would be—from the middle of July to the end of August and then to come back to complete the business. I know your Lordships will agree that it is a long haul in this House from Easter until the summer. There is the spring break. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is nodding. It is a long, hard haul for your Lordships. I hope that my noble and learned friend and the Chief Whip will be able to give us a defined date for the break in the summer, which would be in the middle of July. We shall have a six-week break and then come back for two weeks.
Many important things happen in the Summer Recess. If international and domestic issues arise—perhaps a strike or whatever—and the Commons is sitting and we are not, I wonder what the effect will be on those who observe this House from the outside.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the case that if the two Houses sit on
576
separate fortnights, the period during which Parliament itself is able to hold the Government to account is extended by a fortnight? Therefore, if that is our chief aim, that does not chime with the present Motion.
I have not apologised for being absent because I was present for the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, which was eloquent and almost as persuasive as usual. On this occasion, however, he did not entirely persuade me.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. For a week perhaps at the end of July and for a week in October this House sits and the other does not. If the Motion is defeated—if the Motion is put to the vote—it will not be possible to call the executive to account from the middle of July until perhaps the middle of October. The point about the two weeks in September is that we do have a chance to call the executive to account if there are important issues that arise at that time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House tell us what he thinks a proper period of trial would be? It appears to me that one year is enough. We could then look at the situation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point immediately because it is also the point of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The Motion is carefully crafted to limit itself to 2003 only.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—
Lord Jopling: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there has been a contribution from this side at all.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
A noble Lord: He is an independent.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—
Lord Jopling: My Lords, unlike some of my noble friends, I was in the Chamber to listen to the speech of the Leader of the House. I would hate to say to my noble friends that I was convinced by his speech because I came into the Chamber inclined to agree with him anyway, having just read the Motion.
I confess, having been around this building for 38 years, that I have always thought it a nonsense that in a normal year Parliament has not sat for 10 or sometimes 11 weeks and has not been able to hold the executive to account at all. I therefore came into your Lordships' House today rather inclined to support the Motion.

577
Often both Houses are recalled in September. I do not have the statistics, but as that is happening more and more in my experience it would be more convenient for us to know that we were coming back for two weeks in September with due warning, compared with coming back perhaps for a day or two days in September in some years without any warning at all. I should have thought that that would be convenient.
I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, on one particular matter: he talked about the disruption to the summer contractors. All I can say to him is that the contractors seem to be able to put the House together again quite quickly when we are recalled in an emergency during the middle of the Summer Recess. In any case, having, as I say, watched these things for a number of years, I am rather inclined to have the Summer Recess broken up because I have grieved over many years at the totally ridiculous waste of money which those contractors are led to spend on replacing carpets and other fittings in the House which I think a normal person would say were perfectly functional. A huge amount of money is wasted in that way. But that is a different point.
It is not in every year—if the noble and learned Lord looks at the history—that, by getting up in the middle of July, as the Motion says, we would be missing two weeks of sitting. If 16th July were a Thursday, if the House sat the following week, in many years—I say this as one who used to organise such things in another place—the House would not sit again on 27th July. So in some years, the House would rise only a week earlier in such circumstances.
That brings me to a point that the noble and learned Lord made early in his speech. One recommendation that he cited was that after the two week sitting in September, the House would rise for three weeks for the party conferences. I have no love of party conferences—I stopped attending them many years ago—but for those of your Lordships who want to attend, I should have thought that it would be far better as a general principle that your Lordships' House did not meet during the party conference period. I know that it has often happened, especially during the Conservative Party conference, which is held last. However, hearing in mind that sometimes we shall miss only one week in July, I hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would say what he nearly said but not quite: that he would propose that the House would rise for all three party conference weeks.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am pleased that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. because I, too, rise to speak in support of the recommendation made by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. I, too, was a member of the Leader's Group and I stand by the decision to which I subscribed when we wrote our report, which was to recommend September sittings as part of a package. I must confess that I was surprised that the issue was returning from the Procedure Committee to the
578
House. I was under the impression that the House passed a package including an agreement to effect that change. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will put me right if I misunderstood the position.
The important point that the House should understand is that we reached our view on returning to work in September in advance of the House of Commons taking any such decision. That decision was reached by the Leader's Group in its own judgment based on what we were trying to achieve with our report. That was not entirely about the convenience of the House, but principally about raising the level of scrutiny and calling the Government to account. Within the Leader's Group, it was generally—almost unanimously—agreed that there was sufficient cause for the House to be recalled during September because there was sufficient work for it to undertake then. In particular, we discussed a whole range of different functions that were delayed that could readily and properly be undertaken in September. I mention to the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, that I find it amazing—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He mentioned coming back in September because there was sufficient work to be undertaken then. My understanding of the proposals is that not a single extra day is being asked of Members of this House, so the point about workload has no bearing whatsoever on the proposals.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as has just been mentioned, it is likely that we will go into recess later than the House of Commons. Later in the year. there may be some changes in the way in which the programme is organised.
Returning to my point about our responsibilities to the public and in regard to scrutiny, I find it amazing that more than 50 per cent of our legislation emanates from Europe. Many people increasingly express concern about the volume of such legislation being passed, yet we ran from the end of July through to October without any close scrutiny of European legislation. We shall shortly receive a report from the European Union Committee examining how we currently undertake scrutiny.
So there is a compelling case for work to be undertaken, especially now that the Commons will resume in September. I ask the House to consider what will be the public perception if they see that the Houses of Parliament are not meeting broadly together as they have in the past—whether we will enhance the reputation of the House for its scrutiny and its calling of the Government to account by taking a break that runs from the second week in July through to October. On balance, I do not believe that that would go down especially well.
Many noble Lords may express views later today about the firemen's dispute and the need for modernisation, flexibility and change. When considering the future of this House. it is also appropriate for us to be prepared to be flexible, to recognise how people perceive us and to consider the

579
work that needs to be done. The change recommended by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House would ensure that the House would raise its status, rather than be the subject of possible criticism for failing to change.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I ask your Lordships to consider—putting it as neutrally as I can—- that the Leader's Group was composed of different strands of opinion. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said earlier, we started off with little in common, we realised that we had to give and take and we came to a unanimous conclusion. There was then a full debate in your Lordships' House in which a significant majority decided that we should try to move forward. I think that that is the way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, he is quite right to say that we suggested a trial period, but the Motion in my name specifically limits itself to 2003.
I turn to your Lordships' contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, both said that they were absent for my speech. I sympathise with them, because listening to reasoned and reasonable propositions often tends to cloud the judgment and erode prejudice. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he was going to put forward a few odd views, They were not few, but they were certainly odd. I could not follow the Ferrers faucet point about the eight inch pipe, but I think that he was suggesting two four inch pipes that would not join each other. We would then get all the water running out and nothing useful done.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Trefgarne, described themselves as the dinosaur tendency. One does not find many live dinosaurs about the world these days; they are normally buried in seaside resorts where people hold party political conferences. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she was passionately enthusiastic about the Liberal Democrat party conference. I sympathise with her, because the Liberal Democrats do not really have anything else about which to be enthusiastic. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not want to go to the Conservative Party conference. I sympathise with him, because Conservatives have everything else about which to be enthusiastic, but not their party conference.
No one has dealt with the "Forth" point. Mr Forth is a parliamentarian. He is an irritant—and rightly. Even in the Chamber in which the current Opposition is in a significant minority, he ploughs his furrow. What did he say, speaking in another place from the Conservative Front Bench? He said:
"We … enthusiastically endorse sittings in September because it will give the House more opportunity to hold the Government to account instead of giving the Government the free ride that they have traditionally had for two and a half months during the summer".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/02; col. 712.]
That point is extremely important. We do not simply scrutinise and check the Government on legislation.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first of all, Mr Forth was talking about the other place, not this place. Secondly,
580
if' we retain our present pattern of sitting, while the other place changes its. there will be more weeks of the year in which one or other Chamber is here to hold the Government to account than if we sat at the same times as it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have one thing in common: we both hope to be parliamentarians. I firmly believe that, when issues of great public importance and consequence arise, as with Iraq, the quality of scrutiny and informed debate in this House, some would say, is significantly better than in the other place. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
I return to the noble Lord's point. We are both parliamentarians, although we do not agree on everything. It was important that, in the debate on Iraq, for instance, we had half a dozen former Foreign Secretaries contribute to the debate, half a dozen former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and half a dozen bishops, although it is true that the bishops mainly divided among themselves. It is important that that public debate should be had.
This is an opportunity to ensure that we are not put on the second row on the back shelf, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seems to accept. The absurdly logical conclusion of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that it would he a good idea to have neither House sitting at the same time as the other throughout the year.
This is an aspect of limited progress. We must not put in the balance our personal convenience. It is demeaning to consider holiday convenience, the absolute objection to going on holiday when other people's children might be there or the lost opportunity—lost forever—of a discount on holiday rates. We are here with infinite privilege as Members of Parliament. We have an extraordinary advantage; we ought to be able to discharge our duties in a way that the public thinks is suitable. All that the Motion will do is deliver one small segment of what we have already agreed unanimously in the Leader's Group and by a significant majority in the House.
Mr Forth is right, and nobody has dealt with the point. Speaking about sitting in September, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"it will be very difficult for us not to go down that route".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 653.]
The noble Lord did not say that after the House of Commons had come to its conclusion. I caution your Lordships not to have too much amour propre— neither a Welsh nor an English expression, I am told. We need not object to something simply because the House of Commons proposes it. We come to our own conclusion, as we did long ago, before the Commons had any of its package of change and renewal in place. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that in May, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whom I cited.
I have not suggested—and am not suggesting—that we should blindly follow the Commons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and I confirm my

581
understanding of the question about the conference season. I suggest that it is good, appropriate, seemly and necessary for us to be broadly coincident with the House of Commons. After all, it is elected. It is not our superior in every way, but it has the superiority of election and dismissal, which we lack.
This is a short step forward. Have we not hearts big enough to try it? Must we constantly revert to the eighteenth century or, preferably, the seventeenth? I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord belittle the argument for the present arrangement by portraying it as one of simple personal convenience? Does he see any merit in the view, frequently expressed by Lady Seear, that most of us do a good deal outside this place and the less we do outside, the less use we are here?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I agree with that, as a general proposition. However, if the necessary, inevitable, logical corollary of that were that we ought to sit for two and a half weeks in 52, I would beg leave to dissent. The point is that we have two and a half months off in the summer. It is a complete blank space. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is right: on three years out of the past five, we have been recalled.
I shall deal with the question of the works in two ways—one is pragmatic and the other goes to the heart of the matter. The pragmatic point is that my office has discussed the question with Black Rod. Those things can be accommodated. I come to the question of principle: if noble Lords really believe that doing our work as parliamentarians should be subordinated to the task of contractors, I differ profoundly. If we come to that conclusion, why are we sitting here?
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Berkeley, L.

Addington, L.

Biffen, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Blackwell, L.

Amos, B.

Blaker, L.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brennan, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brightman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Avebury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Buscombe, B.

Barnett, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

582

Carrington, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Mar, C.

Davies of Coity, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Deedes, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Erroll, E.

Moynihan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Northover, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Prior, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Quirk, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gavron, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Rooker, L.

Grabiner, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sheldon, L.

Grocott, L.

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe, E.

Thornton, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Turnberg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Vincent of Coleshill, L.

Hoyle, L.

Waddington, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Warnock, B.

Islwyn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitaker, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Jones, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jopling, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jordan, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Judd, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Winston, L.

Layard, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Burnham, L.

Attlee, E.

Butterworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Chadlington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Chalfont, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Cockfield, L.

583

Coe, L.

Pendry, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dundee, E.

Plumb, L.

Falkland, V.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Freeman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B. [Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geddes, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hanham, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball. L.

Slim, V.

Kingsland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L,

Swinfen, L.

Marsh, L.

Tebbit, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Palmer, L.

Wilcox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Peel, E.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Fire Dispute
4.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to a Private Notice Question in another place earlier today on the firefighters' dispute. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government deeply regret the continuing firefighters' dispute and believe it cannot be justified. The firefighters are presently paid under a pay formula agreed at the conclusion of the last firefighters' strike 25 years ago. Under that formula, their pay has kept pace with pay rises in the economy as a whole.
"Following the election of the new general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union earlier this year, the union declared that it wanted to change the formula and tabled a 40 per cent pay claim.
"The employers agreed to discuss a new formula, and agreed in the meantime to pay 4 per cent, an above inflation pay increase roughly in line with the existing formula and pay awards to comparable groups of workers.
"The union refused this offer. In an effort to help in September, the Government appointed Sir George Bain, the highly respected chairman of the Low Pay Commission, to inquire into firefighters' pay and a possible new formula. We did so after
584
consultation with the TUC, and also appointed Tony Young, the former president of the TUC. to assist him.
"Meanwhile, in August, we began preparations with the military for strike cover.
"The employers co-operated with Bain. The unions again refused even to allow their members to talk to him.
"When the time for the strike approached, as well as continuing preparation with the forces, we tried to facilitate negotiation. We brought forward Bain. He recommended that above-inflation pay increases could be paid, but only if accompanied by modernisation. Among his findings were: that full-time firefighters should lift the ban on working alongside part-time ones; that overtime, where needed, be worked; that management could change, where necessary, the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on, then four days off to provide a better service; that firefighters could be allowed to do basic training as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment like defibrillators; that the fire service could share control rooms with other emergency services to provide efficiency of response; that action be taken to improve the management of sickness in the service to reduce the high numbers that retire early through sickness and ill health.
"The employers welcomed the report. The Fire Brigades Union rejected it out of hand. Those changes to working practices are plainly reasor able. They would produce substantial savings that could fund a better pay award.
"The potential deal that may have been reached last Friday morning between the union and the local government employers was unacceptable for the very simple reason that it was not funded through modernisation. In addition, the agreement to modernise was only to talk about it, not a Firm commitment to do it; and the costings of the deal were not calculated or given, though plainly significant. In effect, the Government were 6eing asked for a blank cheque.
"The Government's position is that, over and above the 4 per cent claim already offered to the firefighters, there can be no further money without it being paid for by modernisation.
"If the existing pay formula of the firefighters—which for 25 years their union insisted on—is to be changed, it has to be changed by agreement. The Bain report offers increased pay above 4 per cent paid for by changes in working practices. It is a fair and reasonable report.
"The Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside agreed Government spending limits. To do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. If the Government were to yield to this claim for pay increases way above inflation and not paid for by productivity, the consequences across the public sector would be huge. Nurses, soldiers—who are manning the fire appliances now on pay far below

585
the firefighters—teachers and police officers would also be seeking similar claims; and all that we have done to produce the lowest inflation, mortgage rates and unemployment in Britain for decades would be put at risk. It is not a course we can take.
"Meanwhile, the military does a superb job in providing replacement fire cover. I want to pay full tribute to our Armed Forces—Army, Navy and Air Force. They have done brilliantly, as ever, and we can be proud of them—and I thank the public, who have responded in an intelligent and mature way to the strains put on the service. Up to this point, after six days of strike action, they have coped admirably, saving numerous lives in the process. But obviously the risk to the public is there, which is why even now I urge the union to call off the dispute, which cannot succeed, and to return to the negotiating table to discuss how modernisation can fund pay improvements over and above the 4 per cent.
"The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's position last Thursday. He had offered to make a further Statement to the House today, precisely to keep the House informed. That is now superseded by this Answer to the right honourable gentleman's Question, and with the permission of the Speaker my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a Statement to the House tomorrow".
My Lords, That concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. However, is it not extraordinary that it took a Private Notice Question from my right honourable friend Mr Iain Duncan Smith in another place to force the Prime Minister to come to Parliament to make a Statement on this grave situation? This morning, the Prime Minister summoned a press conference to set out his views on the dispute. He was in any case coming to Parliament this afternoon. Should not his first thought have been to inform Parliament before grandstanding to the media? I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will take a very firm message back to the Prime Minister from this House that it is now far beyond high time that Ministers should make major statements to Parliament first and leave the spin until later.
Turning to the dispute itself, I should like to make it clear that we on this side agree that the pay claim put forward by the FBU is wholly unreasonable. We condemn strike action that puts the public at risk, and we totally condemn threats by other unions, masquerading under health and safety, to indulge in secondary action. The public already have enough to contend with without growing disruption to Tube and train journeys and the wrecking of holiday travel this Christmas.
Can the noble and learned Lord explain the legal position to this House? Will the Government seek an injunction under Section 240 of the 1992 trade union
586
legislation to ban this strike? Can he assure the House that any attempt to launch secondary action will be immediately confronted in the courts?
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm the Government's position on the crossing of picket lines to secure use of the most up-to-date equipment? Was the Prime Minister right when he said that crossing picket lines would simply inflame the dispute? Or was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, right when he said that public safety has to come before picket lines? Has not the Government's handling of the matter been an utter, complete and total shambles? Just who is in charge here? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or is it now the Prime Minister?
The dispute is no surprise. Just how is it that the Government seem so unprepared? When it started, they did not know what their policy was on reserve appliances, they did not know what their policy was on training troops to use fire equipment, and they did not seem to know whether they were a party to the dispute at all. All through the summer and autumn, the Government have been inactive and complacent over a growing threat to the safety of the public, and we now have a bitter and highly dangerous situation on our hands. This is undoubtedly partly because of the disastrous stream of mixed messages coming out of the Government.
Is the deal on offer from the employers "half-baked", as the Deputy Prime Minister said last Friday, or is it "still worth talking about", as he said yesterday? Is the offer simply unaffordable, as the Chancellor said, or are the Government,
"quite prepared to make an exceptional case",
as the Deputy Prime Minister said? The fire-fighters do not know where Ministers stand; the employers do not know where the Government stand; and at times it seems that half the Government do not know where the other half of the Government stand.
What exactly is meant by this word "modernisation"? Is this whap we used to call "productivity"? In the view of the Government, will it mean an overall reduction in the number of firefighters employed; and, if so, how large? The Prime Minister's intervention this morning made good television, but it had not one single new proposal to solve the crisis, and many will feel that it has simply interjected new bitterness into the dispute.
What do Ministers think would be a reasonable settlement for the FBU? If Ministers were clear enough on that to pull the rug on the offer made last Friday, they must have some idea of the answer. If they propose to intervene as they did, should not a more competent senior Minister be on hand to give an answer at any time of day or night?
In conclusion, all Members of this House will want to express their thanks and admiration to the young soldiers in service on our streets and roads today. Many of them would welcome the pay and terms of service that some firemen currently receive. But our troops never neglect their duty. Some of those very young soldiers may be called on to put themselves in

587
the way of a very different kind of danger in the event of war in Iraq. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore give an assurance that their battle-effectiveness and training will not be put at risk by the demands placed on them by the Government in an industrial relations fiasco of the Government's own making?
This whole episode has been shambolic. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from this shameful period, which has not only put the Government in the very worst possible light but has brought back shades of trade union activism that we thought had been relegated to history.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for replying to the Private Notice Question in another place. We regard the situation as seriously as he does.
First, I should like to express our deep appreciation of the work of the soldiers and nurses who have manned the green goddesses and echo what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said on that matter. They have put themselves at risk; in many cases they do not have full training for what they do; and they risk their own lives in our protection and defence. The public owes them a great debt of gratitude.
I also add a word of sympathy for the firemen. It is to their credit that on several occasions a number of them have broken their own picket lines because of lives being at risk. We should place on record that that is a more responsible attitude than some strikers have shown in other disputes and is perhaps one reason that they have managed to retain a degree of public support.
I should make it absolutely clear that we on these Benches believe that the Government were right to reject the extremely vague blank cheque that the employers proposed to achieve a settlement. There was no indication of how that settlement could be financed beyond the 4 per cent which from the beginning had been made plain was available under previous government arrangements to fund that sum of money, not only for the firemen but for other aspects of public services; no clear costing of how the rest of the claim was to be met; no clear indication of what the savings from modernisation would be; and, most importantly, no clear commitment to a programme of modernisation. We on these Benches therefore believe that the Government were right to reject that particular proposal made on Friday evening. We also have some sympathy with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the effect that there were no figures on which he could rely to indicate whether or not the Government could indeed support such a settlement.
However, I must add a note of criticism of the Government. I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that a good deal of vagueness and confusion has surrounded this matter. It has not been exactly clear from the beginning that the Government would not fund more than 4 per cent
588
except on the basis of costed modernisation proposals. That was dangerous because the employers seemed to continue to negotiate without any clear awareness of that fact—although they should have known it from the outset—all the way through to the moment of crisis occasioned by the second strike. They went through the first strike without that issue being made clear to the public or, evidently, to the employers or the strikers. The Government should examine very closely the way in which they conducted that part of the negotiations. If it was clear that they would not finance more than 4 per cent in any situation, it is not altogether clear why they joined the negotiations at all.
My second point concerns modernisation. Our understanding is that the National Joint Council costed the modernisation proposals and indicated that they would yield a saving of about £71 million. It is not clear to us whether that costing of modernisation also allowed for what may he described as a costing of improvements in quality. We all know that one of the great difficulties with the relationship of the fire fighters to their employers has been the extraordinarily anachronistic structure of rules, shill proposals, guarantees and commitments that have been made over many years. For example, we all know that there are fixed shift patterns that do not alter according to the demands of the day, the time of the day or the seasons of the year. We know that there are fixed arrangements under which overtime is limited, even though there may be moments when no overtime is needed and other moments when it is. It is a hopelessly anachronistic, inflexible and rigid structure, and it may be that large savings could be made from its modernisation.
There is no clear distinction between modernisation involving changes in those existing rigid rules and modernisation in the sense of improving the quality of the service by, for example, firemen being trained—extraordinarily, they are not—in the use of defibrillators, in first aid and in becoming a multipurpose force, rather than one with a very limited set of requirements and obligations linked to out-of-date technology. Therefore my first question about modernisation is: what does the £71 million cover? Does it cover any estimated improvements in quality, which, as far as we on these Benches can tell, has not so far been costed?
If the employers and the FBU were able to reach an agreement about the costing of part of their claim from savings on modernisation and if there was a clear commitment to staged modernisation to finance an increase of more than 4 per cent, would the Government in those circumstances be willing to finance the necessary additional transitional funding involved in a payment of salary necessarily somewhat preceding the actual specific savings from modernisation? They are two different matters. Savings from modernisation cannot be immediate.
In conclusion, I should like to raise the much wider issue of public sector workers. We on these Benches have indicated our sympathy for the Governments approach to the fire strike and the ways in which we hope they can bring about the satisfactory settlement

589
desired by both sides. However, with regard to the much wider repercussion for public sector workers, we take seriously the Government's real concerns about the possibility of undermining their very good record on inflation and public finances. However, have the Government given due consideration to the profound sense of injustice that reigns among public sector workers who see huge increases being offered to senior managers and directors, some with absolutely no record of success whatever, which has created deep bitterness among badly paid public sector workers?
In addition, will the Government consider how over a medium-term period they will attract teachers and nurses to the public sector at a time when property prices, especially in the south-east, are going through the roof and it is literally impossible for ordinary teachers or nurses to fund even minimal decent accommodation for themselves and their families? Will the Government give more sympathetic consideration to those problems than they have done so far?
4.28 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the noble Baroness for their contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the Government had learnt any lessons. The answer is an unambiguous "yes". They are not lessons that we needed to learn from the present dispute, but lessons that we needed to learn from recent political domestic history. The Prime Minister and the Government are also adamant that we in this country do not want to return to interest rates of 15 per cent. That was the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. We do not want to go back to a situation in which hundreds of thousands of people may lose their homes because they are unable to continue to pay their mortgages; nor do we want to return to a situation of high unemployment. Under the Chancellor's stewardship, we presently have inflation of 2 per cent—an historic low. Unemployment has declined since 1997. Mortgage rates are very low as a component of most families' domestic expenditure.
We have learnt the lesson and no one in this House should be under any illusion: we cannot, we shall not, we must not give in to claims of 40 per cent when inflation is 2 per cent and mortgage rates are what we know them to be. So we have learnt the lesson but we did not need this present dispute to bring it to the centre of our mind. It has been at the heart and forefront of every pronouncement that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made since 1997.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the pay claim is wholly unreasonable: 40 per cent when 2 per cent is the inflation rate and the general going rate has been of the order of 4 per cent. As regards the penultimate point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, many public service settlements have been at a higher rate than those in private industry. I exclude
590
the grotesque, aberrant awards that are given to chief executive officers; namely, on the basis that they have been able to demonstrate continued failure over a period of years.
What is the legal position? It is that there is the possibility of legal action being taken under the 1992 legislation if certain legal parameters are met and that is a matter for judgment. It is part of the legislation, as the noble Lord identified. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a particular question about it when he was in his place a few days ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about two apparent divergences. They are not two divergences at all. The citations he gave—I am sure that they were in no way selective—were, first, that the Prime Minister said that to cross picket lines inflames tempers (of course); and, secondly, that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that public safety must be above picket lines (of course). However, the point of being in government is to make judgments of that kind. They are never easy. They ought to be informed—they ought to be truly informed—and sometimes they are difficult.
The Government are not a party to the negotiations in the historic sense. The criticism of the present Government has always been that they are too centralistic; that they will not let go the levers of power; and that they constantly interfere with everything. So on this occasion the employers negotiated with the Fire Brigades' Union, but they were under no misapprehension—I beg your Lordships' pardon, they could not reasonably have been under any reasonable misapprehension—that the budgetary settlement was exactly that. It was a budget and it was settled.
Some people suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister in the early hours of the morning should have said yes or no—"Put your tick in the box, Mr Prescott"—on proposals which were not costed, were not detailed and did not condescend to any sensible defined proposals for rationalisation of working practices. I use that word in place of "modernisation". But he would have been grotesquely irresponsible to have said yes. The criticism of him for not saying yes and for saying that he needed further detailed material, access to legitimate costings and proper advice is wholly unreasonable and based on no understanding of the true economic situation in this country. The Government have had a consistent position throughout. There is no more money except within existing funding levels unless it is capable of being demonstrated to be savings by way of modernisation—or, as I say, rationalisation.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked what we speak of when we speak about modernisation. I repeat the examples. Full-time fire fighters should lift the ban on working alongside part-time ones. If any of your Lordships can demonstrate to me even the beginnings of an argument against that proposition, I shall be pleased and grateful to hear it—although I think I shall be waiting rather a long time. Overtime, where needed, should be worked. This House is well accustomed to unpaid overtime and we do it. Why?

591
Because we know that it is a necessary consequence of the work that we do. Management can change where necessary the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on and then four days off. We have just voted by a two to one majority to change our rigid shift system, even in September.
Finally, let us examine this, which is deeply important. Fire fighters should be allowed to do basic training as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment such as defibrillators. I point to what our own colleagues in this House did when it was necessary to provide defibrillators. Did they say that it was not their work? Did they refuse to assist? There is a moral there.
The past history of 25 years stuck in aspic with practices that cannot be justified on any basis is intolerable. Being intolerable, it is not to be tolerated and therefore it will not be. The one easy way out is the gross irresponsibility of not recognising that this claim does not stand alone—although it is not sustainable on its own. Everyone in this Chamber knows, and I believe that the majority of the public know, that this will not be the last such claim; that it is not proportionate; that it is not reasonable; and that it is not sustainable.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord two questions. First, if everything above 4 per cent is to be paid for out of productivity gains so that the overall cost of the Fire Service does not increase, what scale of redundancies will be required? Improvements in quality will not reduce the overall cost of the 16 per cent package.
Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord agree with those lawyers who believe that a combination of measures under the social chapter and of human rights legislation have in effect granted a right to strike? If that so, is it any longer possible either to seek an injunction against strikers for doing what is their legal right or to seek an action in tort against a trade union for the same action?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is tempting me to revert to my former occupation. I do not believe that the Human Rights Act restricts necessary action. A human right is the right to withdraw one's labour, but it is riot an absolute right, as the noble Lord knows and did a great deal to bring about. All of the human rights legislation deals with proportionality and the balancing of different interests. To put it at its simplest, my right to free speech is constrained by the noble Lord's right not to be defamed by me. I do not believe that the social chapter and the human rights legislation will inhibit the Government from acting as they think appropriate.
I cannot give an answer to the redundancy point, which is a very important one. But I will put this question, if I may, because the noble Lord asked questions which were utterly devoid of any party-political advantage. What happened when the dispute
592
arose? I will put it neutrally. The Government set up an independent inquiry. Could it be said that Sir George Bain was likely to be a placeman or a preacher? Emphatically not. He is respected by everyone in this particular field: he chaired the Low Pay Commission after all.
The Bain committee, which included a former president of the Trades Union Congress, said, "We must modernise. Here is a first report. We hope that you will be able to discuss it". The way forward is of discussion, of attempting to cost and attempting to forecast the future. It is difficult with firemen, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, knows because they can retire at different times; one can retire after a certain period on a half pension and, with more years' service, on a two-thirds pension. All of those things will be actuarially difficult to propose unless we have negotiations.
The FBU would not co-operate at all with Bain, part one or part two. To my understanding, it has put forward no proposal for modernisation. I believe that if the Bain inquiry said, "Let us sit down and discuss. Here is our initial draft, please rejoin us in December", then some of the answers to those questions—I agree with the implicit point of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that they are difficult questions—can be arrived at. But we shall never arrive at them if someone is holding a gun, with loaded chamber, at our head.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I echo the strong support given to the Government by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for resisting the 40 per cent claim, or anything like it. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, it world be catastrophic for the public sector as a whole and for the economic management of the country.
I regret the rather unworthy little jibes which the noble and learned Lord directed towards the previous government's economic policy. Quite frankly, the present economic prosperity that Britain enjoys, which is well ahead of most countries in Europe, is based on the Conservative inheritance of very sound economic policy. So let us get that out of the way.
I strongly support the Chancellor in his apparent decision that to meet the shortfall that will occur in his revenues he will not increase taxes, he will not cut spending but he will increase borrowing. That is clearly right.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the firemen are led by a highly politically motivated leader, who is one of a group of such who have recently emerged? I have had the opportunity to talk to some of them. Does the noble and learned Lord realise that they are every bit as antagonistic and opposed to the new Labour Government as they would be if there were a Conservative Government? That is another reason why it is so important to try to separate them from the membership and to stand up against them.
I turn finally to a short technical point, which I raise after talking to people in Suffolk. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of the retained firemen are members of the Fire Brigades Union because in

593
these days of liability claims the insurance facilities offered to members of other unions are not adequate to protect their apprehension of being sued if something goes wrong when they are tackling a fire? Will the noble and learned Lord at least feed that into the process of considering the wider aspects of the dispute?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's latter point straightaway. I do not know the intricacies of the insurance position in his part of the world but, as he knows, my noble friend Lord Rooker will be repeating the Statement—if that is what the House wishes—to be made by the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow and I hope that we may at least have made some inquiries about that. I undertake to do that. The noble Lord can see my noble friend Lord Rooker sitting next to me.
I was not making unworthy little jibes. I was making a serious point, which is this: if we do not stand firm we shall drift backwards into the old lethargy which was a characteristic of this country. It is not a party political point because a good deal of the inheritance left by the government in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, served has been to the public benefit in this country. I was not making the point that everything was bad. I was making the serious and sober point that once we start to lose our resolution we will be in danger of returning to the bad old times—hyper inflation, people losing their houses, people losing their jobs and a general feeling of social insecurity and uncertainty which has endless social ramifications, as I know the noble Lord would be the first to agree.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was absolutely right in what he said in his last sentence. Perhaps I may ask him why there was no plan B. The Government have had months to know what was in store for them.
Is it not possible to look at—not necessarily to accept—the practice in both Denmark and the United States of a decentralised fire service, where each individual county or town runs its own fire service without the centralised block wage bargaining which clogs everything up? For example, Surrey or Yorkshire could arrive at their own arrangements, which could be different for each county because their circumstances are different. No one has thought of that.
I get the impression—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to dispel it—that the Government have been caught on the hop. There is no plan B and no one has thought of an alternative. That is the criticism I would raise against Her Majesty's present advisers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl may raise that criticism but it would be mistaken. One cannot sensibly approach an industrial dispute by saying to the employees, "We may take away your jobs altogether and go a completely different way". The true plan B was the setting up of the Bain inquiry. It
594
was a perfectly sensible thing to do. No one said its terms of reference were wrong; the employers were willing to contribute; its constitution in terms of the people on it was immaculately independent—and the union, I repeat, refused to have anything to do with it. It put forward no ideas for modernisation—not even on one side of a postcard—and forbade its own members to give evidence.
In those circumstances a government have to take a firm stand, and that is what we have done. It is being misrepresented—we shall have to bear that. It may well be unpopular in the short-term—we must bear that.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a county councillor and I have been involved in negotiating with both the Fire Brigades Union and the police.
The negotiating machinery is very bad indeed. It involves a huge number of people—about 40 on the management side and about 40 on the police side. I went to a meeting at the police national negotiating body two weeks ago, where all those people were in a room and only one person on each side was allowed to speak. They then went away into other rooms and talked among themselves, and then they came back again. I plead with the Government to give some thought to streamlining this negotiating machinery. There is no doubt that huge misunderstandings arise when so many people—some representing counties, some representing employers' associations and some representing national bodies—are all merged together. As soon as we get a simplified negotiating machinery, I am sure that in reasonable circumstances we can look forward to better and clearer outcomes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, makes a very good point. But he said "in reasonable circumstances". I recognise in my mind the citation from the American President, I think, who said. "Come, let us reason together". But, mixing the citations rather inappropriately, it takes at least two to tango. There is no reason why we should not have different views of how we carry out negotiations. Lots of other professional bodies have to change; lots of other trade unions have to change. It is not reasonable simply to say, "Here is a 40 per cent claim; we will do nothing in the context of the Bain inquiry; we will offer no evidence; we will destroy none of your misapprehensions".
For the long term, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of course there will be lessons to be learnt. But one of the lessons we are adamant about is that we will not give in to blackmail.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that although 40 per cent was the original claim there seems to have been a shift in the FBU position and that 16 per cent has been mentioned as a possible solution, phased in over a

595
period, with £25,000 as the aimed for pay for firefighters? There seems to have been a shift in the union's position judging by the press statements which came out over the week-end.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I could be wrong, because I have not taken part in the negotiations and I am only doing the best I can with the material I have. It is not to my knowledge that the FBU has disclaimed, discarded or withdrawn its 40 per cent claim. In a context of 2 per cent inflation, without being properly funded it would not be responsible for a government to accept 16 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord's stance that the Government must now take a firm stand. I also support what was said by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the problems of restrictive practices in the unions, which is not new. It very much exists in this union today and it must he dealt with. That being so, I ask for assurance, first, that our Armed Forces shall not be asked to cross the picket lines without an emergency Order in Council on the affirmation of both Houses; and, secondly, that in these regrettable circumstances the Government will use their best endeavours to repair their nets with the trades union movement as a whole. Only with its support will the general situation improve. Forget the FBU for a moment; a general situation of far greater importance is looming. Could the Government take the initiative and restore negotiations with the trade union movement?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I will consider his first point, which is one of legal technicality as well as having a wider purpose. On his second point about the Government's best endeavours to have amicable relations with the trade union movement, that is exactly what we wanted. The Prime Minister demonstrated that; the former president of the Trades Union Council was asked to sit on the Bain inquiry. No one could be more generous than that. He and I have the previous convictions of being members of probably the best organised closed shop that the world has ever known, of which we are still members. I was chairman of it, so I know. It is called the Bar Council—perhaps I should not utter those two words.
Immediately before the last election, and immediately after the 1997 election, the Prime Minister said that we would treat our fellow citizens in the unions fairly but without favouritism. That is a good star to be guided by. I hope I do not trespass on your Lordships' tolerance, but one needs to remember that every wage increase that cannot be justified is a burden on all other citizens in this country. I pay tribute to the public services; my parents were both teachers and my first full-time job was as a teacher. Nobody needs me to pay tribute to the quality of public servants. We must all change, particularly given that we benefit from the present
596
good economic circumstances in this country, or at least we must all have open minds to arguments for change. I say with deep regret that that is what has been lacking. For instance, Mr Prescott approaches the situation with a sad heart because he went into politics to secure the rights, liberties and appropriate privileges of those who work for a living. But that history cannot blind him or anyone else in the Government to our present serious circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord's analogy of it taking two to tango, it seems that three organisations are tangoing in this situation: the union, the Government and the employers. It is perhaps no wonder that there is a little bit of tripping over each other's feet. Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the role that the Government are playing? Were I a local authority negotiator in this situation, I would find it very hard to know what my negotiating hand might be if the Government were to say, "no we won't give you the funds, but we are not taking a part in the negotiation directly". I am probably not alone in wanting to understand this. It goes beyond the fire fighters' strike but very directly to the points that the Lord Privy Seal made about the health of the economy.
My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the problems of public sector workers with housing and so on, particularly in London and the South East. We all need to ensure that their reasonable claims are satisfied with a view to the health of the whole economy, particularly that of London and the City, without which our economy would crumble just as fast as it would if wage claims spiralled out of control.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two points. Part of the Deputy Prime Minister's remit is to address those very problems. He is engaged in securing funds and applying them to the exact problems that the noble Baroness identified, and which were referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
The FBU's claim is 40 per cent, and slightly more than 50 per cent for control room staff. To paraphrase the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the local authority negotiators are there to negotiate within their budgets. Very substantial settlements have been given by the Chancellor. But he said time and time again that those are to be used for reform and renewal—not simply to be dissipated and diverted into excessive pay demands. In a negotiation, one needs to be a competent negotiator. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, thinks that the mechanism is not competent. I am not sure whether he applied "incompetent" to the individuals; therefore I shall neither disagree nor agree with him. But the proposed draft offer winging its way to Mr Prescott in the early hours of the morning was uncosted, unfunded and unmonitored.

NATO Summit, Prague
4.57 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the NATO summit. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the NATO summit in Prague on 20th-22nd November. With my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, I represented the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Council, the special meeting of the North Atlantic Council with the seven new countries invited to become new members, and the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council. At the outset, may I pay tribute to President Havel and our Czech hosts, and to the skilful chairmanship of the NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson, who has been widely and rightly praised for his leadership in this role.
"The summit reflected the extraordinary changes in the global security environment in which all nations now operate.
"NATO itself has changed. We decided on seven new members. I congratulate Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia on their invitations. They are well deserved. They reflect the progress in reform that all seven countries have made since the end of the Cold War. All are on course to be in the alliance by the next summit in 18 months time and to be contributors to European security. This enlargement will strengthen NATO and make the whole continent of Europe more secure.
"These invitations will not be the last. The United Kingdom will help those who want to join, and who meet the criteria, to succeed in the future.
"Secondly, NATO continues to build new relationships outside its formal membership. Most importantly, the relationship with Russia has been transformed this past year. We now work with Russia as an equal partner, co-operating in a wide range of areas. A good example is the Balkans, where NATO and Russia are together making an immense contribution towards our goal of a peaceful and stable Balkans playing a full part in the European family. One of NATO's greatest benefits has been the forum it has provided for its European and transatlantic members to deal with security challenges together. My great hope is that we are now beginning to include the new Russia as a real partner in meeting the new threats we face. There was a useful meeting in Prague of the NATO-Russia Council at Foreign Minister level.
"NATO is also pursuing its practical cooperation with the Ukraine, and strengthening its wider partnerships with the Mediterranean, central Asia and the Caucasus. NATO is building a close and effective relationship with the EU on crisis management, for example in the Balkans. At Prague, we decided to maintain a NATO presence in
598
Macedonia for a further limited period. Once the EU-NATO links are in place, I am keen to see an ESDP operation in Macedonia to show that Europe can play its part in bringing security and stability to this part of our continent.
"Thirdly, NATO needs to develop new capabilities. The Cold War is over. There are new missions and new threats. The key is flexibility of response, adaptability of military forces and modernisation of defence capabilities.
"The Prague summit agreed on three new instruments to help meet these challenges: a new NATO response force will provide NATO with effective forces available at short notice; all allies have committed to improve their capabilities in specific ways to support and equip forces that are flexible and deployable; and we agreed on a revised, reduced and refocused command structure.
"Above all, the summit was a profound demonstration of unity in the face of the new threats that confront us. Every nation spoke of the menace of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We all recognised that there is no place to hide from them. The terrorists do not distinguish between the 'soft' or 'hard' nations on terrorism. Every European country knows that it is under threat, whether known as strong supporters of US policy or not. Every nation talked of the cells of Al'Qaeda or related groups within them, ready to strike at innocent people.
"This is not a war which we can avoid. There is no appeasing these fanatics. They will not go more lightly on us if we are less outspoken in our condemnation of them. Their enemy is anyone who is not them and they feel as strongly, sometimes more so, against the moderate Muslim as they do against the Christian or Jew or Hindu.
"The NATO summit affirmed that simple truth. It was a remarkable statement of defiance. And it linked very clearly and rightly terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The threat from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue unstable states is not part of some different danger. It, too, represents savage indifference to human life. It, too, crosses national boundaries without discrimination. It, too, cannot be negotiated with or appeased, only defeated utterly.
"The strength of the NATO summit statement on Iraq was testimony to that belief. There was complete unanimity round the table that the choice for war or peace lies with Saddam, and that if he breached the will of the UN, the UN would have to act. There was strong support for multilateralism and for the decision of President Bush to go through the UN but equally strong insistence that multilateralism and the UN be seen to work. And some of the most powerful expressions of these sentiments on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction came not from the old but from the new members of the NATO alliance.

599
"President Havel was a prisoner of the old communist regime; he was witness to the dissolution of he Warsaw Pact; he has now presided over NATO's largest gathering. The president of Lithuania, who has seen his country raped and destroyed by war and totalitarian oppression, and who lived for 50 years in Chicago as an exile from his homeland, is now hack as its president. The president of Latvia, for years a professor in Montreal, spoke in the most moving terms of her country's long dark years, struggle for freedom and pride m becoming part of NATO.
"Each representative has a story to tell and all have the same theme: they know the value of the fight for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law and the struggle to break free of totalitarian intolerance and fanaticism. And they know the meaning of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of brutal and repressive states. They know that extremism has just taken a new form for the 21st century. And they were complete in their determination that these new threats had to be faced, conquered and confined to history just like the scourges of the twentieth century. They had much to tell us about the values we believe in. Sometimes we can be complacent about them. They were not. They know their worth. And the ultimate message from the NATO summit was far more powerful than discussion of capabilities or formal structures. It was that if we care about these values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we should not flinch from the fight in defending them and I know this country, Britain, will defend them with courage and certainty''.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating this important Statement. In view of the fact that the House has not yet started the main business of the day, I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
There will be few noble Lords who do not welcome the extension of the NATO family to bring in more of the nations of eastern Europe. The fracturing of Europe into east and west was one of the underlying historical tragedies of the whole of the last millennium. It has been a source of far too much strife and suffering over the centuries, underscored in the post-war era by the brutal enslavement of eastern Europe under left-wing totalitarianism.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the existence of the NATO alliance was a primary reason for the breaking of the tyranny of the socialist bloc? There were many who marched and campaigned against NATO. However, it can now be seen that NATO has been the most successful alliance of modern times. Can he confirm that it remains the core principle of the Government's international security policy to maintain and strengthen that alliance?
The Prague commitment to transform NATO with new members, new capabilities and new relationships with our partners is a step in the right direction. But
600
have all the key issues been resolved? When will European members of NATO start increasing, instead of cutting, defence spending? The Prague statement is long on commitments and short on targets. How can we be sure that our NATO allies will deliver on the Prague commitments?
Before the summit there were many gloomy predictions. Many repeated the old line that Russia would be alienated from Europe and the US if the alliance were extended. Instead, President Putin himself said that he had no problems with the outcome of the summit. Is not the reality that Russia has as much to gain from a circle of security and peace on its western borders as we have to gain from improving relations with a Russia that President Bush historically described as a "friend" of the United States? In that context, were the situations in Moldova and Georgia discussed at Prague? If so, were there any conclusions?
Mention of President Bush calls to mind another set of dire predictions before the summit from so-called progressive commentators. It was said that there was a growing US-European division. It was said that President Bush was a unilateralist who was pushing a divisive agenda. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the outcome of the summit spectacularly disproved that view? Would he agree that President Bush acted as a major unifying force before and during the summit?
We welcome the commitment to the new NATO response force, which is vital to enable NATO countries to contribute effectively to the war against terrorism. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that NATO commitments rather than EU commitments will always have priority in all NATO member states? There are dangers of incoherence in this context. There is potential confusion for our troops who are asked to wear two or three defence hats at one time.
Finally, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Government stand by their commitment that no EU operation should take place until permanent arrangements between NATO and the EU are securely in place? This was an historic summit. Let us hope that NATO is further strengthened in the long term by it.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. I do not find the Statement quite as acceptable as did the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that it is a rather anodyne Statement, which covers a number of extremely crucial decisions. They are perhaps among the most crucial decisions that the House will be called on to discuss now or in the future. Some of those decisions profoundly require discussion and debate in the House.
I begin by discussing what I believe are the two great achievements of the NATO meeting; I obviously commend them, as other noble Lords have done. The first is that of expansion, which has clearly been done in a way that minimises the fears of Russia. I agree that

601
President Putin has accepted that and that so far he sees the expansion of NATO not as a threat but in some ways as a stabilising force. That is good news.
Secondly, it is worth mentioning the agreement reached about Kaliningrad, which has for a long time been a thorn in the whole relationship between Russia and the West. I believe that the proposal made with regard to the movement of people in and out of Kaliningrad through Lithuanian territory is a satisfactory outcome. I had the pleasure two weeks ago of being at a conference in Russia, where Russia-European relations were discussed by a number of senior attenders, including President Putin's main sherpa. They agreed that the Kaliningrad approach, which has now been accepted, was one they would find very calming from their point of view. I have some questions about what I find extremely troubling, not so much about the Statement but as regards what underlies it in terms of the events that occurred at NATO.
My first question relates to the tension between the rapid reaction force and the European rapid reaction force that was proposed and supported by the Prime Minister, among others, only a short time ago. No mention is made in the Statement of that second European force, although it was quite clear that it was intended to work on areas that would not be addressed by the proposed NATO response force; namely, the Petersburg tasks relating to peacekeeping, nation building, and humanitarian aid, which are of particular importance in areas such as the Balkans, Macedonia, Moldova, and Georgia. In the first three cases, the United States has indicated that it regards them primarily as European, not American, responsibilities. How will we address those tasks if we continue to get absolutely nowhere with the European security and defence force? Indeed, we do not appear to be getting anywhere very fast.
Secondly, in the interstices of the NATO summit Mr Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, indicated that we now support the idea of a ballistic missile defence system. He said that developing the capacity to defend against the threat of ballistic missile attack is in the interest of the UK, just as much as it is in the interest of the United States. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who speaks on defence in this House, used rather more moderate words when speaking on the subject. He said that there is no essential need at present for Britain to invest in a missile defence system in this country. He added that the Government would agree to this only if the security of the United Kingdom and of NATO would be enhanced.
We have had many debates on the matter, not only in this House but also elsewhere. There has never been a consensus in this country in favour of support for a national—or, for that matter, a non-national—ballistic missile defence. Repeated Questions about Fylingdales were tabled in this House, the answers to which were invariably that no request had been received from the United States. There was never a
602
serious debate about whether we should accept the proposal to hand over this base to the United States for the purposes of missile defence.
At least some of us are very unsure about whether the estimated expenditure of £10 billion for this purpose is a sensible use of scarce UK defence money when there are so many requirements for conventional weapons and for improving the equipment of our troops. Parliament should have had an opportunity to debate the matter in detail before the Government, in the shape of the Secretary of State for Defence. simply assumed that we now support it.
Thirdly, I should like to know what kind of command structure exists as regards the proposed NATO response force of 21,000 people. We are informed that the command structure will be American, to which I have no objection. However, we are also informed that the consensual structure of NATO decision making may not apply to the use of this response force. If it is intended that the NATO defence force be an annex to the American military establishment, let it be said straightforwardly that that is what it is all about.
Finally, there is no difference of opinion between these Benches and the government Benches about the absolute necessity to address terrorism. However, I must express profound concern about the way in which the second string of the attack on terrorism is being approached. Noble Lords on these Benches have long argued, as I believed was also the case with the Government, that there was more than one response to terrorism. In other words, there is not only a military but also a non-military response: one that recognises the importance of building up democracy; the importance of peacekeeping activities; and the necessity of addressing poverty and the other underlying evils of our world.
The OSCE was developed with Russian. American, and Canadian membership for such a purpose. I am troubled by the fact that there is no reference in the Statement to these second and vitally importance ways of dealing with terrorism. I believe that much of the position taken by this country, by other European countries, and in the past by the United States, in terms of a multilateral structure of arms control, of addressing weapons of mass destruction, and so on, has simply been disregarded and, essentially. passed by in this Statement. I hope that that is only an omission, not an indication of a new government policy.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his extremely generous comments on this achievement. I take his point that there is other business on the Order Paper that has been somewhat delayed today. Therefore, I shall try to be brief. I agree with the noble Lord that the breaking of the totalitarian power of the former USSR was significantly brought about by NATO, and the robust stance adopted by United States administrations over the period since 1945. In fact, the difficulty at present is understanding how quickly things have changed.

603
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a core principle that we maintain our loyalty to NATO as plainly as we possibly can. Similarly, I agree that Russia has much to gain. It is an extraordinary achievement that Russia should have taken part in the recent NATO-Russian council. The noble Lord asked specifically about Moldova and Georgia. The governments of both those countries were present on the second day of the summit. Georgia has expressed a long-term interest, together with the Ukraine, in the possibility of joining.
The noble Lord asked whether President Bush was a unilateralist or a multilateralist. Although I did not hear his response from him, I heard it from his Secretary of State for Defense. He said that it depends on the circumstances. If it is essential within the United States' interest that they act alone, then they must be prepared to bear the burden of such action. Plainly, in his approach to NATO, and in his recent notable speech to the United Nations Security Council, President Bush has demonstrated himself to be an appropriate multilateralist. I think that the qualifying adjective may be mine.
The noble Lord asked about the position vis-à-vis the European security and defence policy and NATO. We do not regard them as rivals. If an operation is conducted in a NATO or in an EU framework, it depends on the particular circumstances and which countries would wish to be engaged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, took a rather more gloomy view; indeed, she used the word "anodyne" and said that many issues were skated over in the Statement. I cannot accept that description. The outcome of the summit is a remarkable achievement. I accept her implicit proposition that these are only first stages. We are talking about countries that will join, but they will not do so immediately. They have differences in quantity as well as in quality regarding what they can bring to the process.
I noted the noble Baroness's comments on the £10 billion expenditure on missile defence. I shall transmit onwards her suggestion that Parliament, or at least this House of Parliament, should have an opportunity to debate the matter in detail. I am not the master in that respect, but I shall certainly mention that suggestion to the usual channels.
As to the command structure, I can tell the noble Baroness that all such matters will be under the political authority of the North Atlantic Council. She made the very important point with which I wholly agree: namely, that the need to meet the threat of terrorism is not simply military, and not military of one sort. There are reasons, purposes, and motives that drive people towards terrorism and to the destruction of their own lives and communities as well as the destruction of other lives and communities. Simply to think that military action is the answer is a short-sighted approach, and a profoundly mistaken one. I do not believe that that is the view of the United States Administration. It is certainly not the view of this Government.
This Government can demonstrate that quite well in practice. One of the remarkable successes has been the tenure of DfID by Clare Short, who is an absolutely
604
doughty champion of precisely the objectives identified by the noble Baroness. But, more importantly, she has also been an effective champion as regards the increase in aid and its proper direction that we have seen take place over the past live years.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I have the honour of representing this House on the NATO parliamentary assembly; and, indeed, lead the British delegation. We met in session immediately prior to the meeting in Prague. Perhaps I may confirm to the House that the Russian attitude is just as outlined by my right honourable friend in his Statement. There is a definite change in attitude and in demeanour, which bodes well for future negotiations.
My right honourable friend made the point about NATO's rapid reaction force and the associated command structure. That means that it is a new ball game and a new step-change in our fight against terrorism and other war-fighting capabilities. But can my noble and learned friend assure me that the British Government will use all their powers and that they will give all possible support to the Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his efforts to persuade some of our allies to increase the amount of money that they spend on defence'? Unless they do so, we shall not have the capabilities for that rapid reaction force to be as effective as it should be.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to, and in agreement with, my noble friend. In particular, following the Rome Summit in May, I believe that the Prime Minister said that that summit had marked a transformation in the relationship between Russia and the alliance. Indeed. the NATO-Russia Council has got off to a very good start in the fields of counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, missile defence and defence reform. Therefore, I am most grateful that my noble friend, who has far greater expertise than me in these matters, is able to confirm that.
He will also have noted in the Statement which I repeated on behalf of the Prime Minister the very sharp tribute which the Prime Minister paid to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I can assure my noble friend that the Prime Minister has his point well in mind, as does the Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. If we are to bear the burdens, we must bear them with some degree of equity.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, about defence spending, were any firm undertakings given by the existing or applicant members to increase their defence spending and their defence capabilities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said earlier, I believe that the best answer that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is that these are very much preliminary stages. The objectives that he identified will be long-term ones. I can reaffirm this Government's agreement that. if there are to be

605
burdens, they must be fairly shared because the whole purpose of their policy is to bring about benefit to every constituent member of NATO as well as to our neighbours.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, while I always agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, on this occasion I share many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. In particular, I share her concern about the inadequate opportunity in this House to consider many of the critical, far-reaching and important issues that were discussed and, indeed, agreed. Those range from crisis prevention to post-conflict resolution, NATO's role in countering terrorism, the RRF, Fylingdales and, indeed, as a consequence of much of the discussion, the total cost impact on the UK's budget. Those are all major issues. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord said that this was a beginning. But many of us saw the decisions as milestone decisions and worthy of greater and more detailed consideration by your Lordships' House.
In that context, when the noble and learned Lord pauses to reflect on the summit, perhaps I may ask whether it is the view of the Government that American and European security interests are now one and the same and, if they are not, where they differ.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about time for debate. I must not be partisan, but that may be a consequence of the different way that we work. If we carry out more work in Grand Committee, for example, there may be better opportunities—I know that the noble Baroness is equally as keen on this as the noble Lord—to have genuine debate in the Chamber where there is a vast amount of expertise. I shall probably go to my death wishing that the excellent quality of the debates was reflected in any of the media. That is not the case, despite the fact that extremely good work is done here.
With regard to identity of interest, I would express that as "community of interest". We shall not agree with the United States on every single aspect of every single component of every single foreign policy. But I agree with the noble Lord that there is much more that binds us together and much deeper community of interest than divides us. I believe that that is reflected by the outcome of this extraordinarily successful summit, where European countries joined fully and wholeheartedly with the United States in the same way as, for example, the United States joined with countries which, until a very short time ago, were under the heel of totalitarianism and would not have dreamt of agreeing with the United States on anything. Indeed, their citizens found it very difficult even to travel outside the borders because there was a wall.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, briefly, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the French agreed wholeheartedly with the division of responsibilities between NATO and ESDP as agreed
606
at Prague? Does he think that there is a sporting chance that they will continue to support those agreements in future?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had not said "sporting chance"—not following last weekend, and I am not simply talking about England. I believe that there is. It is in the interest of all European nations to secure the peace that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, has been hard won over a period of more than half a century. There are bound to be differences of view. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would not expect a dull uniformity in Europe in any circumstances.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill concerns the adapted version of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, commonly referred to as the "CFE Treaty", which was signed in Paris on 19th November 1990. The agreement on adaptation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty—more commonly known as the "Adapted CFE Treaty"—was signed by all states party to the CFE Treaty at Istanbul on 19th November 1999.
The original CFE Treaty limits the holdings of five categories of heavy weapons—tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters—by the 30 member states of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. The treaty includes an important transparency and verification regime. It is seen as a cornerstone of European security and has resulted in the destruction of more than 50,000 heavy weapons in Europe. However, the treaty was negotiated at the end of the Cold War and it needed to be adapted in order to reflect the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and NATO enlargement.
The Adapted CFE Treaty replaces the old bloc-to-bloc system with national and territorial ceilings for heavy weapons. The Adapted CFE Treaty also provides for greater transparency than the present CFE Treaty through a substantially enhanced system of information provision. In particular, it increases the amount of military information that each of the 30 states party to the treaty must provide and it enhances the regime of inspections. The Adapted CFE Treaty also includes provisions for new European states to join.
The Adapted CFE Treaty provides for inspections of larger areas than in the original CFE Treaty. In the United Kingdom, the fact that increasingly parts of military sites are owned and operated by the private sector means that we need to legislate to allow access to these private sites.

607
The main provisions of this short technical Bill amend the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 to provide for the additional rights of entry to private land which are required to implement the additional inspection requirements of the Protocol on Inspections of the Agreement on Adaptation. It also confers a power to make further amendments to the 1991 Act should they be needed to implement future amendments to the CFE Treaty.
The Bill thus provides the legislation necessary for the UK to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty quickly when the time is right. While the UK is keen for the Adapted CFE Treaty to come into force as soon as possible, our position and that of our NATO allies is that ratification can be envisaged only in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act.
We and other NATO allies continue to urge Russia to resolve the outstanding issues on Georgia and Moldova. The Secretary of State will not bring the Act into force in accordance with Clause 3 until the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. As we have heard, it deals with amendments to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and enhances transparency, which we welcome.
In the light of the agreement on adaptation, I should be interested to hear the implications for declared sites in the UK. As I understand it, the reason for providing additional rights of entry under Section VII of the protocol on inspections is that private companies are now involved in the ownership and operation of sites that were previously managed wholly by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister give the House an example of a site to which that might apply? Would it, for example, apply to airfields and RAF bases that are no longer used by the Ministry of Defence but are still used for domestic and freight purposes? I should be grateful for clarification on the procedure under the new part-ownership arrangements.
Under Clause 2, in future any amendment to the CFE Treaty would no longer appear before your Lordships' House as primary legislation. It would appear as an affirmative instrument. That represents, I fear, yet another example of the Government enacting measures by secondary legislation. We should like simply to register our concerns. The CFE Treaty addresses sensitive issues.
The protocol on inspections in particular concerns rights of entry to areas that may be partly or jointly owned by private companies. I am anxious that all parties likely to be affected by amendments to the treaty will be aware of every implication thereof.
608
The final point I should like to raise concerns the commencement of the Act. It will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by statutory instrument. I understand that that will happen only when the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. As your Lordships will know, when the agreement was signed in Istanbul in 1999, a CFE Final Act was also signed. As we have heard, Russia is committed to withdrawing her forces from Georgian and Moldovan territories by the end of 2002. Both countries are possible future members of NATO, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in the Statement on NATO. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how the situation is progressing with regard to Russian withdrawal in the flank zone.
Does the delay that has occurred between the agreement being signed and the introduction of this Bill reflect uncertainties regarding the future of Russian forces in the flank zone? Clearly, the agreement on adaptation can be ratified only when states parties have complied with agreed treaty limits.
As it is not the practice of this House to vote on Second Reading, I should like to give notice to the Minister that I shall return to these serious matters in Committee. We should bear in mind that as we shall be in Grand Committee, we might have to keep this open for later stages of the Bill. I shall be enormously grateful for clarification and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when I heard the noble and Learned Lord the Leader of the House refer to this as the main Business of the day. I assumed that the noble Baroness would honour us with a 25 minute explanation, to which we would then reply with at least 15 minute speeches. I now have to tear up the last 10 minutes of my speech in the light of the short speech she made.
We on these Benches welcome this modest but useful extension of the CFE Treaty. We have always supported the principle of inspection and verification. We accept that national sovereignty has to be limited by the extension of multilateral arms control, and this takes us a further stage forward. Arms control has clearly to accept the principle of mutual inspection. Some years ago when we were taking the protocol to the chemical weapons convention through the House, I remember that some on the Conservative Benches wanted to argue that, although inspection was fine for countries that one could not trust, it was unacceptable for countries such as Britain which everyone would trust.
We are conscious that in the United States at present the issue of inspection of chemical plants—private sites which are, however, fully capable of producing chemical weapons under contract—is one of the most sensitive issues in the whole American approach to arms control. We are also conscious that if one is talking about the overlap between public and private, the question of what happens to some weapon

609
systems in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia flown out by private transport planes to various parts of the Middle East and Africa is an issue with which we would want to be concerned. Therefore, the principle of mutual inspection is extremely important.
Can the Minister confirm that the principle of mutual inspection extends not only to British bases in Britain but also, I assume, to American bases in Britain, although not to American bases in the continental United States, which is outside the designated area? After all, CFE is in the context of a broader transformation of European security, which links to NATO at one end and the OSCE at the other.
As the Minister remarked in her opening speech, we are all concerned about the problems of the southern flank and in particular the failure of Russian forces to withdraw from the two bases in Georgia and Transdnistria. It is right to say that, although we should move through the process of ratification, we should not complete ratification until we have further assurances on that scale.
Further, are the Government thinking of redefining peacekeeping in the Caucasus and around the edge of the Soviet Union, which is now under CIS auspices, the arrangements made by the former Soviet Union, Russia and its new partners. It seems to many of us that it would be entirely correct to try to bring the question of Russian peacekeeping forces in Abhazia and elsewhere within the framework of the OSCE, or even of the United Nations. I am rather disappointed, as are many others, at how inactive European governments and forces have been in those flanking regions. I note that American forces are now training Georgian armed forces, not European forces. My understanding was that there were a number of British military observers in Abhazia some years ago. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether they are still there.
I have one final question. As always in complex Bills such as this, there are references to their application to the British Overseas Territories, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar and, on this occasion, the sovereign bases in Cyprus. I emphasise that the whole question of how far British legislation applies to those different overseas territories confuses many of us in this House. It seems to raise large questions as to how far those overseas territories pick and choose which bits of legislation apply. I give the Minister notice that I intend to table a Question asking how the Government are accountable to Parliament for their management of the external relations of those various European overseas territories.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the question of Orders in Council. The exact wording in Clause 2(2) of the Bill seems to be appropriate and constructive in that respect. This is an Order in Council which has to be submitted for a positive vote by resolution of each House of Parliament. That seems to be the way forward. A negative resolution would not be appropriate in this measure, but an affirmative resolution is entirely appropriate.
With those remarks, we are very happy to accept the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I too support the Bill. It is important to know that we are dealing here with four documents—treaties, protocols or agreements. The Bill is full of references to subsection (2)(a) or (3)(b), or whatever, in the other documents. I found it a painful exercise trying to sort out exactly what the Bill does.
That brings me to the Explanatory Notes. They are absolutely vital in sorting out what references are involved from document A to document B. But they do not help us to understand what the Bill is about in reality. I would have found that extremely helpful. I spent a painful day yesterday trying to work the issues out, especially as I did not have all the documents with me. I make the humble suggestion that with a Bill of this complexity, it would be useful if the Explanatory Notes were intelligible to and helpful to Members of this House who perhaps are not so well informed as some other people. Most noble Lords do not have research assistants. We are not endowed with the same resources in that connection as are Members of the other place.
I want to make four brief points. I would like to know why the view was taken in the 1991 Act that rights of entry were not required for inspections of declared sites because they were wholly or mainly owned and operated by the Ministry of Defence. The lay person—I am a lay person in this context—would have expected those sites, if owned by the Ministry of Defence, to be subject to inspection. That seems to me rather surprising. No doubt there is a simple explanation.
Then there is the question of ratification. The noble Baroness in introducing the Bill explained the position about Moldova and Georgia. Can she say more about that? Do we expect Russia to comply with its obligations? Can we look forward with confidence to the ratification of this Bill in the near future, or are there any difficulties?
I support my noble friend Lady Rawlings on Clause 2(1). I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory. Many years ago I remember when I was a law student reading Lord Hewart's The New Despotism. His objections to altering primary legislation by Orders in Council are still valid. I deplore the fact that we have yet another case of this Government introducing such a provision. It is the second bad precedent which we have seen now in a very short time.
My last point relates to Gibraltar. No doubt there is a simple answer, but it is not clear from the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 17 of the notes states:
"The Government of Gibraltar passed its own Ordinance to give effect to the Act".
That is the Act of 1991. That presumably means that Gibraltar is subject to inspections. I do not know how the inspection teams are made up. It would have been helpful to have that set out in the Explanatory Notes. Suppose that an inspection team includes a Spanish representative. Would he be inspecting defence installations in Gibraltar?
5.44 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that I did not manage to pre-empt my noble friend Lord Blaker because I was going to make exactly the same point. I find Schedule I extremely difficult to comprehend, not being totally au fait with the original 1990 treaty.
I ask the Minister whether she can produce outside the Bill a Keeling schedule because Schedule 1 to the Bill makes quite simple amendments, if one can get the Act together. to Sections 1 and 2 of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991. It would be not beyond the wit of her department to achieve a composite whole that would answer the problems that both my noble friend Lord Blaker and myself have identified.
I disagree with my own Front Bench and with my noble friend on the subject of Clause 2 of the Bill and agree with the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches. It seems to me that the changes to a treaty—although they do not arise often—do not need primary legislation. That is an excellent reason for doing them by order, as long as—and I take the point—the order is to be agreed affirmatively by both Houses of Parliament.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have adopted such a positive attitude towards the Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, about the cross-referencing of the Bill to other treaties and measures. I sympathise with his remarks about the Explanatory Notes.
Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others, that we might have a meeting with officials on some of the technical parts of the Bill. We could then go through what f believe will not be great areas of difficulty between us and offer some explanations on what I do not think is a contentious Bill as to the politics of the situation. That might help to shed a little light on how the new regime will work.
The noble Baroness was quite right when she said that the reason behind this measure was to get a better grasp of inspections on private company sites. It is not only that part that is new, but, as I believe I said in my opening remarks, it is also in order to have better access to some larger sites which were not covered in the previous legislation.
The noble Baroness asked whether I could give her some examples of private sites within military areas. There would be such things as base repair facilities, which are often civilian owned, or contract training facilities. Some MoD training—for example helicopter training—is contracted out to private firms. So it would be access to those kinds of facilities which is not currently covered.
The Bill is not designed to give access to RAF disused sites, which was an example that the noble Baroness might have suggested. Treaty-limited equipment is not kept on those sites and therefore they are not objects of verification under the CFE.
612
There is a little more controversy around Clause 2 of the Bill. That allows for future amendments to the 1991 Act to be made by Order in Council rather than by primary legislation. The power will be limited to amendments of the 1991 Act relating to inspections but a memorandum was sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when the Bill was introduced last week. I am very willing to listen to what the committee says about the proposed changes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that this is not particularly controversial, but I accept that the noble Baroness and others have expressed some misgivings about it. I think that we should listen carefully to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and consider what it has to say about the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, did the Minister say that she disagreed with me? I have just agreed with the Government's position on the Bill.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I said that I disagreed with the noble Baroness but agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whom I took rather gratefully to be on my side on this point. I accept that others have misgivings about the matter. I am happy to look at those misgivings in relation to what the committee will say in due course.
I turn to the point on ratification raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I think that we are all agreed that we are not in a position to ratify the adapted treaty yet. At Istanbul on 19th November, the then Foreign Secretary said:
"We would hope to ratify it early, but the time at which we do so will depend on the level of all parties' compliance with the limits that have been agreed".
The agreed NATO position as stated at Reykjavik on 14th and 15th May this year is:
"We can envisage ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty only in the context of full compliance by all States Parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act".
As we have all remarked, Russia has outstanding commitments—known as the Istanbul commitments—in connection with Georgia and Moldova. It is important that we rest on not ratifying until those positions become clearer.
In answer to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, at the Prague summit last week the UK and other NATO allies pressed for swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments by Russia. We said that we thought that that would create the conditions for allies and other states parties to move forward on ratification of the Act. If the noble Lord would like me to go into detail on what has and has not been complied with, I am happy to do so, but perhaps it would be helpful to do that privately later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about Chechnya, which is of course different again from Moldova and Georgia, because we recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and the right of and obligation on the Russian Government to

613
defend their citizens there. However, Russian military operations in Chechnya must respect the rule of law and human rights obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether United States bases in the United Kingdom are open to inspection. Yes, they are, as are US bases elsewhere in Europe.
Interesting questions were raised about Cyprus and Gibraltar. Extension of the legislation to overseas territories would have to be done by Order in Council, as it was in relation to the 1991 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, was right to say that that is how it was done in relation to that Act. Gibraltar would be subject to inspections generally, but NATO allies do not inspect each other's territories, so the fears expressed by the noble Lord in respect of Spain can be safely allayed.
I hope that that has answered most of your Lordships' questions about the Bill.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, to clarify, I did not mention Chechnya.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry. I understood the noble Baroness to have raised the question of Chechnya in relation to the other territories that caused her concern: Moldova and Georgia. I am sorry if I misunderstood her point.
I hope that your Lordships agree that the Bill is necessary for the UK to be able to ratify the treaty. I assure your Lordships that it will not be brought into force until the time is right and I look forward to debating it further in Committee.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am sure that my noble friends will be grateful, as I am, for the offer of discussions with her officials on the detailed comparison of the Bills, but there is no substitute for hard copy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Indeed, my Lords, there is no substitute for hard copy, and I should be happy to provide briefing papers in advance of such a meeting. I make that offer in the spirit that there is a general view that the Bill is necessary, that there are no major points of controversy between us, and that it is a matter of sorting out the exact implications of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 2002
5.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [39th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft order has been laid in consequence of Section 44 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Its approval is important as part of advancing our measures under the reform agenda to ensure that the police can focus efficiently and effectively on their core functions.
Section 44 removes existing restrictions on the power of traffic wardens to stop vehicles. The provision relates solely to traffic wardens employed by police authorities—not, for example, local authority parking wardens. Along with the Act's provisions for community support officers and accredited community safety officers, it will come into effect on 2nd December.
Although the Act enables community support officers and accredited community safety officers to perform certain functions, traffic wardens can exercise their powers for functions prescribed by the Secretary of State only in a functions of traffic wardens order. The draft order before us amends the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, as amended, to enable them, from 2nd December, to use their extended power for two specified purposes.
Article 2 of the draft order provides that for those purposes, references to a constable in Sections 67(3) and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 include references to a traffic warden. Those sections deal with the power to stop vehicles specifically for testing purposes and the general power to stop vehicles. Currently, traffic wardens' powers to stop vehicles are limited strictly to the regulation of traffic.
Prior to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was kind enough to raise with me the issue of whether, by these or amending regulations, traffic wardens would be given power to stop cyclists who, for example, rode on the pavement or the wrong way down a one-way street. Because the noble Lord raised the matter with me previously, I have been able to take advice on the issue and I am advised that that power, which he wants traffic wardens to have, is already given to them in their power to stop vehicles for the regulation of traffic. So I am advised that that power already exists.
Article 3(2) of the order prescribes two functions for which traffic wardens can use the powers. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, community support officers and accredited community safety officers, who may, for example, be local authority employees, will also be able to fulfil those functions. First, traffic wardens will be able to stop vehicles for road-worthiness and emissions tests under the provisions of Section 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Secondly, traffic wardens will be able to escort abnormal loads authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. At present, they cannot do that because they do not have the general power to stop other vehicles, which may be required.
For the conduct of tests, at present only a constable in uniform can stop vehicles. The police are not always able to assist in that way and we recognise that police involvement in such checks may not be seen to be the most effective use of police resources. That

615
amendment will help to reduce demands on the police and benefit the Vehicle Inspectorate and local authorities by enabling them to have more reliable service provision.
The movement of abnormal loads is controlled by orders made under Section 44 of the 1988 Act. Under those orders, hauliers moving abnormal loads have to notify each force whose areas they pass through. The force then decides whether or not an escort is necessary; there are no statutory obligations. The police have been pressing to be relieved of that non-core function and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued new guidance last year to reduce their involvement. It has been reduced by more than 20 per cent with no reported problems. In some cases, however. the exercise of police powers to direct and stop traffic is needed. It may be necessary, for example, to instruct other vehicles to stop or to move aside while a load passes, or to instruct a load to go the wrong way round a roundabout.
Traffic wardens already have the power to direct traffic: enabling them to stop vehicles will enable them to undertake escorting duties or to work in teams to facilitate the movement of abnormal loads that would otherwise require an escort. That will help to reduce police involvement in the escorting of abnormal loads. It will also provide a more guaranteed service for hauliers, who at present have to wait until each force whose area they pass through can provide an escort.
As I mentioned, provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 will make it possible for community support officers and accredited community safety officers to have a limited power to stop and direct traffic for the purposes of escorting. It will be for individual chief officers to decide whom to appoint as community support officers, whom to accredit and for what purposes to use them.
The Department for Transport and ACPO are also currently working with the haulage industry on the best arrangements for the management of abnormal loads on the roads, including the possibility of self-escorting. Any new arrangements will take full account of training needs, health and safety issues and good operational practice in relation to such issues as relations with other agencies and road users.
The final part of the draft order removes the existing prohibition on traffic wardens directing traffic from a moving vehicle. This is no longer appropriate if traffic wardens are used for escorting duties. The draft order extends the potential roles in which traffic wardens can be used. By so doing, it supports our other measures, such as the introduction of community support officers and accredited community safety officers to provide chief officers of police with a means to help reduce the burden on the police of work unrelated to crime and public order. This frees up police time for their core functions, facilitates the enforcement of other legislation, promotes road safety and provides a better service to other interests. Such outcomes are an essential part of our police reform programme. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [139th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Conttnitted.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
6 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we have no objection to the order. For clarification, how d o the functions of community support officers and ACSOs differ from those of traffic wardens? Do they have the power to stop vehicles, or is it solely limited to directing heavy loads?
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have roughly the same question. I understand that community support officers and accredited persons can have such powers as are conferred on them by chief officers of police. The situation is confused. In places where there is special parking area status there are no traffic wardens, or they have quickly been withdrawn by the police in favour of local authority-employed wardens, who act as parking wardens.
I have no objection to the proposals and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying the position of cyclists. However, we shall probably need some general notification of what community support officers and accredited persons can do; otherwise, each chief officer may give different powers to different people. That could lead to confusion on what powers people have. Some thought needs to be given to that, although it does not apply under the order that we are considering.
We welcome the order, which will free up some police time to be used on other matters. The issue of escorting abnormal loads has been under consideration for a considerable time with the road haulage industry. It should be resolved as quickly as possible. Thought has been given to giving that duty to the AA, the RAC or some other responsible body, provided the people concerned are properly trained.
We certainly do not oppose the order, but we want the duties of CSOs and accredited persons to be codified in some way so that people will know where they stand.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, community support officers and accredited community safety officers already have the relevant powers—under Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 for community support officers and under Schedule 5 of that Act for accredited community safety officers. As I said in my opening remarks, traffic wardens have only such powers as are conferred on them by orders such as these. In a sense we have brought them into line.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says about clarity on who has what powers. Schedules 4 and 5 set out the powers of community support officers and accredited community safety officers respectively and orders such as this set out the powers of traffic wardens. I accept that people need to go through a bit of a legislative maze to find out what they are. How

617
they are used in practice will depend on the chief constable in each area. We have to see how that develops over time.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for the order in principle.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Amendment of Requisite Period) Order 2002
6.5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [40th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, is to lengthen from 60 days to 90 days the maximum curfew period spent by prisoners released on home detention curfew on electronic tag.
Home detention curfew offers eligible prisoners the opportunity to spend the final part of their sentence on curfew at their home address, or another suitable approved address. During the curfew period, which is usually between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., they are electronically monitored by means of a tagging device and may not leave their home. The monitoring equipment is extremely reliable. The tag cannot be removed without damaging it and has tamper proof mechanisms which operate in such a way that all damage is reported immediately to the tagging contractors. Curfewees who breach the curfew are recalled to spend the remaining custodial period of their sentence in prison.
At present prisoners serving sentences of between three months and under four years may be released on home detention curfew for up to 60 days before their normal release date, subject to serving one quarter of their sentence in custody. That means that the full 60-day period applies to all prisoners sentenced to periods of eight months or more. The order will increase that maximum to 90 days, still subject to prisoners serving a quarter of the sentence period in custody. In practice therefore, the full 90-day period will apply to all prisoners serving sentences of one year or more.
The Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to increase the curfew period in February this year but wanted to assess properly the impact of the presumptive home detention curfew scheme, launched in May, before moving ahead with the proposal.
Under the presumptive home detention curfew scheme, introduced on 1st May this year, prisoners serving sentences of between three months and less than one year are released on home detention curfew for the latter part of their sentence unless there are
618
compelling reasons not to do so. Drug dealers, violent offenders and prisoners with any history of sex offending are not eligible to be considered for release under the presumptive scheme.
The Prison Service has an overriding duty to protect the public and no prisoner can be placed on home detention curfew without first passing a risk assessment. The legislation also contains a statutory list of exclusions, including those required to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
Since the scheme began in January 1999, over 60,000 people have been released on home detention curfew and 90 per cent of those have successfully completed the curfew period without any problems. Fewer than 3 per cent of curfewees are reported to reoffend while on curfew. Home detention curfew is cost-effective, freeing up about £37 million a year for use in other regime interventions.
The Home Secretary has statutory powers to recall any curfewee who breaches his curfew conditions or presents a risk of serious harm. Any offending by a curfewee is also a breach of their licence and can lead to recall to prison. Where home detention curfew is supervised by the probation service—in the case of young offenders and those serving 12 months or more—it provides a valuable tool for probation officers in influencing the behaviour of former prisoners. It can be used to keep offenders out of trouble when they are most likely to get into trouble. Home detention curfew requires curfewees to develop self-discipline and so can bring order to disordered lives. Therefore, in the light of the experience of the scheme and the presumptive scheme, which are both working well, we feel that now is the right time to increase the curfew period.
Finally, I shall say a word about the population pressures on our prisons, which noble Lords will he aware of. Although not its primary purpose when first introduced, home detention curfew plays an important role in managing the prison population by reducing overcrowding at the same time as improving the resettlement opportunities for less serious offenders. Already 2,500 people who would otherwise be filling prison places are serving the last part of their sentence on home detention curfew.
We expect that the extension of the curfew period will release around a further 600 prison spaces the equivalent of a medium-sized prison. In all cases releases will take place only after an assessment of the risks, including the likelihood of the prisoner concluding home detention curfew successfully. No prisoner is released when he or she is assessed as posing a risk to public safety.
In conclusion, home detention curfew has been very successful in providing prisoners with a smoother and more effective reintegration back into the community, enabling prisoners to be released from prison early while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty. Increasing the curfew period will allow them to make that transition over a longer period and will help them resume employment or training at an earlier stage. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [40th Report, Session 2001–02, front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we welcome the Government's conversion to the home detention curfew system that was proposed by the previous government. However, as regards the previous government, the aim was very much to monitor prisoners released from gaol at the end of their sentence. We are concerned that the present Government are using this system to cut prisoners' sentences. The Minister referred to that. We are not in favour of that being tile primary purpose of the system.
The provisions have been considerably widened. They bring with them risks. The Minister referred to the fact that 90 per cent of curfewees have completed their curfew period successfully. However, that leaves a significant 10 per cent who have not. As the Minister said. some 3 per cent of prisoners have offended while on curfew. some of those offences being serious. We shall not oppose the order but we shall watch carefully the reoffending rate and any failure to complete the curfew. It carries high risks.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House see no problems with the extension of the scheme for the release of short-term prisoners on licence.
Concerns have been expressed in the other place and also in your Lordships' House about prison overcrowding. One simply has to refer to the response to the gracious Speech last week when a number of noble Lords spoke about the unacceptable number of prisoners in our penal institutions. What overall strategy have the Government in mind to reduce overcrowding? The Minister indicated that the measure we are discussing would help that aim. Is the draft statutory instrument part of the strategy? Or is it a reaction to the recent publicity that Britain's gaol population is expected to rise above 100,000 for the first time in history?
The number of people serving prison sentences over the next decade will increase by over 40 per cent, putting an intolerable burden on the Prison Service. Can the Minister say whether those projected figures are based on official forecasts of prison numbers from Home Office experts and from the Office for National Statistics? Is the forecast by the probation service that an extra 30 gaols will be needed at an estimated cost of £2 billion correct? That is something I picked up from a newspaper headline.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I may have misheard the noble Lord but I thought that he mentioned an estimate of 30 years.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I referred to 30 gaols, not 30 years. That would be too long a period. I do not know what size the prison population will be then.
620
Is it also true that nearly 500 prisoners are at present held in police cells? It is with those concerns that: I ask the Minister to explain whether the statutory instrument is a measure to alleviate the present crisis.
We are talking about extending 60 days in the community t o 90 days. Would support programmes be available in the community and is the probation service adequately resourced towards meeting these needs'? Have we any statistics of reoffending rates of people who are tagged? I am aware that short-term prisoners do not have probation supervision if their sentences last less than 12 months.
The success of any such orders will depend on a holistic approach undertaken by the probation service, social workers and voluntary agencies such as NACRO. I declare my interest as chairman of NACRO. Voluntary organisations are poorly. resourced. The success of the statutory instrument will depend on how we assist those who will help to take pressure off our prison system. I support the Government's intention in relation to the statutory instrument.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I declare an interest as the chairman of the committee that was set up to consider the working of the parole system by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was a prominent and helpful member of that committee.
Obviously, faced with a prison population explosion of some 72,000 people in prison at present—I believe that that is an increase of over 12,000 during the lifetime of this Government—one cannot but welcome any measure that attempts to reduce the size of that population. One cannot, therefore, be other than grateful for any proposals that reduce sentences, particularly of those serving short sentences of imprisonment.
However, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord one or two questions that I confess are based on confusion—I am probably completely wrong—about the relationship between the home curfew and the parole systems. The noble and learned Lord may remember that the committee that proposed the parole provisions in the 1991 Act was set up due to the considerable lack of confidence of the judiciary i n the parole system at that time. The complaints were basically twofold: first, that only serving a third of a sentence constituted too great a disparity with regard to the sentences passed to be acceptable. Secondly. those who carried out the day-to-day work in the Crown Courts, where the vast majority of crime is tried, found that although sentences were passed that differed in length for two offenders—as one was identified as the ringleader—the man who served six months and the man who served 18 months might well come out of prison on the same day. As I remember it, that was a cause of the loss of confidence of the judiciary in the system.
If I understand the order correctly. it extends the period of curfew that comes before the period of automatic release at the halfway stage. I am glad to see

621
that the noble and learned Lord nods as I must admit that I was totally confused when I first read the order. The explanatory notes refer to the 1991 Act. I then discovered that the 1991 Act had been totally changed and contained no reference to this matter at all. What is the effect of the measure taken as a whole? I refer to increasing the period of curfew for those serving 12 months to a period equal to one-quarter of the term. I assume that a term of less than 12 months indicates that the sentence passed was one of 12 months or less. If they are to have a curfew of a quarter of the total sentence, they will come out, or can come out—as I understand the position, some may but some may not—at the end of three months. We are back in the situation where the judge who tries to differentiate between the sentences imposed on two prisoners appearing before him for a series, say, of housebreaking offences, will find that any attempt he makes to differentiate between the sentences can be done away with by the arbitrary decision, presumably on the advice of a prison governor, of the Home Secretary. That system is totally selective and seems to say that, although the court may have wished to differentiate between the period of imprisonment, the Government are doing away with that differentiation.
If we say, as the order does, that, for a term of 12 months or more, a curfew may last for 90 days—three months—someone who gets 18 months, who would have come out at nine months and spent the other nine months on remission, will now be eligible to come out at six months, on the say-so of the Prison Service, without reference to the penalty imposed by the court. I hope that I make my point so that it can be understood. We are in danger of going back to the use of administrative methods of dealing with those in prison that emasculate the differences in sentences passed by the courts. I repeat: if my recollection is correct—I saw the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, nod—that was one of the reasons why there was a loss of confidence in the parole system.
One cannot oppose any proposal to reduce the prison population, but I ask the Minister to confirm that my understanding of the situation is correct. Secondly, we should, at least, pass on a warning to the Home Office of the dangers of looking at alternative imprisonment in ways that interfere with the degree of penalty that the courts intended to pass.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, mine, too, is a voice from the past. I declare an interest: I served as chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales for much of the 1980s, in the period that led up to the review of the parole system by a committee headed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The substantial changes in parole made by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 resulted from the structure recommended in that review and largely accepted by the then Home Secretary.
Since then, we have seen the prison population go up and up. That is partly because of the pattern of offending, but it is also because of changes in the pressures brought about by public opinion. Judges and
622
magistrates are not immune from such opinion. If the view is that only custodial sentences qualify as real punishment, it is natural that there will be some response. The result was a search for expedient ways of relieving the pressure on the prisons. As all the critics have said, talking up sentencing results in a demand for additional prison places. The noble and learned Lord will have found in his relatively short stay at the Home Office that it takes a long time to agree, get the money for and build new penal establishments. In the meantime, the population of sentenced offenders increases. Since the 1991 Act, there has been progressive erosion of what was, for the first time for many years, a rational and principled system of sentencing, providing for a rational system of early release.
Tagging, once a dirty word, has become widely accepted. The Minister was entitled to claim that it has been regarded as successful. I have lived through the entire era of electronic tagging, from the first phase—when it was bitterly opposed by the Home Office—to its gradual introduction. Now, there is another fundamental change looming on the horizon. At first, the acceptance of tagging as a release mechanism was in the form of a selective scheme, conducted by prison governors, who were regarded as the people within the penal establishment who could make judgments as to who was a good risk. That placed a lot on the governors' shoulders, but, on the whole, it was successful, if measured in terms of re-offending. As the Minister said, re-offending rates were relatively low, and selection was cautiously handled.
That system was selective, but now there is to be a major change. The words used by the Minister just now were, I think, "presumptively entitled". Prisoners serving shorter sentences—that is, under 12 months—will be presumptively entitled to early release. That is a fundamental change, from a selective system to one in which everyone will qualify, unless there are strong grounds for saying that there should be no early release. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that analysis.
I have one other point. I assume that the probation service will be responsible for supervising prisoners released early under home detention curfew, but I would like confirmation that that assumption is correct. I assume that it must be because, if breaches occur, they will take place in the community, and the probation service will be responsible for bringing offenders back into custody. As the Minister will have found, the probation service is still recovering from the most fundamental re-organisation in its recent history. I have two questions. What prior consultation was there with the probation service about the extension to presumptive entitlement and away from selective release? Secondly, what additional resources will be made available for the service to carry out its new responsibilities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short but fascinating debate.

623
I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He supported—or did not oppose—the order and said that they would examine re-offending rates. The noble Viscount heard what I said about the experience that we have had already. The system is a useful method of helping people back into the community and a means of helping to manage the size of the prison population. In my opening remarks, I said that fewer than 3 per cent of curfewees were reported to have re-offended while under the curfew. I can give further figures on re-offending: 9 per cent of those given home detention curfew re-offend within six months of release. But that figure can be compared with the number of prisoners who are not given HDC and who re-offend within six months after release; namely, 40 per cent. So the comparison looks quite favourable in relation to home detention curfew.
I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for the basic provisions of the order. He asked what are the rates of re-offending. I hope that I answered that in my reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He asked specifically about the position in relation to prison overcrowding. It is accepted on all sides that the prisons are getting fuller and fuller. We have a strategy which covers the building of more prison places. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will have heard the announcement made some weeks ago by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that £60 million would he spent on building more prison capacity. He will be aware that in the last Budget more provision was made available.
The noble Lord will also be aware that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General issued a joint statement not long ago identifying people who should go to prison; namely, those who were dangerous, sexual or violent offenders and those who were guilty of seriously persistent offending; and indicating that for others the court should be more ready to consider community penalties.
The noble Lord asked what support would be available from the probation service in relation to those on home detention curfew. Home detention curfew is supervised by the probation service where it is dealing with young offenders and those serving 12 months or more.
624
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked whether the probation service was consulted about the scheme. Yes, it was. He asked whether it was given extra resources. No extra resources were needed except in the very short term, and those have been provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, gave an entirely accurate account of how the scheme works. It means that if a person is sentenced to between three months and four years, under existing provisions he would automatically get out after serving 50 per cent of the sentence. This provision allows a person to be released up to 90 days before that 50 per cent date, subject to the limitation that a person must serve a quarter of the sentence. So the noble Lord was right in identifying 12 months—which is the minimum sentence that a person can have to get the full benefit of the 90 days, because below 12 months it would be more than a quarter. If a person was sentenced to 12 months, he would get out on the 50 per cent rule at the six-month period, but because of HDC, which can now last for three months, he could get out after three months—which is exactly the proposition put.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, raised concerns about that proposal. In effect, his proposition was that that might allow administrative procedures—he did not put it quite this way—to frustrate the intention of the court in passing the sentence. The way in which HDC would work would be subject to statutory exceptions which I outlined in my opening remarks. The prisoner would be released on HDC, subject to the governor making an assessment of risk in relation to re-offending or not complying with his curfew. So there would be that element of discretion—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
The provision should be applied consistently. Judges will obviously know that that is the background against which they sentence. It may have a greater impact on a shorter sentence than on a longer one. The longer the sentence, the less proportion of the sentence this will be. We think that it is sensible, so long as judges know that it is applied consistently and subject to the rules, and that it is a useful tool both in terms of managing the prison population and in terms of assisting people back into society after they have been in prison. The re-offending figures that I gave for the six months after release provide some support for that.
In the light of those remarks, I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

  Asif Ali Zardari
  Asif Ali Zardari
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Murder: Sentencing
  Murder: Sentencing
  Clandestine Entrants: Cross-Channel Ferry
  Clandestine Entrants: Cross-Channel Ferry
  Home Office Consultants
  Home Office Consultants
  Portable Water Pumps: Armed Forces
  Portable Water Pumps: Armed Forces
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Foot and Mouth Disease Disposal Sites
  Foot and Mouth Disease Disposal Sites
  Farmers' Markets
  Farmers' Markets
  Animal Disease: Closure of Footpaths
  Animal Disease: Closure of Footpaths
  Transport and Environmental Policy
  Transport and Environmental Policy
  Small Water Bodies: Conservation
  Small Water Bodies: Conservation
  State Pension Uprating for British Subjects Resident in Former Yugoslavia
  State Pension Uprating for British Subjects Resident in Former Yugoslavia
  Nannies
  Nannies
  London City Bond Prosecutions
  London City Bond Prosecutions
  Policing in Northern Ireland
  Policing in Northern Ireland
  Fire Dispute: Railway Station Lifts
  Fire Dispute: Railway Station Lifts